400 Phil. 838
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 51 of Manila is hereby AFFIRMED in toto."[3]
"This is an action for damages filed by [Petitioner] Florentina David against [Respondent] Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation.
"Issues having been joined, this case was set for pre-trial. The parties having failed to reach an amicable settlement, the pre-trial was terminated. Thereafter, hearing on the merits was conducted wherein the parties presented their testimonial and documentary evidence.
"[Petitioner] adduced that in the issue of November 2, 1989 of the Manila Bulletin, it did not carry the notice [of] the second death anniversary of Pascual Abella David which [Petitioner] Florentina David caused to be published in the obituary section of the said newspaper per Official Receipt No. 239041 issued to [petitioner] by the [respondent] in the amount of P1,912.50; that early preparations were made for daylong fetes to be catered in their residences in Navotas, Metro Manila and in Baguio City for people who [would] come over after the scheduled masses and for those who [would] just [be] reminded of the anniversary through the newspaper publication; that nobody attended the scheduled masses because nobody knew about them, while only a handful of persons took their chances and proceeded to the two residences; that henceforth, preparations for the masses, food and everything else went to waste; that the [respondent] breached its contractual obligation as a publisher; and that [petitioner] suffered physical [and] mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock and social humiliation and therefore should be compensated for actual, moral and exemplary damages..
"[Respondent]'s theory is that the [petitioner] has no cause of action; that the said notice did not appear on the issue of November 2, 1989 because the [petitioner]'s secretary failed to comply with the proper procedure for a notice or display advertisement to be considered as having placed for publication purposes; that [petitioner] failed to submit the advertising material to the ad[-]taker concerned so much so that [respondent] had nothing in its possession to typeset and publish in its issue of November 2, 1989; and that [respondent] has several warning signs at the Display Advertising counter.
"As defined in the Pre-trial Order dated September 25, 1990, the only issue to be resolved here is whether or not [respondent] is liable for damages to [petitioner]."
"I
Whether or not there is basis in the finding of the Honorable Court of Appeals that it was the negligence of the petitioner which caused the non-publication of the notice of the second death anniversary of the petitioner's husband at the obituary section of the respondent."II
Whether or not ample evidence was adduced to show that petitioner paid for and submitted the advertising material with the insertion order for publication of the respondent and therefore the non-publication [was] a breach of contract entitling petitioner to indemnity payment for damages."III
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not awarding damages to petitioner."
"This Court is convinced that [respondent's] ad[-]taker's version is the correct one. First, the ad[-]taker's allegation that only one insertion order was issued[,] as is the procedure, is corroborated by the other witness, Ms. Obien. Second, we do not find any reason why two insertion orders should be issued when only one would suffice. Furthermore, it is contrary to reason and logic why a client would need to type the obituary in one insertion order and then copy it by hand in another insertion order, since the same would serve no purpose.xxx xxx xxx
"Third, more glaring is that the insertion order was still in the possession of [petitioner], as pointed out by [respondent's] counsel, during the trial, to wit:"ATTY. MENDOZA:
At this juncture, your Honor, we would like to make it of record that this particular Exhibit C contains the original sample and that the insertion order itself of the original insertion order is in the possession of the plaintiff and we would like to adopt this Exhibit C as Exhibit 3, your Honor."
COURT:
Alright, mark it as Exhibit 3 for the defendant." (TSN, January 30, 1991, pp. 14-14)
"This fact was never rebutted by [petitioner]. Rather, [petitioner] could not give any explanation as to how the pink insertion sheet (insertion order) and ad sample were still in her possession considering that her representative categorically testified that she [had] returned the alleged two insertion orders.
"From the foregoing, it is easy to conclude that [petitioner's] representative forgot to leave the insertion order with the ad[-]taker which resulted in the non-publication of the obituary. Neither can [respondent] be accused of being negligent in reminding clients of this procedure. It is an established fact that various reminders (Exhs. "7", "8" and "9") are posted inside the vicinity to ensure that the clients follow the correct steps."[9]
"(1) When the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;
(2) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(3) When the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(4) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(6)When the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on misapprehension of facts;
(7) When the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
(8) When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;
(9) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record."