Facts:

The case of Mendezona & Co., in Liquidation vs. Mariano Moreno arose from a complaint filed on February 11, 1905, in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The plaintiff, Mendezona & Co., sought to recover the sum of P28,819.53 from the defendant, Mariano Moreno, which was claimed to be the balance due for services rendered as a commission agent in the sale of coprax and hemp. The relationship between the parties was established through a verbal contract that had been in place for several years prior to 1902, wherein the plaintiff acted as a commission agent for the defendant, who purchased hemp in Daet, Ambos Camarines, and shipped it to the plaintiff for sale in Manila. Throughout their business dealings, the plaintiff sold various goods on behalf of the defendant and provided him with checks or bills of exchange as partial payments for the hemp and coprax.

The defendant contended that he suffered damages because the plaintiff had allegedly pledged portions of the...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On February 11, 1905, the plaintiff, Mendezona & Co. (in liquidation), filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover P28,819.53 from the defendant, Mariano Moreno. This amount represented the balance due to the plaintiff as a commission agent for the sale of coprax and hemp.

Nature of the Contract

• Prior to 1902, a verbal contract existed between the plaintiff and defendant, wherein the plaintiff acted as a commission agent for the defendant, selling coprax and hemp.
• The defendant purchased hemp in Daet, Ambos Camarines, and shipped it to the plaintiff in Manila for sale.
• The plaintiff also sold goods to the defendant and sent checks or bills of exchange as partial payment for the hemp and coprax.

Defendant’s Allegations

1. Pledging of Hemp: The defendant claimed that the plaintiff pledged portions of the hemp to secure money, which allegedly prevented the hemp from being sold at the best price. However, no specific evidence was provided to show how much hemp was pledged or how the defendant was injured by this action.
2. Unauthorized Charges: The defendant alleged that the plaintiff made unauthorized charges for storage, insurance, interest, repacking, and shrinkage of the hemp. No proof was provided to support these claims.
3. Weight Discrepancy: The defendant argued that the weight of the hemp in Manila did not match the weight at the time of shipment from Daet. The plaintiff countered this by explaining that the weight of hemp varied due to factors such as cleaning, packing, and time elapsed after cleaning.
4. Excessive Insurance Charges: The defendant claimed that the insurance charges were excessive but provided no evidence to support this.
5. Interest Charges: The defendant contested the plaintiff’s right to charge interest on the balances due, citing Articles 312 and 313 of the Code of Commerce and Article 1109 of the Civil Code.

Plaintiff’s Position

• The plaintiff provided detailed accounts of the transactions, including receipts, sales, and expenses related to the hemp. The defendant did not object to these items during the transactions.
• The plaintiff admitted to charging interest on the balances due but argued that this was part of the verbal contract.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Burden of Proof: The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations of damages due to the pledging of hemp, unauthorized charges, weight discrepancies, and excessive insurance charges.
2. Interest Charges: Under Articles 312 and 313 of the Code of Commerce and Article 1109 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff was not entitled to charge interest on the balances due until a judicial demand was made. Therefore, the interest charges were disallowed.
3. Verbal Contracts: The court emphasized that the terms of a verbal contract must be proven, and any claims for damages or unauthorized charges must be supported by evidence.
4. Judicial Discretion: The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, demonstrating deference to the trial court’s findings in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.