View full case

VDM TRADING v. LEONITA CARUNGCONG

FACTS:

The petitioners, VDM Trading, Inc. and Spouses Luis and Nena Domingo, filed a Complaint for Damages against respondents Leonita Carungcong, Wack Wack Twin Towers Condominium Association, Inc., and Hak Yek Tan. The complaint alleged that petitioner VDM is the owner of a unit in the Wack Wack Twin Towers Condominium and that petitioners Luis and Nena Domingo are the actual occupants of the unit. It was alleged that due to unauthorized plumbing works in the unit located directly above theirs, soapy water heavily penetrated through the ceiling of their unit, causing damages to various parts of the unit. The petitioners demanded that the respondents make restoration works and/or pay for the damages caused. However, when no action was taken, the petitioners filed a complaint seeking payment for the damages.

Respondent Wack Wack filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim against respondent Carungcong and Tan, contending that the responsibility of enforcing and monitoring the policies on the use and occupancy of condominium units lied solely with Golden Dragon, the developer of the condominium.

The petitioners, VDM Realty Corporation (VDM) and Sps. Domingo, filed a Complaint for Damages against respondent Leonita Carungcong and Wack Wack Condominium Corporation (Wack Wack) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. The complaint alleged that the petitioners' condominium unit suffered damages due to water leakage caused by the faulty plumbing works on the balcony of the unit owned by respondent Carungcong.

Respondent Wack Wack, as the condominium corporation, was responsible for the implementation of house rules and regulations affecting the common and limited areas of the condominium. On the other hand, respondent Carungcong argued that the water leakage did not come from her unit's balcony and that any defective plumbing works should be attributed to the developer, Golden Dragon.

The RTC rendered its Decision holding respondent Carungcong liable for damages. The petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, seeking to hold respondent Wack Wack solidarily liable with respondent Carungcong. The RTC modified its decision and held respondent Wack Wack solidarity liable for damages. Respondents Carungcong and Wack Wack appealed the RTC's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA reversed the RTC's decision and dismissed the complaint, stating that there was no evidence linking the plumbing works on respondent Carungcong's balcony to the damages in the petitioners' unit. The CA also took into consideration a previously settled case before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) which found that the water leakage was due to the defective construction by the developer, Golden Dragon.

The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's decision to dismiss their complaint for damages against respondents Carungcong and Wack Wack.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the instant Petition raises pure questions of fact.

  2. Whether the evidence presented by the petitioners sufficiently proves the elements of a quasi-delict.

  3. Whether the letter-quotation from M. Laher and the handwritten report of Lagman-Castillo are admissible as evidence.

  4. Whether the handwritten report of Lagman-Castillo is admissible as evidence to prove the damage caused to the petitioner's unit.

  5. Whether the principle of admission of silence applies to the respondents' failure to respond to the handwritten report.

  6. Whether the statements made by Cruz, the Acting Property Manager of respondent Wack Wack, can be considered as evidence.

  7. Whether the demand letters can be considered as evidence of the damage.

  8. Whether fault or negligence on the part of respondents Carungcong and Wack Wack was proven.

  9. Whether the petitioners have established the element of fault or negligence on the part of respondents Carungcong and Wack Wack.

  10. Whether there is a proximate cause between the damage and the plumbing works undertaken.

  11. Whether or not the claim of the petitioners that a leak in the plumbing works caused the damage to their unit is supported by sufficient evidence.

  12. Whether or not there is a causal link between the plumbing works and the damage suffered by the petitioners.

  13. Whether or not the complaint filed by the petitioners with the HLURB against Golden Dragon is relevant and should be considered as evidence in the present case.

RULING:

  1. The instant Petition raises pure questions of fact. Questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Court and are not proper for its consideration. The Court is not a trier of facts.

  2. The evidence presented by the petitioners does not sufficiently prove the elements of a quasi-delict. The full extent of the damage caused to the petitioners' Unit was not sufficiently proven. The photographs presented by the petitioners only depict a wet bed, wet floor, and wet cabinet from one room, and there were no photographs to prove that the other rooms were also damaged. The letter-quotation from M. Laher was not properly identified and authenticated. The handwritten report of Lagman-Castillo is hearsay and Atty. Villareal is not competent to testify on its veracity.

  3. The letter-quotation from M. Laher and the handwritten report of Lagman-Castillo are not admissible as evidence. The letter-quotation was not properly identified and authenticated, and Atty. Villareal has no personal knowledge of its execution. Atty. Villareal's testimony on the observations in the handwritten report is hearsay, and Lagman-Castillo should have been presented as a witness to testify on her own observations.

  4. The handwritten report of Lagman-Castillo is not admissible as evidence to prove the damage caused to the petitioner's unit as there was no stipulation made as to its accuracy and veracity, and Lagman-Castillo was not presented as a witness to prove the truthfulness of its contents.

  5. The principle of admission of silence does not apply as the respondents were not engaged in mutual correspondence with Lagman-Castillo, and the handwritten report was not addressed to the respondents.

  6. The statements made by Cruz cannot be considered as evidence as Atty. Villareal, who testified about Cruz's statements, lacked personal knowledge and hearsay evidence has no probative value.

  7. The demand letters are self-serving documents and cannot be considered as evidence of the damage.

  8. Fault or negligence on the part of respondents Carungcong and Wack Wack was not proven.

  9. The petitioners failed to establish the element of fault or negligence on the part of respondents Carungcong and Wack Wack. There was no evidence presented that the plumbing works were illegally or negligently undertaken.

  10. The petitioners failed to establish proximate cause between the damage and the plumbing works undertaken. The supposed fault or negligence of the respondents was not proven to be the cause of the damage to the unit.

  11. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove the existence of the elements of a quasi-delict, particularly the proximate cause of the damage suffered by their unit. The claim that a leak in the plumbing works caused the damage was highly doubtful and illogical, as the plumbing works were isolated in the balcony area and separated from the rest of the unit. Moreover, aside from the self-serving testimony of the petitioners' counsel, no other evidence was presented to establish a causal link between the plumbing works and the damage. The Court also considered the previous complaint filed by the petitioners with the HLURB, which alleged water leaks in the unit even before the plumbing works were installed. The HLURB had already held Golden Dragon liable for the water leakage in that previous complaint. Thus, the Court concluded that the CA committed no reversible error in its decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Court and are not proper for its consideration.

  • A quasi-delict has the elements of damage suffered by the plaintiff, the act or omission of the defendant constituting fault or negligence, and the causal connection between the act and the damage sustained by the plaintiff.

  • Private documents must be properly identified and authenticated to be admissible in evidence.

  • Hearsay testimony is inadmissible, and a witness may only testify on facts derived from personal knowledge and perception.

  • The burden of proving fault or negligence rests on the plaintiff as it is the basis of the action.

  • Hearsay evidence has no probative value and cannot be given credence.

  • Self-serving documents have scant consideration in the determination of damages.

  • Proximate cause is the 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 of proximate cause cannot be established by the mere say-so of a self-serving witness.

  • When a complaint filed by a party is formally offered and forms part of the records of the case, the court shall not ignore its contents even if it was offered for a different purpose.