Case Digest (G.R. No. 194785)
Facts:
Virgilio S. David v. Misamis Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 194785, July 11, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Virgilio S. David (David) owned VSD Electric Sales, which supplied electrical hardware including power transformers. Respondent Misamis Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (MOELCI) sought to purchase a 10 MVA power transformer to address localized power shortages. MOELCI’s General Manager, Engr. Reynaldo Rada, and Director Jose Jimenez visited David in Quezon City and presented a board resolution authorizing the purchase; David submitted a proposal/quotation for the transformer which bore the signatures of Rada and Jimenez under the word “CONFORME,” and the resolution was attached to that proposal.
The proposal set the price at P5,200,000.00 with 50% downpayment and the balance upon delivery, and stated that freight, handling, insurance, customs duties and incidental expenses were for the buyer’s account. MOELCI planned to finance the purchase through a National Electrification Administration (NEA) loan. When loan processing delayed the purchase, MOELCI asked David to deliver the transformer without the downpayment; David agreed provided MOELCI would pay interest at 24% per annum. The transformer was shipped on December 17, 1992 via William Lines, with a bill of lading and a sales invoice reflecting the 24% interest. Subsequent investigations by David’s staff revealed the goods had been released from the carrier and arrastre charges paid by MOELCI’s side.
David sent repeated demands for payment. On February 17, 1994 he filed a complaint for specific performance with damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch VIII, Manila, Civil Case No. 9469402. MOELCI moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action or, alternatively, for unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds; it also sought a preliminary hearing of affirmative defenses under Rule 16, Section 5, which the RTC denied to expedite proceedings. The denial was sustained by the Court of Appeals (CA) and by this Court in an earlier procedural context.
Because MOELCI repeatedly failed to appear despite notice, the RTC allowed David to present testimony and documents ex parte under Rule 18, Section 5; MOELCI’s Very Urgent Motion to present evidence was denied. On July 17, 2008 the RTC dismissed David’s complaint, holding that although a contract of sale may have been perfected the seller failed to prove delivery and receipt by MOELCI. David appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On July 8, 2010 the CA (Bruselas, J., with Guariña III and Zalameda, JJ., concurring) affirmed the RTC, concluding Exhibit A was at best a contract to sell or a mere price quotation and that the trial c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there a perfected contract of sale between David and MOELCI?
- Was there delivery of the transformer that consummated the c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)