Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, |
|
G.R. No. 176949 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* |
|
|
|
Acting Chairperson, |
|
- versus- |
|
PERALTA,** |
|
|
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PERLAS-BERNABE,*** JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
June 27, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
In civil cases,
the party with the most convincing evidence prevails.
This Petition
for Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision[2]
dated April 28, 2006 and the Resolution[3]
dated March 9, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69180.
Factual
Antecedents
On January 6, 2000, respondent
Lourdes K. Mendoza, sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators (Highett),
filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
In the
complaint, respondent alleged that from the period August 7, 1997 to March 4,
1998, petitioner purchased from Highett various fabricated steel materials and
supplies amounting to P1,206,177.00, exclusive of interests;[5]
that despite demand, petitioner failed and/or refused to pay;[6]
and that due to the failure and/or refusal of petitioner to pay the said
amount, respondent was compelled to
engage the services of counsel.[7]
Petitioner moved
for a bill of particulars on the ground that no copies of the purchase orders
and invoices were attached to the complaint to enable petitioner to prepare a
responsive pleading to the complaint.[8]
The RTC, however, in an Order dated
March 1, 2000, denied the motion.[9]
Accordingly, petitioner filed its Answer
with Counterclaim[10]
denying liability for the claims and interposing the defense of lack of cause
of action.[11]
To prove her
case, respondent presented the testimonies of (1) Artemio Tejero (Tejero), the
salesman of Highett who confirmed the delivery of the supplies and materials to
petitioner, and (2) Arvin Cheng, the General Manager of Highett.[12]
The presentation
of evidence for petitioner, however, was deemed waived and terminated due to
the repeated non-appearance of petitioner and its counsel.[13]
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
On December 1,
2000, the RTC rendered a Decision[14]
in favor of respondent, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the [petitioner]
corporation to pay the [respondent] the following:
a.
P1,206,177.00, representing the principal amount, which is
the purchase price of the materials and other supplies ordered by and delivered
to [petitioner];
b.
P244,288.59, representing the accrued interest as of
August 31, 1999 plus xxx additional interest to be computed at the rate of 12%
per annum until the total indebtedness is paid in full;
c.
P150,000.00 for and as Attorneys fees; and
d.
Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA affirmed with
modification the Decision of the RTC.
The decretal portion of the CA Decision[16]
reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision
of the RTC [Br. 126,
SO ORDERED.[17]
Petitioner
sought reconsideration but the same was unavailing.[18]
Hence, this
petition raising the following issues:
I. WHETHER X X X THE CHARGE INVOICES ARE
ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS.
II. WHETHER X X X THE DELIVERY OF THE
ALLEGED MATERIALS [WAS] DULY PROVEN.
III. WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO
ATTORNEYS FEES.[19]
Petitioners Arguments
Petitioner
argues that a charge or sales invoice is not an actionable document; thus,
petitioners failure to deny under oath its genuineness and due execution does
not constitute an admission thereof.[20]
Petitioner likewise insists that
respondent was not able to prove her claim as the invoices offered as evidence
were not properly authenticated by her witnesses.[21]
Lastly, petitioner claims that the CA erred
in affirming the award of attorneys fees as the RTC Decision failed to
expressly state the basis for the award thereof.[22]
Respondents Arguments
Respondent, in her Comment,[23] prays for the
dismissal of the petition contending that the arguments raised by petitioner
are a mere rehash of those presented and already passed upon by the CA.[24] She maintains that
charge invoices are actionable documents,[25] and that these were
properly identified and authenticated by witness Tejero, who testified that
upon delivery of the supplies and
materials, the invoices were stamped received by petitioners employee.[26] Respondent contends that the award of
attorneys fees was justified as the basis for the award was clearly
established during the trial.[27]
The petition is partly
meritorious.
The charge invoices are not actionable documents
Section 7 of
Rule 8 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 7. Action
or defense based on document. Whenever an action or defense is based upon a
written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document
shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be
attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part
of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the
pleading. (Emphasis supplied.)
Based on the
foregoing provision, a document is actionable when an action or defense is
grounded upon such written instrument or document. In the instant case, the Charge Invoices[28]
are not actionable documents per se as these only provide details on the
alleged transactions.[29] These documents need not be attached to or
stated in the complaint as these are evidentiary in nature.[30] In fact, respondents cause of action is not
based on these documents but on the contract of sale between the parties.
Delivery of the supplies and
materials was duly proved
But although the
Charge Invoices are not actionable documents, we find that these, along with
the Purchase Orders,[31]
are sufficient to prove that petitioner indeed ordered supplies and materials
from Highett and that these were delivered to petitioner.
Moreover,
contrary to the claim of petitioner, the Charge Invoices were properly
identified and authenticated by witness Tejero who was present when the supplies
and materials were delivered to petitioner and when the invoices were stamped
received by petitioners employee, Roel Barandon.[32]
It bears
stressing that in civil cases, only a preponderance of evidence or greater
weight of the evidence is required.[33]
In this case, except for a bare denial,
no other evidence was presented by petitioner to refute respondents
claim. Thus, we agree with the CA that
the evidence preponderates in favor of respondent.
Basis for the
award of Attorneys fees must be stated in the decision
However, with
respect to the award of attorneys fees to respondent, we are constrained to
disallow the same as the rationale for the
award was not stated in
the text of the
RTC Decision but only in the dispositive portion.[34]
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision
dated April 28, 2006 and the Resolution dated March 9, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69180 are hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION. The award of attorneys fees in the
amount of P150,000.00 is hereby DELETED.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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 Courts Division.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
Acting
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
* Per Special Order No. 1226 dated May 30,
2012.
**
Per raffle dated June 25, 2012.
***
Per Special Order No. 1227 dated May
30, 2012.
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-92 with Annexes A to I inclusive.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Records, pp. 8-10.
[9]
[10] Rollo, pp. 51-53.
[11]
[12]
[13] Records, p. 93.
[14] Rollo, pp. 54-59; penned by Judge Luisito C. Sardillo.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] Records, pp. 82-86; Exhibits H L.
[29] Lazaro
v. Brewmaster International, Inc., G.R. No. 182779, August 23, 2010, 628
SCRA 574, 582.
[30]
[31] Records, pp. 72-81; Exhibits B-G.
[32] Rollo, pp. 29-32.
[33] Oo v. Lim, G.R. No. 154270, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 514, 525.
[34] SCC Chemicals Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 405 Phil. 514, 523-524 (2001).