Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    Nesia Vs Fermin (Scope of Consent) - Case DIgest

    Uploaded by

    Angelita Tohol Malan
    The petitioner Jose Nessia filed a complaint against the mayor and municipality for damages from unreimbursed work expenses. The trial court found in favor of Nessia but awarded less damages than requested. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint, finding the vouchers were not properly submitted. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's findings based on witness testimony should be followed over the appellate court. As the municipality did not appeal the trial court decision, it became final against the municipality. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision in favor of Nessia.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nesia Vs Fermin (Scope of Consent) - Case DIgest

    Uploaded by

    Angelita Tohol Malan
    70 views2 pages
    The petitioner Jose Nessia filed a complaint against the mayor and municipality for damages from unreimbursed work expenses. The trial court found in favor of Nessia but awarded less damages than requested. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint, finding the vouchers were not properly submitted. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's findings based on witness testimony should be followed over the appellate court. As the municipality did not appeal the trial court decision, it became final against the municipality. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision in favor of Nessia.

    Original Title

    1. Nesia vs Fermin (Scope of Consent)-Case DIgest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Jose Nessia filed a complaint against the mayor and municipality for damages from unreimbursed work expenses. The trial court found in favor of Nessia but awarded less damages than requested. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint, finding the vouchers were not properly submitted. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's findings based on witness testimony should be followed over the appellate court. As the municipality did not appeal the trial court decision, it became final against the municipality. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision in favor of Nessia.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    70 views2 pages

    Nesia Vs Fermin (Scope of Consent) - Case DIgest

    Uploaded by

    Angelita Tohol Malan
    The petitioner Jose Nessia filed a complaint against the mayor and municipality for damages from unreimbursed work expenses. The trial court found in favor of Nessia but awarded less damages than requested. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint, finding the vouchers were not properly submitted. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's findings based on witness testimony should be followed over the appellate court. As the municipality did not appeal the trial court decision, it became final against the municipality. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision in favor of Nessia.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    NESIA VS.

    FERMIN
    3/30/93

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Jose V. Nessia, then Deputy Municipal Assessor of Victorias, Negros


    Occidental filed a complaint against respondents Mayor Jesus M. Fermin and the
    Municipality of Victoria for recovery of damages and reimbursement of expenses incurred in
    the performance of his official duties. The complaint theorized that Fermin deliberately ignored
    and caused the non-payment of the vouchers in question because Nessia defied the former's
    request to all municipal officials to register and vote in Victorias in the 1980 local elections.

    On its part, Victorias added that plaintiff Nessia was blamable for his predicament
    because he neither gave Fermin the justification for drawing funds in excess of the budgetary
    appropriations nor amended his vouchers to conform thereto.

    RTC rendered judgment in favor of Nessia and awarded damages to Nessia although
    less than what he prayed for. Both Nessia and Fermin elevated the case to the Court of
    Appeals, Nessia praying for an increase in the award of moral and exemplary damages, and
    Fermin seeking exoneration from liability.

    CA dismissed Nessia’s complaint on the ground of lack of causes of action. Court of


    Appeals held that the real that the situation is one in which plaintiff-appellant accuses
    defendant-appellant of failing to act on vouchers which are not shown to have been received
    by the latter; and even if received, could not be approved for payment because they were
    submitted late and were not supported by an appropriation. The Municipality of Victoria did not
    appeal.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not respondent court may reverse the decision of the trial court which has become
    final and executory as against Victorias for failure to appeal therefrom?

    RULING:

    No!

    When there is no finding of error in its appreciation of the contradictory testimonies


    relating to the dispute on the receipt of the vouchers, the determination of the trial court that
    they were actually received should be followed. Consequently, as between the findings of
    the Court of Appeals drawn simply from the reading of the records and the transcript of
    stenographic notes, and the determination of the trial court which heard the case, the opinion
    of the latter (RTC) deserves greater acceptance, even if both conclusions are supported
    by evidence.

    If the decision of the Court of Appeals on the controversial matter suffers, as it does,
    from some ambiguity, the doubt should be resolved to sustain the trial court in the light of the
    familiar and accepted rule that 'the judge who tries a case in the court below, has vastly
    superior advantage for the ascertainment of truth and the detection of falsehood over an
    appellate court sitting as a court of review.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed decision of 19 July 1991 of
    respondent Court of Appeals as well as its 19 November 1991 Resolution denying Nessia's
    motion for reconsideration are SET ASIDE, and the decision of 24 April 1987 of the Regional
    Trial Court, Branch LXI, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, 12 is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.

    You might also like