Case Digest (G.R. No. 176868)
Facts:
Solar Harvest, Inc. v. Davao Corrugated Carton Corporation, G.R. No. 176868, July 26, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.In early 1998, Solar Harvest, Inc. (petitioner) and Davao Corrugated Carton Corporation (respondent) agreed—without a written contract—that respondent would manufacture 36,500 corrugated carton boxes for petitioner at US$1.10 each. To commence production, petitioner deposited US$40,150.00 in respondent’s U.S. dollar savings account on March 31, 1998 as full payment. Petitioner alleges the agreement required respondent to deliver the boxes within 30 days of payment; respondent contends it completed the initial 36,500 boxes on April 3, 1998 and that delivery was to be effected by petitioner’s pickup at respondent’s warehouse. Respondent also asserts that petitioner made an additional order of 24,000 boxes, 14,000 of which respondent manufactured without prepayment.
Petitioner, having not received the boxes, sent a demand letter on January 3, 2001 seeking reimbursement; respondent replied on February 19, 2001 asserting production had been completed and demanding removal of the boxes, payment for the additional boxes, and storage fees. On August 17, 2001 petitioner filed a Complaint for sum of money and damages claiming respondent failed to manufacture and deliver the boxes, thus entitling it to rescission and reimbursement.
At trial petitioner presented Bobby Que as its sole witness, who testified to placing the order by telephone and depositing payment but later conceded he did not personally place the order and that, when he inspected the factory, samples lacked petitioner’s logo. Respondent’s witnesses, including Bienvenido Estanislao and Jaime Tan (president), testified the boxes had been produced, that Que inspected samples in October 1998 and again in February 2000, and that petitioner failed to pick up the boxes because the shipping vessel did not arrive; respondent also sold some boxes as rejects and sought storage fees and payment for the unpaid boxes.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) by Decision dated March 2, 2004 dismissed petitioner’s complaint and dismissed respondent’s counterclaims. The RTC found respondent had produced the boxes and that petitioner failed to obtain possession because the ship did not arrive. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated September 21, 2006 and a Resolution of February 23, 2007 denying reconsideration, affirmed the RTC: it held petition...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the factual findings of the RTC and the CA are binding and reviewable only for questions of law by this Court.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to rescission (reimbursement) of the US$40,150.00 paid because respondent breached its obligation to manufacture and...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)