G.R. No. 212767, July 23, 2014

SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 212767, July 23, 2014 ] ALBERT QUE V. LUXACRAFT PHILS., INC.

After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 24, 2014 Decision[1] and May 29, 2014 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 99906 for failure of Albert Que (petitioner) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding his liability to Luxacraft Phils., Inc. (respondent) and in denying his Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial.

As correctly ruled by the CA, evidence on record clearly revealed that petitioner entered into a contract with respondent for the delivery and installation of various kitchen equipment but the former failed to pay his outstanding obligation despite numerous demands. It is well-settled that factual findings of the trial court, adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal,[3] as in this case.

Moreover, the CA was also correct in denying petitioner's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial because the purported "newly-discovered evidence" that he presented would not change the outcome of the instant case. In this regard, the Court has repeatedly held that before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, it must be shown that: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) the evidence is such of weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been very well presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, as in this case, the same cannot be considered newly discovered.[4]

Finally, the petitioner failed to attach a certified true copy of the Regional Trial Court Decision, a material portion of the record, as required under Section 4(d), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.SO ORDERED.

[1] Rollo, pp. 16-27. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.[2] Id. at 13-14.

[3] Lubos v. Galupo, G.R. No. 139136, January 16, 2002, 373 SCRA 618, 622; citations omitted.

[4] Ybiernes v. Tanco-Gabaldon, G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 154, 169; citations omitted.

Popular Posts