VDM Trading, Inc. and Spouses Luis and Nena Domingo vs. Leonita Carungcong and Wack Wack Twin Towers Condominium Association, Inc.

A complaint for damages based on quasi-delict requires proof of three elements: (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) an act or omission of the defendant constituting fault or negligence; and (c) a causal connection between the act and the damage, or proximate cause. Where the plaintiff fails to discharge the burden of proving any of these elements, the complaint must be dismissed. Additionally, questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court, which is not a trier of facts and will not re-examine and re-weigh evidence presented in the proceedings below.

Petitioner VDM Trading, Inc. owned Unit 2208B-1 at Wack Wack Twin Towers Condominium in Mandaluyong City, with petitioner Nena Domingo as its majority stockholder and actual occupant together with her husband, petitioner Luis Domingo. Respondent Carungcong owned Unit 2308B-1, located directly above the petitioners' unit, which was leased to Hak Yek Tan. Respondent Wack Wack Twin Towers Condominium Association, Inc. was the condominium association. The Condominium's Amended Master Deed with Declaration of Restrictions allocated responsibilities between the developer, Golden Dragon Real Estate Corporation, and the association, with respondent Wack Wack's obligations limited to common and limited areas while unit owners bore responsibility for maintaining and repairing their own units.

Petitioner VDM Trading, Inc. owned Unit 2208B-1 at Wack Wack Twin Towers Condominium in Mandaluyong City, occupied by petitioner Nena Domingo, the corporation's majority stockholder, and her husband petitioner Luis Domingo. Sometime in December 1998, while the spouses were in the United States, petitioner Nena's sister, Nancy Lagman-Castillo, discovered soapy water heavily penetrating through the ceiling of the Unit. Lagman-Castillo reported the matter to the spouses' counsel and attorney-in-fact, Atty. F. William L. Villareal, and to respondent Wack Wack's building administrator.

On December 10, 1998, Atty. Villareal allegedly met with respondent Wack Wack's Acting Property Manager, Arlene Cruz, who supposedly revealed that she had inspected the Unit and found that the strong leak apparently came from Unit 2308B-1, located directly above, owned by respondent Carungcong but leased to Hak Yek Tan. Cruz allegedly explained that Unit 2308B-1's balcony, used as a laundry area, had unauthorized piping and plumbing works installed in violation of respondent Wack Wack's rules and regulations and the building's original plans. Atty. Villareal conducted his own inspection and noted damages to ceilings and walls, cabinets, narra flooring, bed and bedding, curtains, personal clothing and documents, and miscellaneous items.

Atty. Villareal sent a demand letter dated December 16, 1998 to respondents Wack Wack and Carungcong, and another letter dated September 1, 1999 to respondents Wack Wack, Carungcong, Tan, and Golden Dragon Real Estate Corporation, the developer. Repair works were referred to M. Laher Construction, which in a letter dated September 1, 2000 quoted an estimated repair cost of ₱490,635.00 for the Unit's balcony, master bedroom, dining and living room, and children's room. Several demand letters followed, but to no avail, prompting the filing of the Complaint.

The Complaint alleged causes of action against Tan for unauthorized installation of plumbing and conversion of the balcony into a laundry area; against respondent Carungcong as registered owner for failing to ensure Tan's compliance with the association's rules; and against respondent Wack Wack for being "utterly negligent" in failing to enforce its rules prohibiting illegal or unauthorized constructions. The petitioners prayed for ₱490,635.00 actual damages, ₱300,000.00 exemplary damages, and ₱40,000.00 attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Summonses were served on all respondents except Tan, who no longer resided at the given address.

Respondent Wack Wack filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim, contending that responsibility for enforcing policies on unit use lay solely with Golden Dragon under the Amended Master Deed, while its own obligation was limited to common and limited areas. Respondent Carungcong filed an Answer with Third Party Complaint against Golden Dragon and Stalwart Builders Corporation, arguing that the soapy water did not come from her unit's balcony and that any plumbing defect should be assessed against Golden Dragon and Stalwart. Summonses were not served on Golden Dragon and Stalwart as they had moved, so the RTC did not tackle the Third Party Complaint.

The petitioners' sole witness was Atty. Villareal, who testified to his observations and produced various documents, including the M. Laher letter-quotation, Lagman-Castillo's handwritten report, and demand letters. The CA found the records bereft of evidence showing the damage was caused by the plumbing works on Unit 2308B-1's balcony, and took cognizance of a previously settled case before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in which the petitioners themselves alleged that water leakage in the Unit was caused by Golden Dragon's defective and substandard construction, with the HLURB issuing a Decision dated July 9, 2009 holding Golden Dragon liable.

• Misapprehension of Facts: Petitioners contended that the CA's assailed Decision and Resolution were based on a misapprehension of facts, reiterating Atty. Villareal's testimony and the documents he produced to establish that the proximate cause of the damage was the plumbing works on the balcony of Unit 2308B-1.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioners argued that the M. Laher letter-quotation proved the full extent of the damage, that Lagman-Castillo's handwritten report was admissible without her testimony due to stipulations made by respondents, and that the principle of admission by silence applied because respondents failed to respond to the report.
• Relevance of HLURB Complaint: Petitioners attempted to downplay the HLURB complaint by arguing it was offered for a different purpose — to prove that Golden Dragon previously refused to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the Unit.

• Authentication of Private Documents: Respondent Wack Wack argued that the M. Laher letter-quotation was inadmissible because its identity and authenticity were not properly established, and that the rule on admission by silence did not apply because Lagman-Castillo's handwritten report was not addressed to the respondents.
• Lack of Proximate Cause: Respondents maintained that the plumbing works on the balcony of Unit 2308B-1 could not have caused widespread leakage throughout the petitioners' unit, given that the balcony area was separated from other areas by a wall and beam.
• Prior HLURB Determination: Respondents relied on the HLURB case, which found that the water leakage was caused by Golden Dragon's defective and substandard construction, not the plumbing works on the balcony.

• Propriety of Rule 45 Review: Whether the petition raising pure questions of fact was proper for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Damage: Whether the petitioners sufficiently proved the extent of damage to their Unit.
• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Fault or Negligence: Whether the petitioners proved fault or negligence on the part of respondents Carungcong and Wack Wack.
• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Proximate Cause: Whether the petitioners established that the plumbing works on Unit 2308B-1's balcony was the proximate cause of the damage to their Unit.

• Propriety of Rule 45 Review: No. The petition raised pure questions of fact — the petitioners asked the Court to reassess, reexamine, and recalibrate the evidence on record — which cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court, as the Court is not a trier of facts.
• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Damage: No. The full extent of the damage was not sufficiently proven; the evidence consisted of the self-serving testimony of Atty. Villareal, inadmissible hearsay, and unauthenticated private documents.
• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Fault or Negligence: No. The petitioners failed to present evidence that the plumbing works were illegally or negligently made, or that respondent Wack Wack violated any duty under the Amended Master Deed.
• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Proximate Cause: No. The petitioners failed to establish a causal link between the plumbing works and the damage, and the HLURB case indicated the damage was caused by Golden Dragon's defective construction.

• Propriety of Rule 45 Review: A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts, or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering the credibility of witnesses, the existence and relevancy of surrounding circumstances, and the probability of the situation. A catena of cases has consistently held that questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Court. The instant Petition centered on the petitioners' contention that the CA's Decision was based on a misapprehension of facts, which is precisely a request for the Court to re-examine and re-weigh the evidence. For this reason alone, the petition warranted dismissal.

• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Damage: Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. The elements of a quasi-delict are: (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) an act or omission of the defendant constituting fault or negligence; and (c) causal connection between the act and the damage, or proximate cause. The photographs offered by the petitioners merely depicted a wet bed, wet floor, and wet cabinet from one room only — the master bedroom — with no photographs proving the other rooms were damaged. The M. Laher letter-quotation, a private document, was inadmissible because its identity and authenticity were not properly laid under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which requires proof by a person who saw the execution of the document or who has knowledge of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Atty. Villareal's testimony on Lagman-Castillo's handwritten report was hearsay because he lacked personal knowledge of the observations contained therein. The respondents' stipulations covered only the authorship of the report, the fact that the attached photographs were taken by Lagman-Castillo, and her relationship to petitioner Nena — not the accuracy and veracity of the contents. The rule on admission by silence did not apply because the report was not addressed to the respondents but to Atty. Villareal; where there is no mutual correspondence, a prompt written response cannot generally be expected. Cruz's statements were hearsay as she was not presented as a witness. The demand letters were self-serving documents, as one cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing statements he wishes to prove.

• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Fault or Negligence: In a cause of action based on quasi-delict, negligence or fault must be clearly established as it is the basis of the action, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. While it was undisputed that plumbing works were done on the balcony of respondent Carungcong's unit, there was no evidence that such works were illegally or negligently made; the petitioners could not even point out what specific rule or regulation was violated. The closest evidence — Cruz's statements — was hearsay. As to respondent Wack Wack, the petitioners did not dispute that under the Amended Master Deed, the association's maintenance and supervision extended only to common areas, with each unit owner responsible for damages resulting from failure to maintain and repair their own units.

• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Proximate Cause: Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred. The claim that a leak in the balcony plumbing caused soapy water leakage in various parts of the Unit, including various bedrooms, was highly doubtful and illogical because the plumbing works were isolated in the balcony area, separated from other areas by a wall and beam. No witness or document establishing a causal link was offered; the petitioners could have presented assessors or technical experts but did not. Proximate cause cannot be established by the mere say-so of a self-serving witness. Furthermore, the HLURB case previously filed by the petitioners against Golden Dragon alleged that in 1996, way before the installation of the subject plumbing works, they had already discovered water leaks in the Unit due to Golden Dragon's delivery of a "defective and/or substandard unit," and the HLURB held Golden Dragon liable. Under Section 24, Rule 132, while the purpose for which evidence is offered must be specified, there is nothing in the Rules limiting the court's appreciation of evidence to the specified purpose.

• Elements of Quasi-Delict — Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, a quasi-delict requires: (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) an act or omission of the defendant constituting fault or negligence; and (c) a causal connection between the act and the damage, or proximate cause. The Court applied these elements and found all three absent, resulting in dismissal of the complaint.

• Authentication of Private Documents — Under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the identity and authenticity of a private document must be proven by either a person who saw its execution or a person who has knowledge of and can testify to the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. The M. Laher letter-quotation was inadmissible because Atty. Villareal neither saw its execution nor had personal knowledge of it.

• Admission by Silence — The rule on admission by silence applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant; where there is no such mutual correspondence, the rule is relaxed because a prompt written response cannot generally be expected. The rule was negated because Lagman-Castillo's handwritten report was addressed to Atty. Villareal, not to the respondents.

• Hearsay Evidence — A witness may only testify to facts he has personal knowledge derived from his own perception. Atty. Villareal's testimony on Lagman-Castillo's handwritten report and on Cruz's statements was inadmissible hearsay because he lacked personal knowledge of the matters therein, and hearsay evidence has no probative value.

• Self-Serving Documents — One cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing statements he wishes to prove; sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts does not make the letter evidence. The demand letters were self-serving documents deserving scant consideration.

• Formal Offer of Evidence — Under Section 24, Rule 132, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered, and the purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified; however, nothing in the Rules limits the court's appreciation of evidence to the specified purpose. The HLURB complaint, formally offered by the petitioners, could be considered for its contents even if offered for a different purpose.

• "A question of facts exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation." — This defines the standard for determining when a petition raises a question of fact, which is not proper for review under Rule 45.

• "According to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict." — This states the canonical definition of quasi-delict and its statutory basis.

• "Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred." — This defines the proximate cause element required in quasi-delict cases.

• "One cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing the statements that he wishes to prove. He does not make the letter evidence by sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts stated therein." — This articulates the rule that self-serving documents, such as demand letters, have scant evidentiary weight.

• Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 426 Phil. 104 (2002) — Cited for the definition of a question of fact and the rule that the Court is not a trier of facts.
• Bautista vs. Puyat Vinyl Products, Inc., 416 Phil. 305 (2001) — Cited for the proposition that questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Court.
• Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 269 Phil. 200 (1990) — Cited for the elements of a quasi-delict, citing Vergara vs. Court of Appeals.
• Villanueva vs. Balaguer, 608 Phil. 463 (2009) — Cited for the rule on admission by silence and the principle that one cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter.
• People vs. Parungao, 332 Phil. 917 (1996) — Cited for the rule that hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence for it has no probative value.
• Huang vs. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., 700 Phil. 327 (2012) — Cited for the rule that in quasi-delict cases, the burden of proving negligence is on the plaintiff.
• The Consolidated Bank & Trust Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 457 Phil. 688 (2003) — Cited for the definition of proximate cause.

• Article 2176, Civil Code — The statutory basis for quasi-delict liability: whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. The Court applied this provision to determine whether the elements of quasi-delict were established.
• Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs the authentication of private documents, requiring proof by a person who saw the execution or who has knowledge of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. The M. Laher letter-quotation was inadmissible for failure to comply.
• Section 24, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered and that the purpose for which evidence is offered must be specified; the Court held this does not limit appreciation of evidence to the specified purpose.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, and Hernando concurred. Reyes, Jr., J., was on wellness leave.