|
ANGELITO COLMENARES, Petitioner, - versus - HAND
TRACTOR PARTS AND AGRO-INDUSTRIAL
CORP., Respondent. |
G.R. No. 170790
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,* Carpio Morales, BERSAMIN,**
and ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: October 23, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
Petitioner
Angelito Colmenares assails the Decision[1]
dated
The
facts, culled from the records, are briefly as follows:
Respondent
is a domestic corporation[3]
engaged in selling tractor and agro-industrial parts. Petitioner is one of its customers.[4]
On P80,200, the price of the paddle wheels and their accessories. Petitioner paid P25,000 on P10,000
on P3,000 on P38,000.
In a letter[9]
dated P156,266 for his
unpaid account, including interest computed at 3% per month.[10] In response, petitioner wrote:
x x x x
While I do not deny the fact that I have purchased some
tractor parts from your client on credit, my records of my account with your
client do not show that I am indebted to your client in the amount of P156,266.00.
May I ask therefore from your client a period of 45 days from
today, to check my records, compare them with the records of your client and
settle my actual accountability with your client within said period.[11]
On
For his
defense, petitioner testified that he did not purchase the paddle wheels and
accessories stated in the
The Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of P166,466 plus 3% interest per month from June 1996 and 25% of
the net amount due as attorney’s fees and cost of collection.[14]
On appeal, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.[15] It found respondent’s testimonial and
documentary evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals ruled:
Exhibit
“A” [charge invoice] … will show that, on
Other than his bare denial, [petitioner] failed to present other convincing testimonial and documentary evidence to rebut [respondent’s] evidence.
Exhibits “B” and “C” [delivery receipts] … will show that the farm implements … were delivered to [petitioner] through his representative.
It is easy for the [petitioner] to deny outright receiving such items and likewise deny to have authorized persons to receive said items. However, again, [petitioner] failed to present witnesses and other documentary evidence to support his allegation.
As to the rest of the evidence adduced by the [respondent], we find the [trial court] to have correctly weighed and appreciated the same when it held:
“The [petitioner’s] mere denial of his obligation would not suffice against the invoices and delivery receipts, especially the official receipts issued by the [respondent]. It would be absurd for the [respondent] to fabricate official receipts just to solicit a phony obligation. As agreed upon by the [petitioner] himself, he was a customer of the [respondent] before the controversial sale was made. Thus, the general manager of the [respondent] cannot mistake him for anyone of their other clients, considering their transactions were done in personal.xxx”[16]
After
his motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner filed the instant
petition which raised the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO MEET THE QUANTUM OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES WHICH IS “PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.”
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON “BURDEN OF PROOF” IN CIVIL CASES.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON “AWARD OF DAMAGES.”[17]
Essentially,
the issues are: (1) Was respondent able to prove by a preponderance of evidence
its claim for a sum of money against petitioner? (2)
Was the award of interest and attorney’s fees proper?
Petitioner contests the finding that he was respondent’s
customer even before the sale of the paddle wheels. He says that respondent’s lone witness even
testified that the first and last transaction between him (witness) and
petitioner was on
Respondent
counters that petitioner has raised factual issues, and that petitioner assails
its evidence but has failed to present his own countervailing evidence other
than mere denial.[19]
On the
first issue, we find for the respondent.
Indeed,
it is obvious that petitioner’s submissions involve factual issues that call
for review of all evidence presented before the trial court. Whether petitioner was respondent’s customer
before the subject transaction, whether petitioner purchased the paddle wheels,
whether his unpaid account exists, whether the documents presented as evidence
are questionable, anomalous or fabricated, are all questions of fact.
It is settled that questions of fact cannot be the subject of a petition
for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The rule finds more stringent application where the Court of Appeals
upholds the findings of fact of the trial court. In such instance, as in this case, this Court
is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined by the lower courts.[20] This Court has held also that when supported
by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.[21] Needless to stress, under Section 1, Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, the petition shall raise only questions of law.[22] The reason is that this Court is not a trier
of facts, and is not to review and calibrate the evidence on record.[23]
Here, we find
no exception to the general rule. The
trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in finding that petitioner bought
paddle wheels from respondent, that the same were delivered to petitioner
through his representative, and that petitioner failed to fully pay the price
as he made partial payments only. This
finding is amply supported by the evidence on record. Raul Chua, respondent’s general manager,
testified on petitioner’s credit purchase.
Respondent also presented the delivery receipts, charge invoice,
official receipts of partial payment, and petitioner’s reply to the demand
letter.
Regarding
petitioner’s denial of his obligation, we find him less than candid in his
submissions. He conveniently ignores his
admission captured by the transcripts and the evidence he himself wrote. First,
he contests the finding that he was respondent’s customer before the subject
transaction. But he has testified that
he used to purchase farm implements from respondent in cash or credit.[24] Thus, we see nothing wrong in the conclusion
of the trial court and the Court of Appeals which was based on his
testimony. Second, petitioner assails the finding that the paddle wheels were
delivered to him through his representative.
We note that Raul Chua identified petitioner’s secretary as the one who
received the deliveries.[25] Petitioner, on the other hand, denied knowing
the person who received the deliveries and having said person in his employ.[26] Interestingly, petitioner’s counsel, Atty.
Cris Dionela, manifested after petitioner’s testimony that he will present petitioner’s
secretary during the next hearing.[27] Since petitioner denied knowing the person
who received the deliveries, the reason should be clear why we do not find on
record the testimony of his secretary.
This time, however, petitioner laments that “the persons who only the
respondent claimed to be [petitioner’s] employees” were never presented in
court to be identified and confronted by him.[28] Third,
that there is no evidence of petitioner’s account with respondent is belied by
petitioner himself when he replied to the demand letter and said that he will
check his records and settle his actual accountability within 45 days.
Relatedly,
petitioner’s unpaid account was duly proven by the charge invoice for his
credit purchase worth P80,200 and official receipts for his partial
payment of P38,000 only.
Petitioner, in his belabored challenge to respondent’s evidence, has not
informed the Court what other evidence could possibly prove his unpaid
account. Perhaps he could think of no
other because any evidence other than proof of credit and proof of partial
payment would only be superfluous in proving his unpaid account. And his reply to the demand letter only
confirms what he has to settle.
Thus, we
are in agreement that respondent was able to prove by preponderant evidence,
which means evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that
which is in opposition to it,[29]
that petitioner ought to pay his unpaid account.
On the
matter of damages, petitioner contends that the award of 3% interest per month
is baseless because the legal rate is 12% per annum. The charge invoice also states 12% interest
per annum on overdue accounts. The award
of attorney’s fees and cost of collection is also baseless in view of the
policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.
Respondent counters
that attorney’s fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate.
On this
issue, petitioner is partly correct. The
interest payable for an overdue account as stated in the charge invoice is only
12% per annum,[30]
not 3% per month. The handwritten
modification to 36% was not explained by respondent. In its comment,[31]
respondent did not even dispute petitioner’s assertion and limited its argument
on the propriety of attorney’s fees.
Accordingly,
as of P108,032, computed as follows:
Unpaid Account = Unpaid Price + Interest
Unpaid Account = (80,200 – 38,000) + [(80,200-38,000)x .12 x 13]
Unpaid Account = 42,200 + 65,832
Unpaid Account = P108,032
Additional
interest can be computed after
Finally,
we agree with the lower courts on the award of attorney’s fees. Article 2208[32]
of the Civil Code provides that in the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees
and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be
recovered. In this case, however, the
charge invoice provides that “25% of the amount due is further charged for
attorney’s fees and cost of collection in case of suit.” Thus, we agree that respondent is also
entitled to 25% of P108,032 or P27,008 as attorney’s fees.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated P108,032 plus additional interest after P27,008 as attorney’s fees.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
L |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No. 757.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 765.
[1] Rollo, pp. 28-33. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Vicente L. Yap and Enrico A. Lanzanas concurring.
[2]
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4]
[5] TSN,
[6] Records, pp. 55-56.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] TSN,
[14] Records, p. 109.
[15] Rollo, p. 33.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Ong v.
Ong, G.R. No. 153206,
[21] Ontimare, Jr. v. Elep, G.R. No. 159224, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 257, 265; Ramirez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 155150, August 29, 2006, 500 SCRA 104, 106.
[22] Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — xxx The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
[23] JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139401, October 2, 2002, 390 SCRA 223, 229-230; Honoridez v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 153762, August 12, 2005, 466 SCRA 646, 654; Boston Bank of the Philippines v. Manalo, G.R. No. 158149, February 9, 2006, 482 SCRA 108, 127.
[24] TSN,
[25] TSN,
[26] TSN,
[27]
[28] Rollo, p. 135.
[29] Reyes
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147758,
[30] Records, p. 54.
[31] Rollo, pp. 106-107.
[32] ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered,...
x x x x