GR No.

166726 November 25, 2019

Equitable PCI Bank Vs. Manila Adjusters and Surveyors, Inc.
Ponente: J. Hernando

Facts:
On June 1975, the Phil-Am Insurance Co. Inc., represented by its adjuster,
Respondent, executed a deed of sale for salvaged fertilizers stored in a warehouse in San
Fernando, La Union. It was agreed that Phil-Am Insurance would pay for the total amount
of 5,159,725 pesos and that Phil-Am Insurance would be accountable for the storage and
warehousing charges. Phil-Am Insurance was also required to open an irrevocably
confirmed without recourse letter of credit amounting to 1,000,000 pesos in favor of
respondent in case of non-compliance by Phil-Am insurance in the terms and conditions
set. But, the Phil-Am Insurance already availed of the domestic letter of credit on June 23,
1975 from petitioner with the same amount in favor of respondent. The letter of credit
was amended to extend the expiry date and that the said letter be drawable by
respondents upon submission to the bank of a certification that Phil-Am Insurance failed
to comply with the conditions and terms of the sale. The Phil-Am Insurance however, only
managed to pay the first installment and part of the second installment. Although Phil-Am
Insurance tendered a personal check, the same bounced due to lack of funds, and
thereafter no longer made additional payments. Respondent demanded from Phil-Am
insurance but failed to settle the obligation. The Regional Trial Court ruled that Phil-Am
insurance company did not comply with the terms and conditions and that respondent
properly complied for the claim against the letter of credit with the petitioner. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC and ruled that respondent was entitled to
interest under the Civil Code.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that strict compliance in
the handling of documents in a letter of credit transaction is necessary?

Held:
No, under the law, a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of
Court is only limited to questions of law. A re- examination of factual findings cannot be
done through a petition for review on certiorari because this court is not a trier of facts.
there is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain set of facts; a question of facts arises when there is doubt or difference as to the
truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. the jurisprudential doctrine that findings of the
Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when these
coincide with the factual findings of the trial court, must remain undisturbed, unless
factual findings are not supported by the evidence on record. In this case, petitioner’s
contention that it did not receive the required documents from respondent in order for
respondent to claim the proceeds of the letter of credit. But, such contention can be easily
verified by assessing the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted to the parties
during trial, which is clearly a question of fact. Therefore, the petition for review on
certiorari must be denied for failure to establish reversible error on the part of the Court
of Appeals.