You are on page 1of 3

Arial, 12, 1.

5 spacing
TOPIC/DOCTRINE/PROVISION
(Ex. Prospective Effect of the Rules of Court) - Just follow the syllabus
TITLE OF THE CASE (BOLD)
GR NO.
FACTS: Detailed
ISSUE:
RULING: MTC, RTC, CA, SC
This is for your approval. If you have any suggestion/s, please comment below.
DEADLINE: Saturday (12NN) para may time ako to compile in one document and
upload the same before the day ends.
Send your digests (word format) at ajfgelido@gmail.com. Please use your
complete name as subject. Should you have any question, please let me know
Guys, pakilagay din pala sa facts yung the plaintiff's contention and the
defendant's contentio

Rule on Liberal Construction; purposes. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court)

F.A.T. KEE COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., vs. ONLINE NETWORKS


INTERNATIONAL, INC
Petitioner F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc. (FAT KEE) is a domestic
corporation engaged in the business of selling computer equipment and
conducting maintenance services for the units it sold. ONLINE is also a domestic
corporation principally engaged in the business of selling computer units, parts
and software.
ONLINE sold computer printers to FAT KEE. However, FAT KEE failed to pay its
obligations to ONLINE without any valid reason. ONLINE filed a Complaint for

Sum of Money against FAT KEE.


During the trial FAT KEE insisted that the conversion rate they agreed upon was
P34:US$1 and not P40 as insisted by ONLINE.
The RTC dismissed the complaint of ONLINE for the latters failure to establish
its claim. The appellate court reversed and set aside the Decision of the RTC.
The CA ruled that even granting that FAT KEE was of the impression that P34:$1
was the applicable rate for its obligation, ONLINE cannot be put in estoppel as
this was immediately rectified by ONLINE.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the non-attachment of the relevant portions of the TSN
renders the petition of FAT KEE fatally defective.
Whether or not ONLINE is estopped as to the conversion rate used.
HELD: The petition is partly meritorious.
First issue:
REMEDIAL LAW: Attachments
Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court indeed requires the attachment to the
petition for review on certiorari such material portions of the record as would
support the petition. However, such a requirement was not meant to be an
ironclad rule such that the failure to follow the same would merit the outright
dismissal of the petition.
Second issue:
CIVIL LAW: Estoppel
One who claims the benefit of an estoppel on the ground that he has been misled
by the representations of another must not have been misled through his own
want of reasonable care and circumspection. A lack of diligence by a party
claiming an estoppel is generally fatal. Thus, after participating in the meeting on
January 15, 1998, submitting its own proposals and further negotiating for the
lowering of the exchange rate, FAT KEE cannot anymore insist that it was
completely under the impression that the applicable exchange rate was
P34:US$1.
Respondent Online filed a complaint against petitioner for sum of money. Italleged that
petitioner failed to pay the purchase price of the computer. Petitioner FATKEE answered
the complaint and denied all the allegations against him. Petitionercontended that the
argument of Online that the instant petition is fatally defective forfailure of the former to

attach the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) of RTCproceedings. He countered that


there is no need to annex the said TSN given thatOnline does not dispute the accuracy of
the quoted portions of the transcripts and thepetition does not request for a re-evaluation
of the evidence of the parties.
ISSUE:
Whether non-attachment of the relevant portions of the TSN does not renderthe petition
of FAT KEE fatally defective.
HELD: YES.
The SC ruled that non-attachment of the relevant portions of the TSN doesnot render
fatally defective. Given that the TSN of the proceeding before the RTC formspart of the
record of the instant case, the failure of petitioner to attach the same wasalready cured by
subsequent elevation of the case records to this Court.
G.R. No. 171238
FEBRUARY 2, 2011
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING: