Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > December 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 97339 December 14, 1992 - NOSTRAM LABORATORIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 97339. December 14, 1992.]

NOSTRAM LABORATORIES, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and STAR PAPER CORPORATION, Respondents.

Jose C. Guico, Jr. for Petitioner.

Benjamin M. Dacanay for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS; BUYER HAS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT FILMS DELIVERED BUT NOT RETURNED WAS DAMAGED; CASE AT BAR. — Since the private respondent, through its witness, Ms. Barlin, admitted only that it delivered to the petitioner the shorter film, size 20" x 30", but did not admit that she damaged the films by exposing them to the light, the petitioner had the burden of proving that the films were indeed damaged and became unusable Since the petitioner failed to discharge that burden of proof, the Court of Appeals was justified in assuming that the petitioner did not produce the films in court because it made use of them.

2. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; SALE; BUYER ENTITLED TO RECOVER DIFFERENCE IN PRICE WHERE ARTICLES DELIVERED WERE NOT THE CORRECT SIZE. — Nevertheless, the appellate court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s complaint. The films that the private respondent delivered to the petitioner were admittedly not the correct size. The petitioner is therefore entitled to recover the price difference of P3,320.00.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21021 reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, in an action of the petitioner, Nostram Laboratories, Inc., to recover a sum of money with damages against the private respondent, Star Paper Corporation.

On October 23, 1985, the petitioner ordered and purchased from the private respondent P11,070.00 worth of Kodaline films, size 24" x 30." Petitioner’s president, Angel Montenegro, Jr., personally picked up the order from private respondent’s office but upon opening the box inside his dark room, he discovered that the Kodaline films were not the correct size that he had ordered. Instead of size 24" x 30", the box contained size 20" x 30" Kodaline films.

The next day, Montenegro phoned the private respondent and was able to speak with the saleslady. Natividad Barlin. He informed her that the films she gave him were not size 24" x 30" but 20" x 30." Ms. Barlin allegedly answered that size 24" x 30" was out of stock. She requested Montenegro to accept the films and assured him that she would refund the price difference of P3,320.00. Rejecting that proposition. Montenegro returned the films on October 25, 1985. According to Montenegro, upon receipt of the box of films, Barlin opened the box to inspect the films, and thereby exposed them to the light. Realizing her mistake, Barlin returned the package to him and refused to make any refund.

Petitioner filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, an action to recover the purchase price of P11,070.00 with interest. plus P15,000.00 as unrealized profits and attorney’s fees and costs.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

In its defense, the private respondent alleged that it was the petitioner that damaged the films by opening not only the outer box of the individual films but also the inner plastic wrapper which served as protective cover for the sensitive and delicate Kodaline films. Private respondent further alleged that Montenegro was to blame for failing to inspect the box of films before Accepting and paying for them.

The trial court ruled in petitioner’s favor. However, on appeal by the private respondent, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The appellate court observed that the petitioner failed to present in evidence the damaged and undersized films which constituted "real evidence" of the allegedly damaged condition of the films. Citing Section 3(e). Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that "the presumption is that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced," the appellate court believed the private respondent’s assertion that the petitioner may have used the films, for, otherwise, it should have produced them at the trial. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that it was not necessary to produce the films to prove that they were damaged, because the private respondent’s witness, Ms. Parlin, made an admission to that effect. Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, "admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings do not require proof and can not be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake."cralaw virtua1aw library

The admission adverted to is found in the following testimony of Ms. Parlin:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Miss Barlin, what size of Kodaline film that was ordered and purchased by the plaintiff from your company on October 23, 1985?

"A The size of 24 x 30.

"Q Showing you this Exhibit A, Miss Barlin, and this is the official invoice of your corporation, isn’t it?

"A Yes sir.

"Q And the size of the film that was ordered and paid for by the plaintiff, also with the size of 24 x 30. isn’t it?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q And the amount paid by the plaintiff for that particular product with size 24 x 30 also?

"A Yes sir.

"Q and the film that was given by your company was with the size shorter that what he has ordered, isn’t it?

"A Yes, sir." (p. 7, Rollo.)

Since the private respondent, through its witness, Ms. Barlin, admitted only that it delivered to the petitioner the shorter film, size 20" x 30", but did not admit that she damaged the films by exposing them to the light, the petitioner had the burden of proving that the films were indeed damaged and became unusable Since the petitioner failed to discharge that burden of proof, the Court of Appeals was justified in assuming that the petitioner did not produce the films in court because it made use of them.

Nevertheless, the appellate court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s complaint. The films that the private respondent delivered to the petitioner were admittedly not the correct size. The petitioner is therefore entitled to recover the price difference of P3,320.00.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is modified by ordering the private respondent to pay to the petitioner the price difference of P3,320.00 between the size 24" x 30" films which the petitioner ordered and the size 20" x 30" films which it received from the private respondent, with legal rate of interest from October 23, 1935 until fully paid, plus reasonable attorney’s fees in the sum of P3,000.00 and the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Padilla and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 75032-33 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TIU

  • G.R. No. 85186 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO D. ABARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 94214 December 1, 1992 - CONSUELO REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100724 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO J. EVARDO

  • G.R. No. 101345 December 1, 1992 - NONITO J. BERNARDO v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC.

  • G.R. No. 84398 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SUGURAN

  • G.R. Nos. 9627782 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO C. AVENDAÑO

  • G.R. No. 100416 December 2, 1992 - SAMUEL M. SALAS v. PURIFICACION CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 100878 December 2, 1992 - ESTRELLITA AGUILAR v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 69696 December 7, 1992 - AVELYN B. ANTONIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 101680 December 7, 1992 - ENRIQUETA H. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102881 December 7, 1992 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 74886 December 8, 1992 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 97492 December 8, 1992 - CANLUBANG SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92248 December 9, 1992 - VICENCIO T. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100486 December 9, 1992 - FELIX ZEPEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 101122-23 December 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIANO T. ALBORES

  • A.C. No. 3727 December 11, 1992 - NELSON BUENSUCESO v. JOELITO T. BARRERA

  • G.R. No. 65706 December 11, 1992 - TOP FORM MFG. CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 70113 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL ELIGINO

  • G.R. No. 70481 December 11, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 76656 December 11, 1992 - EUTIQUIANO CLUTARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82514 December 11, 1992 - PAZ A. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86491 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO M. RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 87781 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOYET L. POMENTEL

  • G.R. No. 90297 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PAMA

  • G.R. No. 92540 December 11, 1992 - ANIANO TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93664 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEMISTOCLES T. CASTOR

  • G.R. No. 93783 December 11, 1992 - EVANGELINE C. BUCAD v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93828 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO EVARISTO

  • G.R. No. 95509 December 11, 1992 - JOHANNESBURG PACKAGING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96389 December 11, 1992 - REYNALDO ABAYA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 98185 December 11, 1992 - SIBAGAT TIMBER CORP. v. ADOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 100386 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO C. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 101883 December 11, 1992 - LYDIA MELITON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 103982 December 11, 1992 - ANTONIO A. MECANO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 105088 December 11, 1992 - BIENVENIDO OCIER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 107435-36 December 11, 1992 - SAIDAMEN B. PANGARUNGAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80161 December 14, 1992 - CANDIDA MARIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 83030 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO MINDAC

  • G.R. No. 88915 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO IRAN

  • G.R. No. 89980 December 14, 1992 - B.H. BERKENKOTTER & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 97339 December 14, 1992 - NOSTRAM LABORATORIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 98046 December 14, 1992 - CEBU CONTRACTORS CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101431 December 14, 1992 - ARABESQUE INDUSTRIAL PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101682 December 14, 1992 - SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 3806 December 16, 1992 - ARACELI S. DE JESUS v. CONSUELO COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 84731 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR BIENDO

  • G.R. No. 94470 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRED JACOLO

  • G.R. No. 95441 December 16, 1992 - CARLOS O. ELIDO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100880 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO CLAUDIO

  • G.R. No. 102004 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DABON

  • G.R. Nos. 94188-89 December 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BATIS

  • G.R. No. 73535 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CAMAHALAN

  • G.R. No. 82606 December 18, 1992 - PRIMA PARTOSA-JO v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 92144-49 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 92387 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON L. MENDOZA

  • A.M. No. 91-6-007 December 21, 1992 - REQUEST OF JUDGE ALEX Z. REYES

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-5-009-CTA December 21, 1992 - IN RE: ALEX Z. REYES

  • G.R. No. 93073 December 21, 1992 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100294 December 21, 1992 - BENITO A. TIATCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 102409-10 December 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 93986 December 22, 1992 - BENJAMIN T. LOONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98120 December 22, 1992 - FILOMENA R. MANCITA v. CEFERINO P. BARCINAS

  • G.R. No. 104139 December 22, 1992 - LYDIA M. PROFETA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • A.M. No. R-668-P December 21, 1992 - HORACIO M. PASCUAL v. GERRY C. DUNCAN

  • G.R. No. 65230 December 23, 1992 - PROVINCE OF TARLAC v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 91015 December 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAQUILLO L. MIANA

  • G.R. No. 105717 December 23, 1992 - JOSE L. ONG, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50837 December 28, 1992 - NARCISO BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 106094 December 28, 1992 - PSCFC FINANCIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 91115 December 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACALSO K. MAT-AN