SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. 7532           September 20, 1913
HATIM CAFURE vs. NICOMEDES MORALES, ET AL. -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. 7532           September 20, 1913

HATIM CAFURE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NICOMEDES MORALES and CRISPINA MORCO, defendants.
CRISPINA MORCO, Appellant.

Ceferino M. Villareal for appellant.
Singson, Ledesma and Lim, and Tirso de Irureta Goyena for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:

The purpose of the present action was to recover a balance due the plaintiff from the defendants resulting from certain commercial transactions covering a period from the 14th day of March, 1905, to the 18th day of November, 1907. The plaintiff alleges that during said period he sold to the defendants, upon commission, merchandise amounting to the sum of P2,229.05 and that there is still remaining due and unpaid on said transactions the sum of P666.05.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The defendants each presented a separate answer. They eachm, in addition to a general denial, alleged that they each had been prosecuted for the crime of estafa, resulting from said commercial transactions, and had been absolved from all criminal liability in said action and that, therefore, they are not liable civilly for the amount demanded by the plaintiff.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The record shows that some time prior to the commencement of the present action a criminal action had been commenced against the defendants for the crime of estafa, resulting from the commercial transactions described by the plaintiff in his present complaint. The record also shows that each of the defendants had been absolved from said alleged criminal liability.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Honorable Percy M. Moir, judge, rendered a judgment against the defendants for the sum of P666.05, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the 25th day of July, 1910. From that judgment each of the defendants gave notice of his intention to appeal. The defendant, Crispina Morco, only perfected her appeal. The only question, therefore, presented to this court, is whether or not the appellant, Crispina Morco, is responsible for the payment of the said sum of P666.05.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

From an examination of the record we find the following facts:chanrobles virtual law library

1. That during the trial of the cause the plaintiff presented certain vales and certain receipts relating to commercial transactions between him and the defendants. These vales and receipts were signed by the defendants separately. There is not a word in the record to indicate that the accounts which the defendants had with the plaintiff were joint accounts. Each transaction had between the plaintiff and defendants shows that it was a separate transaction with each of the defendants. No joint responsibility is shown on the part of the defendants to the plaintiff.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

2. During the period from March 14, 1905, to November 18, 1907, the record shows that the defendant and appellant, Crispina Morco, took merchandise of various classes from the plaintiff to sell on commission; that the total amount of merchandise so taken was the sum of P424 (see Exhibits B, C, E, and G); that during the same period the record shows that the defendant and appellant, Crispina Morco, paid to the plaintiff the sum of P478 (see Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and E). The foregoing purchases and the foregoing receipts showing payment are corroborated by the exhibits presented by the plaintiff. These exhibits show that the defendant and appellant has paid to the plaintiff a sum larger than the sum total her purchases.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In view of the fact, therefore, that the record shows no joint responsibility between the defendants to the plaintiff, and in view of the fact that the defendant and appellant, Crispina Morco, has fully paid and more than fully paid for all the defendants which she purchased from the plaintiff, and without discussing the other questions presented by the appellant, it is hereby ordered that the judgment of the lower court, so far as it affects the defendant and appellant, Crispina Morco, is hereby reversed, without costs, and the said defendant and appellant is hereby relieved from any responsibility under the complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.