551 Phil. 241
CARPIO, J.:
The evidence ineluctably show that the transaction between [Masongsong] and [Memita] is documented by the Sales Invoices annexed as Annexes A to TTT of the Complaint. In his Answer, [Memita] admits the purchases but raised the issue of questionable and short deliveries. [Memita] also speculates that [Masongsong] may have manipulated the receipts.Memita failed to testify in his own behalf. Memita and his counsel, Atty. Allan L. Zamora (Atty. Zamora), failed to appear for the hearing on 22 January 1998. Atty. Zamora filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement on 21 January 1998 because he had to "proceed to Iloilo City to attend to an urgent personal matter that requires his personal attendance." Furthermore, Atty. Zamora alleged that only minor details were being discussed in the negotiation for the settlement of the collection case.[10] The trial court, however, agreed with the reasons given by Masongsong's counsel, Atty. Vicente Sabornay (Atty. Sabornay). Atty. Sabornay stated that the parties and their counsels expressly agreed in the 9 December 1997 hearing that the setting for 22 January 1998 was intransferrable in character. Moreover, the motion for postponement did not conform to the three-day notice rule. Finally, Atty. Sabornay manifested that Memita's settlement offer was not acceptable to Masongsong. The trial court thus denied the motion for postponement and deemed the case submitted for decision.[11]
As stated, the Sales Invoices were attached as annexes to the Complaint but [Memita's] Answer failed to explicitly deny or contest the genuineness and due execution of any of the receipt or of the signature of [Memita] or of his duly authorized representative appearing in the Sales Invoice acknowledging receipt of the goods. It is to be noted that except for two (2) Sales Invoices - Sales Invoice No. 6557 dated June 4, 1996 and Sales Invoice No. 6300 dated May 29, 1996 - all sales invoices bears [sic] the signature of [Memita] or his authorized representative acknowledging receipt of the deliveries.
x x x x
There are Sales Invoices where the signature of [Masongsong's] Salesman, Mr. Joel Go, appears in the portion, "Payment Received by:". Mr. Go explained that these signatures were inadvertently written but that he received no payment as [Memita] always obtains the goods on credit. [Memita] pays only after a period of time and the payment is always in the form of a check.
The Court gives credence to this declaration of Mr. Go as the testimony is credible and was not contradicted. Moreover, [Memita] failed to explicitly raise the defense of payment in his Answer. It is reiterated that the Sales Invoices were attached as annexes to the Complaint and their genuineness and due execution are deemed admitted for failure of [Memita] to deny them under oath.
In his Answer, [Memita] expressly admitted the deliveries of the frozen poultry products made by [Masongsong] and that these deliveries were not paid. [Memita], however, claims that there were short deliveries, questionable deliveries or discrepancies. Implicitly [Memita] admits that the [Masongsong's] claim is substantially correct but there were short deliveries, questionable deliveries or discrepancies.
It is reiterated that all the deliveries are evidenced by Sales Invoices on which the whole of [Masongsong's] claim is based. Defendant failed to point out any particular Sales Invoice which substantiates his claim of short deliveries or questionable deliveries.
It is also reiterated that as [Masongsong] declared, [Memita] belatedly raised the issue of short deliveries and discrepancies after he failed to pay and demands were made on him to pay.
To bolster his claim of short deliveries and discrepancies, [Memita] attempted to show to the Court that there were other documents, namely: the Load Order Manifest and the Issue Form wherein the actual deliveries to the defendant are reflected. In so far as the Issue Form is concerned, this document reflects the quantity of goods obtained by [Masongsong] from San Miguel Foods for delivery to [Masongsong's] customers. The Issue Form does not at all show the quantity of goods delivered to each particular customer of [Masongsong]. The Load Order Manifest is [Masongsong's] own document which reflects the quantity of goods to be delivered to the customer. When the goods are actually delivered, a Sales Invoice is prepared wherein the details of the transaction is reflected. It is on this Sales Invoice where [Memita] or his representative affixes his signature acknowledging receipt of the goods. Clearly, the Sales Invoice is the document evidencing the transaction between the parties. Clearly, there was no need for [Masongsong] to preserve the Load Order Manifest as it is a private document and is not the evidence of the transaction between the parties.
[Memita] himself could have taken the witness stand and pointed out the alleged short deliveries and discrepancies. But [Memita] dilly-dallied and took the risky and speculative move of calling and presenting as his witnesses, personnel of the San Miguel Foods, Inc. The testimonies of the two (2) San Miguel officials, namely Mr. Defante and Mr. Reynaldo Geaga, strengthened the claim of [Masongsong] that the Issue Form[s] do not reflect the quantity of frozen foods delivered to [Memita]. Moreover, Mr. Defante categorically declared that he was not privy to the transaction between [Masongsong] and [Memita] but as Sales Manager, it was his duty to win back the patronage of [Memita]. The only favorable declaration of Mr. Defante for [Memita] is that [Memita] used to be a good customer in the past. This, by itself, however, does not carry much load for [Memita's] cause.
The testimonies of Mr. Defante and Mr. Geaga are credible as they are disinterested witnesses. The testimonies bind [Memita] who presented them. This is fundamental.
The testimony of [Memita's] other witness, Mr. Alberto Valenzuela, a former employee of San Miguel Foods is not of much help to [Memita's] cause. For while Mr. Valenzuela asserts that during his tenure with San Miguel Foods, the Issue Form for the quantity of stocks to be delivered tallies with the Sales Invoice, this situation obtained at the time when [Memita] directly made purchases from San Miguel. He is not in the position to say whether this procedure was adopted by [Masongsong].
Be that as it may, it is quite obvious that the best evidence of the transaction between [Masongsong] and [Memita] is the Sales Invoice for this document reflects the particulars of the transaction between the parties for a specific day. In this document, [Memita] acknowledges receipt of the deliveries made by [Masongsong].
In the course of [Masongsong's] cross-examination, he was confronted with UCPB Check No. 05760 dated July 1, 1996. [Masongsong] admits that he received the check as payment of [Memita] before the filing of the present suit but explained that the payment is for [Memita's] other past account. This claim of [Masongsong] is credible. Moreover, the issue of payments or that the account or portions of it was already paid was not even raised in [Memita's] Answer. In fact, this issue is not one of those submitted for resolution as reflected in the Pre-Trial Order. Finally, the foregoing checks [sic] affirms the claim of [Masongsong] that [Memita] does not pay on delivery of the goods but on [sic] a cumulative manner and with the use of a check.[9]
In his Motion for [R]econsideration, [Memita's] counsel failed to justify his failure to appear in the hearing. Even if it is true that he has to visit a sick aunt in Iloilo, the visit could have been timed late in the day for there are several ferry boats [from Bacolod] going to Iloilo late in the afternoon.
The records disclose that [Memita] had asked for several postponements, specifically on January 17, 1997, January 22, 1997, August 18, 1997, September 17, 1997, December 19, 1997 and lastly January 22, 1998.[14]
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:On 19 May 1998, Memita notified the trial court of his desire to file an appeal before the appellate court. In his brief, Memita assigned the following errors of the trial court:
- [Memita] is ordered to pay [Masongsong] the sum of P603,520.50. This amount shall bear interests [sic] at the rate of Twelve (12) per cent per annum reckoned from the time this suit was filed until paid;
- [Memita] is ordered to pay attorney's fees of ten (10) per cent of the foregoing principal amount;
- Defendant is ordered to pay litigation expenses of P5,301.40.[15]
- In denying [Memita] of his right to a day in court and/or right to due process;
- In admitting as evidence the machine copies of the seventy-two (72) pieces [of] sales invoices (Exhibit "A") despite the patent lack of proof of due execution and authenticity; and
- In holding that [Memita] acknowledged receipt of the deliveries made by [Masongsong].[16]
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is ordered DISMISSED and the challenged Decision dated April 30, 1998 is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.[17]
- [Memita] was denied of his right to a day in court when he was not allowed by the [trial] court to testify.
- [Memita] was denied of his right to due process when he was precluded by the [trial] court from offering his documental [sic] exhibits for admission.
- Rule 8, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, relied upon by the Honorable Court of Appeals[,] does not apply because the Answer with Counterclaim of [Memita] was verified and under oath.
- Also, Rule 8, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, is inapplicable as petitioner does not appear to be a party to all of the seventy-two (72) sales invoices admitted in evidence by the lower court.
- The seventy-two (72) sales invoices should have been excluded and denied admission for failure of [Masongsong] to prove in the course of the trial their authenticity and due execution.[18]
[P]rocedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights, as in this case. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only when for the most persuasive of reasons they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. x x x While it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, this does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution.
Sec. 8. How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for inspection of the original instrument is refused. (Emphasis added)Section 10 of the same Rule further describes how a specific denial should be made:
Sec. 10. Specific denial. - A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial. (Emphasis added)Memita, in alleging "questionable" and "short" deliveries, in effect alleges that Masongsong committed fraud. As the party invoking fraud, Memita has the burden of proof. Whoever alleges fraud or mistake affecting a transaction must substantiate his allegation, since it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns and private concerns have been fair and regular.[33]