G.R. No. L-18335 - Ledesma vs. Realubin

Salud Ledesma, acting as petitioner, purchased gasoline and motor oil on credit from Alberto Realubin’s Baguio Caltex service station during June to September 1956.
The transactions were executed through her truck drivers on different dates, with the total monthly amounts recorded as follows:

June – P908.55
July – P920.207
August – P522.00
September – P439.85 (noting that the Court of Appeals expressed the amount as a clerical error)

All credit purchases were recorded on a printed invoice form, with the earliest being Exhibit “A”, which detailed the quantity, articles, unit prices, and total amounts, and it contained stipulations regarding interest on overdue accounts and judicial forum for disputes.

For cash purchases, the white original was given to the customer; for credit purchases, however, the pink copy was delivered to the customer while the respondent retained the original and blue copies.
Upon payment for credit transactions, the white copy was later released to the customer, thereby evidencing the transaction and payment history.

At the trial, the respondent presented the original (white copies) of the invoices for purchases made in June to September 1956, all signed by the petitioner’s truck drivers.
After repeated verbal demands for payment, the petitioner sent a handwritten letter dated November 25, 1967, to Realubin, acknowledging her inability to pay on time due to pending funds from the National Power Corporation related to contracted houses.
The letter, signed by Mrs. Ledesma, was later challenged as a forgery; however, the Court of Appeals noted similarities in handwriting and signatures when compared to other samples presented during trial.

The trial court initially adjudged the petitioner in default but later set aside the default upon her petition for relief.
In her subsequent answer to the complaint, the petitioner:

Denied the credit purchases,
Asserted a special defense that her truck drivers lacked the authority to purchase gasoline on her behalf.

Although the drivers’ authority was admitted at trial, the petitioner also testified that the amounts being collected had been fully paid, presenting the pink copies of invoices to support her claim.
The authenticity of the handwritten letter became a critical issue, with the Court of Appeals recommending a preliminary investigation for possible perjury or false testimony based on the similarities in handwriting.

Whether the petitioner’s special defense (lack of authority of her truck drivers to sign on her behalf) was sufficient given that she later introduced additional evidence of payment, which was not objected to during trial.
The proper assessment of the evidentiary value of the pink copies of the invoices and the petitioner’s own testimony regarding payments made.

Whether the presumption of payment under Article 1176 of the Civil Code (New) could be applied by the petitioner to infer that, since the October 1956 purchase was paid, the preceding credit purchases were likewise settled.
The conflict between the established fact (non-payment of prior purchases) versus the applicability of a presumption in a running account.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in increasing the attorney’s fees beyond those determined by the trial court, even though no appeal was interposed against the trial court award.
The propriety of raising the interest rate on the main indebtedness from 6% (as set by the trial court) to 12% as reflected in the Court of Appeals’ decision.