Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

L-83942 December 29, 1988 ROMEO S. AMURAO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT O APPEALS !"# ROMUEL $EROME %UENA&ENTURA, re're(e")e# b* +er "!),r!- mo)+er !"# .,!r#/!" ad litem E ROSAR0O %UENA&ENTURA, respondents.

GR0NO-A1U0NO, $.2 The petitioner as sued for support b! the offsprin" of his illicit relations ith a #$%!ear old colle"e student. The petitioner denied paternit! and refused to "ive support. &t the co''ence'ent of the trial on (ul! )*, #$++, the trial court 'ade a last%'inute effort to si'plif! the issues b! callin" the parties and their counsel to a conference in her cha'bers. The result as an a"ree'ent of the parties, a "ist of hich as ritten do n in the 'inutes of the hearin", dul! si"ned b! the parties and their counsel, attested b! the Deput! ,ler- of ,ourt, and e'bodied in the court.s order of Septe'ber )/, #$++ as follo s0 1hen this case as called for trial this 'ornin", parties 2ointl! 'oved for a conference in cha'bers. The sa'e as "ranted. &fter said conference, '!r)/e( !.ree# )o (,bm/) )+em(e-3e( )o ! b-oo#-.ro,'/". )e() )o #e)erm/"e )+e '!)er"/)* o4 '-!/")/44 be4ore )+e N!)/o"!- %,re!, o4 0"3e()/.!)/o"3 and to be bound b! the results of the said "overn'ent a"enc! in the follo in" 'anner0 !5 if the finding is to the effect that herein plaintiff may be the offspring of defendant, paternity shall be admitted !"# )+/( c!(e 6/-- 'rocee# 4or )r/!o"-* o" )+e /((,e o4 !mo,") o4 (,''or)3 and b4 if the findin" is ne"ative, then this case shall be dis'issed ithout further trial. The ,ourt finds the sa'e ell ta-en. 156R6FOR6, plaintiff%'inor. his natural 'other and defendant are hereb! ordered to sub'it the'selves to a blood%"roupin" test before the National 7ureau of Investi"ation on or before October #+, #$++ at #8088 o.cloc- in the 'ornin" for a deter'ination of plaintiffs paternit!. 96'phasis supplied.4 9pp. )$% :8, Ori"inal Records3 p. )8, Rollo.4 On the basis of the blood "roupin" tests perfor'ed b! the National 7ureau of Investi"ation 9N7I4, )+e N%0 (,bm/))e# )o )+e Co,r) Re'or) No. 77-188 #!)e# Oc)ober 17, 1977, 4/"#/". )+!)0 T+e (!/# c+/-# 9Rom,e- $erome %,e"!3e"),r!5 /( ! 'o((/b-e o44('r/". o4 )+e !--e.e# 4!)+er Romeo Am,r!o 6/)+ e Ro(!r/o %,e"!3e"),r! !( )+e "!),r!mo)+er. 9p. )8, Rollo.4

6;actl! one !ear later, on Septe'ber )/, #$+<, )+e 'e)/)/o"er 4/-e# ! mo)/o" 4or reco"(/#er!)/o" of the court.s order dated Septe'ber )/, #$++, /m',."/". /)( 3!-/#/)*. The 'otion as denied b! the trial court. The petitioner sou"ht a revie of the order b! the Supre'e ,ourt throu"h a petition for certiorari 9=.R. No. *#>8+4. The petition as denied b! this ,ourt on Ma! >, #$<8. & 'otion to declare the petitioner in conte'pt of court for failure to pa! support pendente lite as filed b! the private respondent 'inor. &t the hearin" of the conte'pt 'otion the parties presented evidence on the petitioner.s capabilit! to "ive support. &fter the hearin" on the conte'pt 'otion, the case as set for trial on (ul! <, #$<:, ith due notice to both parties, for the presentation of further evidence b! the petitioner 9defendant4 on the 'ain case. 5o ever, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel, appeared at the hearin". The court declared the case sub'itted for decision. On &u"ust <, #$<*, it rendered 2ud"'ent for the private respondent orderin" the petitioner to pa! the for'er support of P*88 per 'onth plus attorne!.s fees of P:,888, and costs. Petitioner appealed to the ,ourt of &ppeals 9,&%=.R. No. ,V 8+/>*4 hich rendered 2ud"'ent on March +, #$<<, as follo s0 156R6FOR6, 2ud"'ent appealed fro' is hereb! &FFIRM6D ith the 'odification that the support fi;ed in the 2ud"'ent appealed fro' is increased to One Thousand Five 5undred 9P#,*88.884 Pesos, pa!able ithin the first five da!s of each 'onth at the plaintiffs residence. Defendant%appellant is hereb! ordered to pa! support pendente lite of P)88.88 in arrears since October #$+< up to the ter'ination of this appeal. ,osts a"ainst defendant%appellant. 9p. )>, Rollo.4 Once 'ore, the case is before U( for revie upon a petition alle"in" that the ,ourt of &ppeals erred0 #. in findin" that the petitioner had ad'itted his paternit! in relation to the 'inor Ro'uel (ero'e 7uenaventura and that hence said 'inor is entitled to receive support fro' hi'3 ). in upholdin" the trial court.s decision based on the evidence 9consistin" a'on" others of the petitioner.s balance sheets, audit reports and ad'issions re"ardin" his inco'e4 presented b! the parties at the hearin" of the plaintiffs conte'pt 'otion3 :. in increasin" the a'ount of support "ranted b! the trial court3 and >. in appl!in" &rticle )$8 of the ,ivil ,ode instead of &rticles )$/ and )$+ of the sa'e ,ode. The petition for review is devoid of merit. The first, second, third, and fourth issues raised b! the petition are factual issues hich this ,ourt 'a! not revie under Rule >* of the Rules of ,ourt.

1hether or not the petitioner 'ade an ad'ission of paternit! under the ter's of the trial court.s order dated Septe'ber )/, #$++, thereb! bindin" hi'self to "ive support to his child, the private respondent herein, is a findin" of fact. So is the ,ourt.s deter'ination of the a'ount of support pa!able to the private respondent. It was perfectly proper for the Court to consider the evidence presented by the parties at the hearing of the plaintiff s contempt motion against the defendant, as evidence also on the merits of the main case. The parties did not have to repeat the ritual of presentin" the sa'e evidence all over a"ain to the court. The defendant 9herein petitioner4, b! failin" to appear at the hearin" of the 'ain case on (ul! <, #$<: 9p. #+, Rollo4, aived his ri"ht to adduce additional evidence. 5ence, he 'a! not be heard to co'plain that he as denied due process. 1hether or not the ,ourt of &ppeals correctl! deter'ined that the 'inor, ho filed his action for support in #$++ hen he as onl! an infant five 9*4 'onths old, is no 9as an ##%!ear old student4 entitled to an increase in the a'ount of support a arded to hi' b! the trial court, is also a factual issue hich 1e 'a! not re%e;a'ine and revie . In an! event, 1e find no reversible error in the decision of the ,ourt of &ppeals. The increase in the child.s support is proper and is sanctioned b! the provisions of &rticles )$8, )$/ and )$+ of the ,ivil ,ode. 156R6FOR6, the petition is denied for lac- of 'erit. This decision is i''ediatel! e;ecutor!. SO ORD6R6D. Cruz, : Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.