Case Digest (G.R. No. 134505) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case involves Asian Construction and Development Corporation (petitioner) as the defendant and Lourdes K. Mendoza (respondent), sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators (Highett), as the plaintiff. On January 6, 2000, respondent Mendoza filed a complaint for a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 126, docketed as Civil Case No. C-19100. Respondent alleged that from August 7, 1997, to March 4, 1998, petitioner purchased manufactured steel materials and supplies amounting to ₱1,206,177.00, excluding interest. Despite demand, petitioner allegedly failed or refused to settle the amount, leading respondent to engage counsel. Petitioner filed a motion for a bill of particulars, arguing that the absence of attached purchase orders and invoices prevented them from preparing a responsive pleading. This motion was denied by the RTC on March 1, 2000. Petitioner subsequently filed an answer with counterclaim, denying liability for the claims a
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 134505) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Complaint
- On January 6, 2000, Lourdes K. Mendoza, sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators (Highett), filed a Complaint for sum of money against Asian Construction and Development Corporation (petitioner) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 126, docketed as Civil Case No. C-19100.
- Mendoza alleged that from August 7, 1997, to March 4, 1998, petitioner purchased fabricated steel materials and supplies from Highett amounting to Php 1,206,177.00, excluding interests.
- Despite demand, petitioner allegedly failed or refused to pay the amount.
- Due to non-payment, Mendoza was compelled to engage counsel.
- Pre-Trial Proceedings
- Petitioner moved for a bill of particulars citing absence of copies of purchase orders and invoices attached to the complaint, arguing this was necessary to prepare a responsive pleading.
- The RTC denied the motion on March 1, 2000.
- Petitioner then filed an Answer with Counterclaim, denying liability and asserting lack of cause of action.
- Evidence Presented
- Respondent presented the testimonies of Artemio Tejero, the salesman of Highett, who confirmed delivery of supplies and materials, and Arvin Cheng, General Manager of Highett.
- Petitioner failed to present evidence due to repeated non-appearance and waiver was deemed.
- RTC Decision
- On December 1, 2000, RTC ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to pay:
- Php 1,206,177.00 (principal)
- Php 244,288.59 (accrued interest as of August 31, 1999) plus additional interest at 12% per annum until full payment
- Php 150,000.00 attorney's fees
- Costs of suit
- Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling
- CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification: interest computation to reckon 1% monthly interest starting 30 days after each delivery.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Petition for Review
- Petitioner filed the present petition under Rule 45 questioning the CA decision and RTC award.
Issues:
- Are the charge invoices considered actionable documents?
- Was the delivery of the alleged materials and supplies duly proven by the respondent?
- Is respondent entitled to attorney's fees awarded by the RTC and affirmed by the CA?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)