Case Digest (G.R. No. 167812)
Facts:
The case is Jesus M. Gozun v. Jose Teofilo T. Mercado a.k.a. Don Pepito Mercado, G.R. No. 167812, December 19, 2006, the Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jesus M. Gozun (owner of JMG Publishing House) sued respondent Jose Teofilo T. Mercado to collect an unpaid balance for campaign materials printed for respondent's 1995 gubernatorial campaign.In 1995 petitioner submitted draft samples and a price quotation for campaign materials to respondent and, on the understanding that the quotation was approved, printed posters, leaflets, sample ballots, poll-watcher IDs and stickers. To meet the urgent job, petitioner used facilities of Metro Angeles Printing and St. Joseph Printing Press (owned by petitioner’s daughter and mother respectively). Petitioner delivered the materials to respondent’s campaign headquarters. Petitioner’s diary showed that on March 31, 1995 respondent’s sister‑in‑law, Lilian Soriano, acknowledged receipt of P253,000 as a “cash advance.” Petitioner later sent respondent a statement of account totalling P2,177,906 (JMG P640,310; Metro Angeles P837,696; St. Joseph P446,900; cash advance P253,000). Respondent’s wife paid P1,000,000 on August 11, 1995.
When respondent failed to pay the balance, petitioner filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Angeles City, on November 25, 1998. The RTC rendered judgment for petitioner ordering respondent to pay P1,177,906 plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed and dismissed the complaint: it held petitioner failed to prove that Lilian was authorized by respondent to obtain the P253,000 (applying Article 1317 of the Civil Code) and further held that petitioner could not recover amounts due to Metro Angeles...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner the real party in interest entitled to recover the amounts billed for work done by Metro Angeles Printing and St. Joseph Printing Press?
- Did petitioner prove that Lilian Soriano was authorized by respondent to obtain P253,000 on respondent’s behalf?
- Is respondent liable to pay the remaining balance for the campaign materials after crediting ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)