G.R. No.

65935
FILINVEST vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and NESTOR B. SUŇGA, JR.

Facts:
Nestor B. Suňga Jr., businessman and owner of the NBS Machineries Marketing and the
NAP-NAP Transit. He alleged that he purchased a passenger minibus Mazda from the
Motor center, Inc. at Calasiao, Pangasinan on March 21, 1978. On the same day, a chattel
mortgage was executed in favour of the Motor center, Inc., The mortgage was assigned to
the Filinvest Credit Corporation with the conformity of the plaintiff.
However, the respondent claimed that on October 21, 1978, the minibus was seized by two
(2) employees of Filinvest Credit Corporation upon orders of the branch manager, Mr.
Gaspas de los Santos because allegedly, he was delinquent in his payments. The police
blotter showed that Mr. Suňga sought for assistance with the Dagupan Police after he
reported its lost and the alleged reason and one Florence Onia confirmed that the minibus
was taken because of past due accounts. After verifications, it was found out that Mr.
Sunga’s accounts are all in order. Florence Onia admitted that it was their fault and returned
the vehicle to the Mr. Suňga.
The Regional trial court ordered Filinvest to pay Mr. Suňga P30,000 for moral damages.
Dissatisfied, Filinvest Credit Corp appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court
of Appeals). The appellate court reaffirmed the trial court’s decision. However, it increased
the moral damages from P30,000-P50,000. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner contends that the appellate court
exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for resolving issues
before it thru matters not raised on trial or on appeal and when it increased the moral
damages in an exaggerated and unconscionable amount.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellate court exercised grave abuse of discretion in resolving
issues not raised on appeal and in extravagantly increasing the moral damages.

Ruling:
Petition is partially granted.
"Well settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that whenever an appeal is taken in a civil
case an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any
affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the court below."
The appellate court ignored this doctrine when it extravagantly increased the moral
damages from P30,000 – P50,000 amount to abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court partially grants the petition by reducing the moral damages to
P10,000 and eliminated the litigation expenses.