Case Digest (G.R. No. L-40258)
Facts:
Lim Yhi Luya v. Court of Appeals and Hind Sugar Company, G.R. No. L-40258, September 11, 1980, Supreme Court First Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Lim Yhi Luya is a Lingayen businessman who bought sugar from private respondent Hind Sugar Company, whose general manager was Atty. Emiliano Abalos and whose cashier was Teodoro Garcia. The parties had longstanding business relations since 1958. On November 13, 1970 the parties executed a written Contract of Sale for 4,085 piculs of Hind-2 sugar at P35.00 per picul with the express stipulation "Terms: Cash upon signing of this contract." On the same day the company issued four delivery orders to petitioner; between November 13, 1970 and January 27, 1971 petitioner withdrew 3,735 piculs under substitute delivery orders, leaving 350 piculs undelivered.
A dispute arose whether petitioner had in fact paid P142,975.00 in cash on November 13, 1970. Petitioner maintained he paid cash to the cashier and that the contract provision served as receipt; respondent denied any payment and pointed to an auditor's report showing no entry for such payment in company books. Petitioner filed suit on May 17, 1971 in Civil Case No. 14873 before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan asserting six causes of action (non-delivery of the 350 piculs; non-delivery of 1,000 piculs of export sugar despite deposit of P55,000; delivery of 160 piculs of H-3 sugar; recovery for supplies and materials delivered on credit; moral/ exemplary damages; attorney's fees). Hind Sugar answered, denied payment, asserted set‑offs and counterclaimed for unpaid sugar and other sums.
At pre-trial the parties entered a partial stipulation establishing many operative facts (existence of the November 13 contract, issuance of delivery orders, withdrawal of 3,735 piculs, deposit of P55,000 by petitioner to respondent bank account, unpaid supplies for months January–April 1971, and the issues to be tried). The CFI, after trial, found for petitioner: it held the contract language meant cash payment was made upon signing and that contemporaneous acts (issuance of delivery orders, withdrawals, liquidation sheet) supported that petitioner had paid; it ordered delivery or payment for the 350 piculs, delivery/payment for the 1,000 export piculs, delivery/payment for the 160 piculs H-3, and awarded recovery for supplies, damages and attorney's fees.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed and modified: it held the contract did not prove payment, concluded petitioner had not paid P142,975.00, ordered plaintiff to pay for the 3,735 piculs he withdrew (P130,725.00), cancelled respondent’s obligation to deliver the remaining 350 piculs, found respondent liable to return the P55,000 deposit, awarded amounts for the 160 picul...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Court of Appeals' factual finding on whether petitioner paid P142,975.00 binding, or may the Supreme Court review and reverse it under recognized exceptions to the general rule of appellate fact‑finding finality?
- Does the contractual stipulation "Terms: Cash upon signing of this contract," together with contemporaneous acts (issuance of delivery orders and withdrawals), constitute sufficient evidence that petitioner paid P142,975.00 and that delivery was effected?
- Were the Court of Appeals' rulings on the second, third and fourth causes of action (return of P55,000 deposit/delivery of 1,000 export piculs; 160 piculs H-3; and recovery for supplies and attorney's fees) correc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)