Case Summary (G.R. No. 176949)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Complaint for sum of money filed by respondent on January 6, 2000 in RTC Caloocan City, Branch 126 (Civil Case No. C-19100). RTC rendered judgment on December 1, 2000. Court of Appeals rendered decision on April 28, 2006 and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated March 9, 2007. The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court followed to the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law and Standards
Governing constitution for the decision: 1987 Constitution (decision date is after 1990). Procedural vehicle: Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari). Relevant Rules of Court provision: Rule 8, Section 7 (action or defense based on document). Evidentiary standard in civil cases: preponderance of evidence (greater weight of evidence). Controlling requirement for judicial awards of attorney’s fees noted in jurisprudence: the basis for such an award must appear in the text/raison d’être of the decision, not only in the dispositive portion.
Factual Background
Respondent alleged that between August 7, 1997 and March 4, 1998 petitioner purchased fabricated steel materials and supplies from Highett amounting to P1,206,177.00, and that petitioner failed to pay despite demand. Petitioner sought a bill of particulars because invoices and purchase orders were not attached; that motion was denied by the RTC. Respondent presented testimony of Tejero (who confirmed delivery and identification of invoices) and Arvin Cheng. Petitioner repeatedly failed to appear for presentation of its evidence, resulting in deemed waiver and termination of its evidence.
RTC Judgment
The RTC found for respondent and ordered petitioner to pay: P1,206,177.00 as principal; P244,288.59 representing accrued interest as of August 31, 1999 and additional interest at 12% per annum until full payment; attorney’s fees in the amount of P150,000.00; and costs of suit.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modification limited to the reckoning point for the 1% monthly interest, setting that reckoning point at 30 days from date of each delivery. The CA otherwise affirmed the RTC’s findings.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The petition raised three principal issues: (1) whether the charge (sales) invoices are actionable documents; (2) whether delivery of the alleged materials was duly proven; and (3) whether respondent was entitled to attorney’s fees.
Petitioner's Arguments
Petitioner argued that charge or sales invoices are not actionable documents and that its failure to deny their genuineness under oath is not tantamount to admission. Petitioner further asserted that the invoices were not properly authenticated by respondent’s witnesses and that the CA erred in affirming an award of attorney’s fees because the RTC decision did not state the basis for such an award in its body.
Respondent's Arguments
Respondent maintained that the petition merely rehashed arguments already considered by the CA. She contended that the charge invoices are actionable documents and were properly identified and authenticated by Tejero, who testified to delivery and to the stamping of the invoices by petitioner’s employee. Respondent also asserted that attorney’s fees were justified and that the basis was clearly established during trial.
Supreme Court Analysis — Actionable Documents
Applying Rule 8, Section 7, the Court observed that a document is “actionable” only when the action or defense is grounded upon that written instrument. The Court concluded that the charge invoices in this case are not actionable documents per se because they merely provide details of the transactions and are evidentiary in nature rather than the source of the cause of action. Respondent’s cause of action was rooted in the contract of sale between the parties, not on the invoices themselves; accordingly, the invoices need not have been attached to the complaint.
Supreme Court Analysis — Proof of Delivery and Authentication
Although invoices are evidentiary and not actionable documents, the Supreme Court found that the charge invoices together with the purchase orders were sufficient to prove that petitioner ordered and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 176949)
Citation and Court
- Reported at 689 Phil. 553, First Division, G.R. No. 176949, dated June 27, 2012.
- Decision penned by Justice Leonardo-De Castro (Acting Chairperson) with Justices Peralta, Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe concurring.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing:
- Court of Appeals Decision dated April 28, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 69180; and
- Court of Appeals Resolution dated March 9, 2007 in the same case.
Parties and Capacities
- Petitioner: Asian Construction and Development Corporation, a duly registered domestic corporation.
- Respondent: Lourdes K. Mendoza, sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators (Highett).
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Civil action for sum of money (collection) initiated by respondent against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 126 (Civil Case No. C-19100).
- Respondent sought recovery of the purchase price for fabricated steel materials and supplies allegedly purchased by petitioner from Highett, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Factual Antecedents
- Complaint filed January 6, 2000 by Lourdes K. Mendoza, alleging:
- From August 7, 1997 to March 4, 1998, petitioner purchased from Highett various fabricated steel materials and supplies amounting to P1,206,177.00 (exclusive of interests).
- Despite demand, petitioner failed or refused to pay the said amount.
- Respondent was compelled to engage counsel due to petitioner’s failure/refusal to pay.
- Petitioner moved for a bill of particulars on the ground that no copies of purchase orders and invoices were attached to the complaint; RTC denied the motion in an Order dated March 1, 2000.
- Petitioner filed an Answer with Counterclaim, denying liability and asserting lack of cause of action.
- Evidence presented by respondent:
- Testimony of Artemio Tejero (salesman of Highett) who confirmed delivery of supplies and materials to petitioner.
- Testimony of Arvin Cheng, General Manager of Highett.
- Petitioner’s presentation of evidence was deemed waived/terminated due to repeated non-appearance of petitioner and its counsel.
Regional Trial Court Ruling
- RTC Decision dated December 1, 2000 (penning judge: Judge Luisito C. Sardillo) rendered judgment for respondent, ordering petitioner to pay:
- P1,206,177.00 — principal amount (purchase price of materials and supplies delivered);
- P244,288.59 — accrued interest as of August 31, 1999, plus additional interest to be computed at 12% per annum until full payment;
- P150,000.00 — attorney’s fees; and
- Costs of suit.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision with modification.
- Modification: the reckoning point for computation of the 1% monthly interest shall be 30 days from date of each delivery.
- CA Decision dated April 28, 2006; CA Resolution dated March 9, 2007 denying reconsideration.
Issues Raised in the Petition
- Whether the charge invoices are actionable documents.
- Whether the delivery of the alleged materials was duly proven.
- Whether respondent is entitled to attorney’s fees.
Petitioner's Arguments (as presented to the Supreme Court)
- Charge or sales invoices are not actionable documents; therefore, petitioner’s failure to deny under oath their genuineness and due execution does not constitute an admission.
- The invoices offered as evidence were not properly authenticated by respondent’s witnesses; respondent thus failed to prove her claim.
- The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of attorney’s fees because the RTC Decision failed to expressly state the basis for the award.
Respondent's Arguments (as presented to the Supreme Court)
- Petition should be dismissed as the arguments are a rehash of those presented and already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.
- Charge invoices are actionable documents (respondent’s position) and were properly identified and authenticated by witness Tejero, who testified that the invoices were stamped received by petitioner’s employee upon delivery.
- Award of