1
TOPIC: legal status of contracts entered into violating Section. 1491
NFF INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. G & L ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE AND/OR
GERARDO TRINIDAD, Respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner NFF Industrial Corporation is engaged in the business of manufacturing bulk
bags, while respondent G & L Associated Brokerage, Inc. (respondent company) is among
its customers. Respondent Gerardo Trinidad is the general manager of respondent
company.
According to petitioner, on July 20, 1999, respondent company ordered 1,000 pieces of
bulk bags from petitioner, at P380.00 per piece, or a total purchase price of P380,000.00,
payable within 30 days from delivery, covered by Purchase Order No. 97-002 dated July
29, 1999.5 In the said Purchase Order, an instruction was made that the bulk bags were for
immediate delivery to “G & L Associated Brokerage, Inc., c/o Hi-Cement Corporation,
Norzagaray, Bulacan.” Shortly thereafter, respondent company ordered an additional 1,000
pcs. of bulk bags, thus for a total of 2,000 pcs, at the same price per bag and with the same
terms of payment as well as the same instructions for delivery.
Petitioner alleged that the deliveries were duly acknowledged by representatives of
respondent company. Petitioner also averred that all the delivery receipts were rubber
stamped, dated and signed by the security guard-on-duty, as well as other representatives
of respondent company. All deliveries made were likewise covered by sales
invoices. Based on the said invoices, the total sales price is P760,000.00. All the sales
invoices were duly served upon, and received by respondent company’s representative,
one Marian Gabay.
According to respondents, the Purchase Order specifically provides that the bulk bags were
to be delivered at Hi-Cement Corporation to Mr. Raul Ambrosio, respondent company’s
checker and authorized representative assigned thereat. Subsequently, however, the
ordered bulk bags were not delivered to respondent company, the same not having been
received by the authorized representative in conformity with the terms of the Purchase
Order.
Meanwhile, thirty (30) days elapsed from the time the last alleged delivery was made but no
payment was effected by respondent company. This prompted petitioner to send a demand
letter dated October 27, 1999 to respondent company. As respondent company failed to
respond to the demand letter, petitioner followed up its claim from the former through a
series of telephone calls. Again, since no concrete answer was provided by respondent
company, petitioner sent another demand letter dated November 23, 1999; and finally, a
third demand letter dated October 2, 2001. As the demands remained unheeded, petitioner
filed a complaint for sum of money against respondents on December 19, 2001.
Issue:
WON there was valid delivery on the part of petitioner in accordance with law, which would
give rise to an obligation to pay on the part of respondent for the value of the bulk bags.
2
Held:
The resolution of the issue at bar necessitates a scrutiny of the concept of “delivery” in the
context of the Law on Sales. Under the Civil Code, the vendor is bound to transfer the
ownership of and deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is the object of the sale. The
ownership of thing sold is considered acquired by the vendee once it is delivered to him in
the following wise:
Art. 1496. The ownership of the thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is
delivered to him in any of the ways specified in Articles 1497 to 1501, or in any other
manner signifying an agreement that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the
vendee.
Art. 1497. The thing sold shall be understood as delivered, when it is placed in the control
and possession of the vendee.
Thus, ownership does not pass by mere stipulation but only by delivery. Manresa explains,
“the delivery of the thing signifies that title has passed from the seller to the buyer."
Moreover, according to Tolentino, the purpose of delivery is not only for the enjoyment of
the thing but also a mode of acquiring dominion and determines the transmission of
ownership, the birth of the real right. The delivery under any of the forms provided by
Articles 1497 to 1505 of the Civil Code signifies that the transmission of ownership from
vendor to vendee has taken place. Here, emphasis is placed on Article 1497 of the Civil
Code, which contemplates what is known as real or actual delivery, when the thing sold is
placed in the control and possession of the vendee.
In Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc., the concept of “delivery”
was elucidated, to wit:
Delivery has been described as a composite act, a thing in which both parties must join and
the minds of both parties concur. It is an act by which one party parts with the title to and
the possession of the property, and the other acquires the right to and the possession of the
same. In its natural sense, delivery means something in addition to the delivery of property
or title; it means transfer of possession. In the Law on Sales, delivery may be either actual
or constructive, but both forms of delivery contemplate "the absolute giving up of the control
and custody of the property on the part of the vendor, and the assumption of the same by
the vendee."
FULL CASE:
G.R. No. 178169 January 12, 2015
NFF INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
G & L ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE and/or GERARDO TRINIDAD, Respondents.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
3
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse
and set aside the Decision1 dated November 22, 2006 and the Order 2 dated May 22, 2007,
respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA), in the civil case entitled NFF Industrial Corporation v. G
& L Associated Brokerage, Inc. and/or Gerardo Trinidad, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 85060.
The facts follow.
Petitioner NFF Industrial Corporation is engaged in the business of manufacturing bulk bags, while
respondent G & L Associated Brokerage, Inc. (respondent company) is among its
customers.3 Respondent Gerardo Trinidad is the general manager of respondent company. 4
According to petitioner, on July 20, 1999, respondent company ordered one thousand (1,000)
pieces ofbulk bags from petitioner, at Three Hundred Eighty Pesos (₱380.00) per piece, or a total
purchase price of Three Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (₱380,000.00), payable within thirty (30)
days from delivery, covered by Purchase Order No. 97-002 dated July 29, 1999. 5 In the said
Purchase Order, an instruction was made that the bulk bags were for immediate delivery to "G & L
Associated Brokerage, Inc., c/o Hi-Cement Corporation, Norzagaray, Bulacan." 6 Shortly thereafter,
respondent company ordered an additional one thousand (1,000) pieces of bulk bags, thus for a
total of two thousand (2,000) pieces, at the same price per bag and with the same terms of
payment as well as the same instructions for delivery. 7 Accordingly, petitioner made deliveries of
the bulk bags to Hi-Cement on the following dates and evidencedby the following documents, to
wit:
Units Date of Delivery
Amount Sales Invoices
Delivered Delivery Receipts
400 July 30, ₱152,000.00 No. 0226 dated July No. 4113 dated July
1999 30, 1999 30, 1999
1,000 August 4, ₱380,000.00 No. 0229 dated No. 4120 dated
1999 August 4, 1999 August 4, 1999
600 August 6, ₱228,000.00 No. 0231 dated No. 4122 dated
1999 August 6, 1999 August 6, 19998
2,000 ₱760,000.00
Petitioner alleged that the aforementioned deliveries were duly acknowledged by representatives
of respondent company.9 Petitioner also averred that all the delivery receipts were rubber
stamped,dated and signed by the security guard-on-duty, as well asother representatives of
respondent company.10 All deliveries made were likewise covered by sales invoices. 11
Based on the said invoices, the total sales price is Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos
(₱760,000.00).12 All the sales invoices were duly served upon, and received by respondent
company’s representative, one Marian Gabay.13
On the other hand, respondents alleged that on July 20, 1999, it ordered from petitioner,by way of
Purchase Order No. 97-002, one thousand (1,000) pieces of bulk bags from petitioner at a unit
price of (₱380.00) per piece for a total purchase price of Three Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos
(₱380,000.00).14 The said bulk bags were to be used by respondent company for the purpose of
4
hauling cement from Hi-Cement Corporation at Norzagaray, Bulacan, toa dam project in
Casecnan, Nueva Ecija, the respondent company having been designated as one of the many
haulers at the Hi-Cement Corporation.15 On July 26, 1999, respondent company formalized its
offer through a letter containing the same terms as the Purchase Order and providing for other
details regarding the purchase.16
According to respondents, the Purchase Order specifically provides that the bulk bags were to be
delivered at Hi-Cement Corporation to Mr. Raul Ambrosio, respondent company’s checker and
authorized representative assigned thereat. 17 Subsequently, however, the ordered bulk bags were
not delivered to respondent company, the same not having been received by the authorized
representative in conformity with the terms of the Purchase Order. 18
Meanwhile, thirty (30) days elapsed from the time the last alleged delivery was made but no
payment was effected by respondent company. 19 This prompted petitioner to send a demand letter
dated October 27, 1999 to respondent company. 20 As respondent company failed to respond to
the demand letter, petitioner followed up itsclaim from the former through a series of telephone
calls.21 Again, since no concrete answer was provided by respondent company, petitioner sent
another demand letter dated November 23, 1999; and finally, a third demand letter dated October
2, 2001.22 As the demands remained unheeded, petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money
against respondents on December 19, 2001.23
As no settlement was reached during the pre-trial stage, trial proceeded. On January 25, 2005, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered its decision in favor of petitioner. The fallo of the Decision
provides:
PRESCINDING FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of the plaintiff NFF INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION and against the defendant Corporation G
& L Associated Brokerage, Inc., and the latter is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the following:
1. The sum of Php760,000.00 – representing overdue accounts plus interest from the first
demand on October 27, 1999 until fully paid.
2. The sum of Php152,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
3. Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.24
Aggrieved, respondents appealed before the CA. As a result, the decision of the RTC was
reversed in the CA’s Decision 25 dated November 22, 2006, in the following wise: WHEREFORE,
the appealed decision is, hereby, REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Complaint against the
appellant is perforce DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.26
Undaunted, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The same was, however, denied in the
assailed Order dated May 22, 2007.
Hence, this petition stating the following grounds:
I
5
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
ACCEPTEDDELIVERY OF THE BULK BAGS.
II
RESPONDENTS’ CONDUCT PREPONDERANTLY SHOWS THAT DELIVERY OF THE BULK
BAGS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED.
III
FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.
IV.
TO SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL CAUSE UNJUST
ENRICHMENT ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PETITIONER. 27
Simply, the issue before us is whether or not there was valid delivery on the part of petitioner in
accordance with law, which would give rise to an obligation to pay on the part of respondent for
the value of the bulk bags.
The question is basically factual since it involves an evaluation of the conflicting evidence
presented by the opposing parties, including the existence and relevance of specific surrounding
circumstances, to determine the truth or falsity of alleged facts. 28
While it is well settled that factual issues are not within the province of this Court, as it is not a trier
of facts and is not required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence de novo,
nevertheless, the Court has the authority to review and, in proper cases, reverse the factual
findings of lower courts in these instances: (a) when the findings of fact of the trial court are in
conflict with those of the appellate court; (b) when the judgment of the appellate court is based on
misapprehension of facts; and (c) when the appellate court manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 29 Considering that in the
instant case, the findings of the CAare contrary to those of the RTC, a minute scrutiny by this
Court is in order,and resort to duly proven evidence becomes necessary. 30
Petitioner avers that it has delivered the bulk bags to respondent company, which effectively
placed the latter in control and possession thereof, as in fact, respondent company had made use
of the said bulk bags in the ordinary course of its business activities. 31 Conversely, respondents
contend that the evidence on record miserably failed to establish that the alleged deliveries were
received by the authorized representative of the respondents. Thus, there was no delivery at all in
contemplation of law.32
We find respondents' contention devoid of persuasive force.
The resolution of the issue at bar necessitates a scrutiny of the concept of "delivery" in the context
of the Law on Sales.33 Under the Civil Code, the vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and
deliver, as well as warrant the thing which is the object of the sale. 34 The ownership of thing sold is
considered acquired by the vendee once it is delivered to him in the following wise:
Art. 1496. The ownership of the thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is
delivered to him in any of the ways specified in Articles 1497 to 1501, or in any other manner
signifying an agreement that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee.
6
Art. 1497. The thing sold shall be understood as delivered, when it is placed in the control and
possession of the vendee.
Thus, ownership does not pass by mere stipulation but only by delivery. 35 Manresa explains, "the
delivery of the thing x x x signifies that title has passed from the seller to the buyer." 36 Moreover,
according to Tolentino, the purpose of delivery is not only for the enjoyment of the thing but also a
mode of acquiring dominion and determines the transmission of ownership, the birth of the real
right.37 The delivery under any of the forms provided by Articles 1497 to 1505 of the Civil Code
signifies that the transmission of ownership from vendor to vendee has taken place. 38 Here,
emphasis is placed on Article 1497 of the Civil Code, which contemplates what is known as real or
actual delivery,when the thing sold is placed in the control and possession of the vendee. 39
In Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc., 40 the concept of "delivery" was
elucidated, to wit:
Delivery has been described as a composite act, a thing in which both parties must join and the
minds of both parties concur. It is an act by which one party parts with the title toand the
possession of the property, and the other acquires the right to and the possession of the same. In
its natural sense, delivery means something in addition to the delivery of property or title; it means
transfer of possession. In the Law on Sales, delivery may be either actual or constructive, but both
forms of delivery contemplate "the absolute giving up of the control and custody of the property on
the part of the vendor, and the assumption of the same by the vendee." 41
Applying the foregoing criteria to the case at bar, We find that there were various occasions of
delivery by petitioner to respondents, and the same was duly acknowledged by respondent
Trinidad. This is supported by the testimony of petitioner’s Sales Manager, Richard Agustin
Vergamos, an excerpt thereof states:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
ATTY. CORALDE
Q: So, after getting the order of two thousand pieces (2,000 pcs.) and after following the
delivery instructions of Mr. Trinidad, after you agreed to the price of three hundred eighty
pesos per piece (₱380.00/pc) what happened next, if any, Mr. Witness?
A: WE processed the order and as committed to him, we delivered the items few days after
the order.
COURT
Q: How many days?
A: Let me refer, your honor, to the document of the D.R.
xxxx
A: On July 30, 1999, we delivered four hundred pieces (400 pcs.) to Union Cement
Manufacturing Plant under the company name G & L Associated Brokerage, your honor.
ATTY. CORALDE:
7
Q: So after your company delivered on July 30, 1999, what did you do next, if any, Mr.
Witness? A: After I was advised by our deliveryman, I immediately called Mr. Trinidad that
we were able todeliver only four hundred pieces (400 pcs.) of bulk bags.
Q: And what was his reaction to your report, Mr. Witness?
A: At first, I apologized because I was not able to make the five hundred pieces required.
So, in reply…
xxxx
ATTY. CORALDE
Q: So what was his reaction to your report that you delivered only four hundred pieces (400
pcs) of bulk bags instead of five hundred pieces (500 pcs), Mr. Witness?
A: He acknowledged our delivery and thanked me for delivering the item.
xxxx
Q: So, after the conversation with Mr. Trinidad, what happened next, in so far as the second
delivery, Mr. Witness?
A: And in that call, he followed-up to me the balance of delivery.
Q: So what did you tell him?
A: I told him that the two thousand pieces (2,000 pcs.) we agreed was already in process in
our production and the one thousand pieces (1,000 pcs.) is scheduled to deliver a few days
later.
xxxx
Q: No, my question is, who advised you that there was already delivery made on August 4,
1999?
A: Our deliveryman advised me that they have already delivered the one thousand pieces
(1,000 pcs.) bulk bags to the Cement Manufacturing Plant.
Q: What did you do after receiving that information from your deliveryman?
A: After that advise[d], I called again Mr. Trinidad to inform him that we already delivered
one thousand pieces (1,000 pcs.) of bulk bags and he acknowledged our delivery and thank
me that I was able to deliver one thousand pieces (1,000 pcs.), sir.
xxxx
Q: Now, who advised you that there was a delivery of six hundred pieces (600 pcs.)?
A: Our deliveryman, sir.
Q: So, having been informed that, what did you do next, if any, Mr.
8
Witness?
A: And after advised I called again MR. Gerry Trinidad to inform of the delivered six
hundred pieces (600 pcs.) bags.
Q: And then what was his reaction, Mr. Witness?
A: He confirmed our delivery, sir.
Q: So after that, did you have any occasion to talk again personally to
Mr. Gerry Trinidad, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When was this?
A: It was when the time I haveto submit the invoices, sir.
Q: What for these invoices are (sic), Mr. Witness?
A: These invoices have to be submitted to the customer for recognizing the delivery, as
wellas for collection purposes and payment of the orders, sir. 42
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that petitioner has actually delivered the bulk bags to
respondent company, albeit the same was not delivered to the person named in the Purchase
Order. In addition, by allowing petitioner’s employee to pass through the guard-on-duty, who
allowed the entry of delivery into the premises ofHi-Cement, which is the designated delivery site,
respondents had effectively abandoned whatever infirmities may have attended the delivery of the
bulk bags. As a matter of fact, if respondents were wary about the manner of delivery, such issue
should have been brought up immediately after the first delivery was made. Instead, Mr. Trinidad
acknowledged receipt of the first batch of the bulk bags and even followed up the remaining
balance of the orders for delivery.
Thus, the RTC correctly held that:
The evidence adduced by the parties clearly proved that Gerardo Trinidad himself, initially ordered
1,000 pieces of NFF bulk bags at Php380.00 per piece from the plaintiff on or about July 29, 1999.
After testing and checking sample bags, Mr. Trinidad had approved it and even instructed the
Sales Manager of NFF in the person of Richard Bergamo to place and print the bags with G & L
logo as well as control number on all our sides of bags and thereafter agreed to the quantity of
Two Thousand [2,000] pieces as what had been agreed upon during the meeting with the Union
Cement Marketing personnel atthe Cement manufacturing [TSN March 10, 2003, pp. 25]. Initial
delivery of 400 pieces of bulk bags were made on July 31, 1999 and then followed by another
delivery of additional bulk bags on August 5, 1999 while the remaining 600 pieces of bags were
delivered on August6, 1999 to complete the 2,000 pieces ordered by the defendant. All these
deliveries were made to defendant’s designated address at "G & L Associated Brokerage, Inc.,
C/O HI CEMENT CORPORATION, NORZAGARAY BULACAN." These deliveries were made in
compliance with Hi-Cement’s standard/regular operating procedure. It passed thru guard on duty,
who allowed the entry of delivery into the premises of Hi-Cement, which is the designated delivery
site and then a representative of the defendant thereat received the delivered items in behalf of
the defendant.43
9
Respondents’ mere allegations ofnon-delivery and misdelivery deserve scant consideration. On
the matter of non-delivery, We find it bizarre that respondents failed in demanding the delivery of
the bulk bags despite its urgent need to procure the same, as admitted by respondents’ witnesses.
Customarily, failure to deliver the goods could have prompted respondents to follow up on the
orders and ensure that the same is delivered at the earliest opportunity. In fact, if they had not
actually received any quantity of bulk bags, despite their alleged repeated demands, they could
have demanded in writing or resorted to legal action for the enforcement thereof. But there was
dearth of evidence showing the same. On the matter of misdelivery, when the instruction todeliver
the partial five hundred (500) pieces of bulk bags was made by Mr. Trinidad, the latter did not even
mention the name Ramil Ambrosio. The significance of such condition, therefore, falls flat to the
actual delivery made by petitioner at the agreed delivery site. As testified by Mr. Vergamos, to wit:
DIRECT TESTIMONY
ATTY. CORALDE
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, where was the delivery of the bulk bags required for you by Mr.
Trinidad? A: I was instructed by Mr. Gerry Trinidad to deliver the partial five hundred pieces
(500 pcs.) bags toUnion Cement Manufacturing Plant in Norzagaray, Bulacan, under the
name G & L Associated Brokerage, sir.
Q: Did he advise you of specific person to whom this delivery should be made, Mr.
Witness?
A: He did not advise me of any person, sir. 44
Interestingly, respondents presented the payroll of its employees wherein the name Ramil
Ambrosio appeared only in the payroll for the periods of July 16 to 31, 1999, August 16 to 31,
1999 and September 16 to 30, 1999. However, for the period from July 30 to August 6, 1999,
during which the deliveries were made, the name Ramil Ambrosio does not appear in the payroll
of respondent company.45 Thus, it is clear that during the time the deliveries were made on the
agreed dates and for which petitioner in fact delivered the bags to respondent company, there was
no Ramil Ambrosio to actually receive the same as he obviously did not report for work. 46
More importantly, in his testimony, respondent Trinidad categorically admitted receiving the
delivery receipts,which evince the actual delivery of the bulk bags, to wit:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
ATTY. RODRIGUEZ
Q: The plaintiff also presented other Delivery Receipts, Mr. Witness, one (1) dated on
August 4, 1999, No. 0229, previously marked as Exhibit "C" for the plaintiff and another
Receipt No. 0231 dated August 6, 1999, kindly go over these Delivery Receipts, Mr.
Witness, and inform us if you have seen this Delivery Receipts before?
COURT
Q: The one with No. 0229 dated August 4, 1999, you saw it?
A: Yes, your honor, I have seen this.
Q: Where did you see it?
10
A: I have seen this before. This was attached to the billing they have sent us, your honor.
Q: How about the other receipt, Mr. Witness, No. 0231?
INTERPRETER
Witness perusing over the document hand by the counsel.
A: Yes sir, I have already seen this sir.
Q: And on what occasion did you see this Delivery Receipt, Mr. Witness?
A: Thru the billing that they have sent to us, sir.
Q: In other words, you have copies of these delivery receipts?
xxxx
ATTY. RODRIGUEZ
xxxx
Q: Mr. Witness, you mentioned that you have seen these Delivery Receipts before thru the
invoices or billings sent to you by the plaintiff in this case, if these receipts are shown to
you, will you be able to identify them?
A: Yes, sir.47
Similarly, the corresponding sales invoices were duly served upon, and received by respondent
company’s representatives, as shown by the signatures of one Marian Gabay, respondent
Trinidad’s helper at his residence, who received the sales invoices in behalf of respondent
company.48 It is worthy to stress that from the time the copies of the sales invoices were served on
respondents and thereafter, respondents were never heard to complain relative thereto. 49
On this score, We agree with petitioner that it is rather confounding that respondents, despite
receipt,on various occasions, of the billing statements and delivery receipts, failed to even call the
attention of petitioner regarding the matter. 50 In the same vein, despite the subsequent receipt of
demand letters, receipt of which wereduly acknowledged and admitted by respondents, the latter
opted not to question or contest the same, which is quite unusual and extremely inconsistent with
its claim of non-delivery of the bulk bags in question. 51
At any rate, We find merit in petitioner’s argument that despite its failure to strictly comply with the
instruction to deliver the bulk bags to the specified person, acceptance of delivery may be inferred
from the conduct of the respondents. 52 Accordingly, respondents may be held liable to pay for the
price of the bulk bags pursuant to Article 1585 of the Civil Code, which provides that:
ARTICLE 1585. The buyer is deemedto have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller
that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him, and he does any act in
relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a
reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.
As early as Sy v. Mina, 53 it has been pronounced that the vendee’s acceptance of the equipment
and supplies and accessories, and the use it made of them is an implied conformity to the terms of
11
the invoices and he is bound thereby. 54 The Court in that case also held that the buyer’s failure to
interpose any objection to the invoices issued to it, to evidence delivery of the materials ordered as
per their agreement, should be deemed as an implied acceptance by the buyer of the said
conditions.55
Indeed, the use by respondent of the bulk bags is an act of dominion, which is inconsistent with
the ownership of petitioner. As correctly observed by the RTC, the use of the bulk bags by
respondents can be readily verified from the records of the case, to wit:
The plaintiff’s witness affirmatively testified that the personnel of G & L Associated Brokerage used
the bulk bags by loading cement inside the bulk bags and it was lifted by a forklift and lifted the
same towards the truck belonging to G & L Associated Brokerage [TSN May 12, 2003 pp. 13].
Case records even disclosed that the Exhibits L and its submarkings which was identified by the
plaintiff’s witness Richard Agustin Bergamo who took the pictures himself evidentlyshowing that
the defendant being the haulers of the Union Cement, withdrew tonner bags from Union Cement
Bulacan Plan and used these tonner bags supplied by the plaintiff in hauling Union Cement
intended for CP Casecnan. The self-serving claim of Gerardo Trinidad that he was constrained to
make an order to some other suppliers due to alleged non-delivery of the tonner bags likewise,
deserved scant consideration. Defendant Gerardo Trinidad admitted having used more than four
thousand bags for the Casecnan Project but when asked to produce copies of sales invoices and
proof of purchase with respect to these alleged suppliers in connection with Casecnan Project,
said defendant miserably failed to produce even a single proof and instead identified some
delivery receipts covering the period year 2000 contrary to his very claim that the bulk bags were
urgently needed sometime in July 1999 for the Casecnan Project. 56
Also, the fact that respondent company was the sole user of the tonner bags at the Bulacan Plant
of Union Cement during the period pertinent to this case was duly proven by the Certification
issued by Union Cement Corporation, dated July 26,2002, that respondent was the only sole user
of tonner bags at Union Cement Bulacan Plant intended for the CP Casecnan Project(Project)
from August 1999 to June 2001. To bolster this, the pictures taken at the premises of respondent
company situated near the Project clearly depict respondent company’s act of using tonner bags
supplied by petitioner, in hauling Union Cement intended for the Project. 57
At this juncture, the overriding consideration is the evidence adduced that the bulk bags delivered
by petitioner at the Union Cement Plant were actually used by respondents, and this Court cannot
allow respondents to enrich themselves at the expense of another.
Having received the aforesaid billings, the corresponding delivery receipts and demand letters
rendered by petitioner, respondents should have forthwith called the attention of petitioner, if
indeed, its insinuation that the bulk bags themselves have not been delivered or misdelivered were
true.58 In the ordinary course of business, in case of unwarranted claims of payment of a sum of
money, one would immediately protest the same. 59 But no such action was taken by respondents
despite notice thereof.60 Only when respondents were required by the RTC to submit an answer to
the complaint were they constrained to contest the claims of petitioner. If respondent were to be
defeated only by its failure toeffect delivery to the designated representative of respondent, the
latter would inevitably be unjustly enriched at the expense of the former. 61
If at all, respondents’ failure to pay the purchase price may have been due to lack of funds rather
than non-delivery or misdelivery of the bulk bags. On cross-examination, Aurelio L. Gomez,
petitioner’s general manager, testified that respondents admitted after the third delivery that they
were postponing the payment because theyhave no money to pay. Thus:
CROSS-EXAMINATION
12
ATTY. RODRIGUEZ:
Q: How about the other officers of the corporation, did you inquire from them?
A: Not me personally sir, but my credit collector.
Q: Did you inquire from them whatwas the result of the inquiry?
A: This was after the third delivery was made when they said that they have no money to
pay that is why they were postponing the payment sir. 62
Sifting through the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence submitted, the evidence of
petitioner preponderantly established that there was valid delivery of bulk bags, which gives rise to
respondent company’s corresponding obligation to pay therefor. By preponderance of evidence is
meant that the evidence adduced by one sideis, as a whole, superior to that of the other
side.63 Essentially, preponderance of evidence refers to the comparative weight of the evidence
presented by the opposing parties. 64 As such, it has been defined as "the weight, credit, and value
of the aggregate evidence on either side," and is usually considered to be synonymous with the
term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence. 65 It is proof that is
more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto.66 Contrary to respondents’ view, We find that petitioner has successfully established its
case. Accordingly, We give greater weight, credit and value to its evidence.
Finally, with regard to the liabilityof respondent Trinidad, we adopt with approval the findings of the
RTC that he was merely being sued in his capacity as General Manager of respondent
company.67 Since there was no showing of any of circumstances warranting the piercing the veil of
corporate fiction, he cannot be held jointly and severally liable for the outstanding obligation of
respondent company.68 As held in Kukan International Corporation v. Reyes, 69 citing an earlier
case, those who seek to pierce the veil must clearly establish that the separate and distinct
personalities of the corporations are set up to justify a wrong, protect fraud, or perpetrate a
deception, to wit:
The same principle was the subject and discussed in Rivera v. United Laboratories, Inc.:
While a corporation may exist for any lawful purpose, the law will regard it as an association of
persons or, in case of two corporations, merge them into one, when its corporate legal entity is
used as a cloak for fraud or illegality. This is the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction.
The doctrine applies only when such corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify
wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or when it is made as a shield to confuse the legitimate
issues, or where a corporation is the mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the
corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an
instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation.
To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be
established clearly and convincingly. It cannot be presumed. (Emphasis supplied.) 70
All told, We find reason to overturn the findings of the CA and affirm the decision of the trial
court.1âwphi1 Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered to pay petitioner the sum of Seven
Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos (₱760,000.00), representing overdue accounts plus interest from
the first demand on October 27, 1999 until fully paid in accordance with the doctrine laid down in
Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals, 71 then later on in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 72 as well as
attorney’s fees.73
13
At this juncture, it is well to note that under Nacar, in the absence of stipulation by the parties, the
judgment obligor shall be liable to pay six percent (6%) interest per annum to be computed from
default, i.e.,judicial or extrajudicial demand pursuant to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil
Code.74 Furthermore, when the judgment of the court awarding the sum of money becomes final
and executory, the rate of legal interest shall be six percent (6%) per annum from such finality until
its satisfaction,75 taking the form of a judicial debt.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 22, 2006 and the Order
dated May 22, 2007, respectively, of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, dated January 25, 2005, is hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION to the effect that legal interest shall be awarded to petitioner at the following
rates:
a) For the period of October 27, 1999 76 to June 30, 2013,77 the interest rate of twelve
percent (12%) per annum shall be imposed, compounded annually;
b) For the period of July 1, 201378 up to the day prior to the date of promulgation of this
Decision, the interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed, compounded
annually; and
c) From the date of promulgation of this Decision up to full payment, a straight six percent
(6%) interest per annum shall be imposed on the sum of money plus the interest computed
under paragraph (a) and (b) above.79
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
