Case Digest (G.R. No. 96202)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 96202 decided on April 13, 1999 under the 1987 Constitution, petitioner Rosella D. Canque, doing business as RDC Construction, entered into two written agreements with private respondent Socor Construction Corporation to supply, lay and compact bituminous materials for three government road projects in Cebu and Lapulapu City. The first subcontract dated April 26, 1985 provided payment of ₱1,000 per metric ton of Item 310 and ₱8,000 per metric ton of Item 302 upon delivery, compaction, and acceptance by the Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPWH). The second supply contract of July 23, 1985 specified delivery notices, MPWH acceptance, and payment within fifteen days of billing. On May 28, 1986 Socor submitted a revised bill (Exh. C) for ₱299,717.75 plus 3% monthly interest as the unpaid balance of ₱2,098,400.25; Canque contested non-submission of delivery receipts, the quality of the tack coat, lack of payment receipts for prior advances of about ₱1.4 million, anCase Digest (G.R. No. 96202)
Facts:
- Parties and Contracts
- Petitioner Rosella D. Canque, doing business as RDC Construction, held government contracts for:
- Restoration of Cebu–Toledo wharf road
- Asphalting of Lutopan access road
- Asphalting of Babag road in Lapulapu City
- Private respondent Socor Construction Corporation entered into two agreements with RDC Construction:
- Contract dated April 26, 1985 (Exh. A): Subcontract for supply, laying and compaction of Items 310 and 302 at P1,000/MT and P8,000/MT respectively, payment based on actual metric tons delivered and accepted by MPWH
- Contract dated July 23, 1985 (Exh. B): Supply and delivery of Items 310 and 302 to specified sites, payment fifteen days after billing based on actual metric tons delivered and accepted
- Billing, Refusal, and Litigation
- On May 28, 1986, Socor Construction sent RDC Construction a revised billing (Exh. C) for ₱299,717.75 plus 3% monthly interest, representing the unpaid balance of ₱2,098,400.25 for materials and services
- Petitioner refused payment, insisting on delivery receipts showing actual weights and government acceptance
- On September 22, 1986, Socor Construction filed suit in RTC Cebu City for ₱299,717.75 plus 3% monthly interest, attorney’s fees, filing fees, and costs
- Petitioner’s answer admitted the contracts and billing but disputed correctness due to unsupplied delivery receipts, alleged water content, prior payments without receipts, and no agreement on interest; later amended to deny any subcontract relationships
- Trial evidence: Socor presented its vice-president and bookkeeper (Dolores Aday); petitioner testified alone; bookkeeper’s entries in the Book of Collectible Accounts (Exh. K) were offered as business records
- Trial Court and Appellate Decisions
- RTC Decision (June 22, 1988): Ordered petitioner to pay ₱299,717.75 plus 12% per annum interest from filing until paid, attorney’s fees, filing fees, and costs; admitted Exh. K under Rule 130 A37 and awarded interest under Art. 2209 of the Civil Code
- Court of Appeals affirmed, upholding admissibility of Exh. K as entries in the course of business under Rule 130 A37 (now Rule 130 A43)
- This petition for review on certiorari followed
Issues:
- Admissibility of Exh. K as business records under Rule 130 A37
- Whether the entries satisfy the requirements of unavailability and personal knowledge
- Use of Exh. K as a memorandum to refresh memory under Rule 132 A10
- Whether a memorandum admitted to refresh a witness’s memory may also constitute substantive evidence
- Sufficiency of other evidence to prove Socor’s claim
- Whether documentary proofs aside from Exh. K establish petitioner’s indebtedness
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)