GR 139628; (May, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139628 ; May 5, 2006
KAORU TOKUDA and ROSALINA S. TOKUDA, ISABELITA RANA, LORNA LIRA and alias “JOHN DOE” and “PETER DOE”, Petitioners, vs. MILAGROS GONZALES and MANILA ASIA TRAVEL SERVICE CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Manila Asia Travel Service Corporation (a travel agency), with respondent Milagros Gonzales as its president, assigned 1,500 shares of its stock to petitioners, spouses Kaoru and Rosalina Tokuda, for a total price of P300,000. Following the assignment, Kaoru Tokuda was elected vice-president, and the agency transferred its office to a portion of the Tokudas’ business space. A controversy arose when petitioners complained about a delay in a client’s passport application. Subsequently, petitioner Rosalina Tokuda turned off the office lights, locked the door to the toilet and water facilities, disconnected the telephone extension, sequestered telephone units, removed office signs, and padlocked the main door to respondents’ office. Respondents filed a complaint for damages and injunction. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondents, making a preliminary injunction permanent and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the validity of the assignment of shares.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding that petitioners committed acts of harassment warranting an award of damages.
3. Whether petitioners were denied their day in court.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the question of whether there was a valid assignment of shares is a question of fact. The notarized deed of assignment, confirmed by petitioners’ own affidavit and supported by receipts, constituted definitive documentary evidence that prevailed over petitioners’ bare denial. The factual findings of the lower courts, being supported by evidence, are conclusive.
2. On the second issue, the Court likewise held that whether petitioners committed harassing acts is a question of fact. The acts of turning off lights, locking facilities, disconnecting telephones, and padlocking the door were malicious and intended to harass respondents, justifying the award of damages. The factual findings of the lower courts on this matter are also conclusive.
3. On the third issue, the Court ruled that petitioners raised this issue for the first time on appeal. The RTC had deemed the case submitted for decision due to the parties’ failure to appear at a scheduled hearing despite notice. Petitioners received the order to this effect but did not question it before the RTC. A party cannot change its theory or raise new arguments for the first time on appeal or certiorari.
The Court emphasized that a petition for review on certiorari is limited to questions of law, and the factual findings of the lower courts, when supported by evidence, are binding.