No 2567 Lopez, Quezon July 10, 1997 Tinanggap ko kay G. TAN SHUY ang halagang ...................................................................... (P420,000.00) salaping Filipino. Inaako ko na isusulit sa kanya ang aking LUCAD at babayaran ko ang nasabing halaga. Kung hindi ako makasulit ng LUCAD o makabayad bago sumapit ang ........................., 19 ...... maaari niya akong ibigay sa may kapangyarihan. Kung ang pagsisingilan ay makakarating sa Juzgado ay sinasagutan ko ang lahat ng kaniyang gugol.P...........................................
[Sgd. by respondent]
...........................................
Lagda
Most of the transactions involving Tan Shuy and Guillermo were coursed through Elena Tan, daughter of petitioner. She served as cashier in the business of Tan Shuy, who primarily prepared and issued the pesada. In case of her absence, Vicente would issue the pesada. He also helped his father in buying copra and granting loans to customers (copra sellers). According to Vicente, part of their agreement with Guillermo was that they would put the annotation "sulong" on the pesada when partial payment for the loan was made.
x x x The defendant further averred that if in the receipts or "pesadas" issued by the plaintiff to those who delivered copras to them there is a notation "pd" on the total amount of purchase price of the copras, it means that said amount was actually paid or given by the plaintiff or his daughter Elena Tan Shuy to the seller of the copras. To prove his averments the defendant presented as evidence two (2) receipts or pesadas issued by the plaintiff to a certain "Cariño" (Exhibits "1" and "2" - defendant) showing the notation "pd" on the total amount of the purchase price for the copras. Such claim of the defendant was further bolstered by the testimony of Apolinario Cariño which affirmed that he also sell copras to the plaintiff Tan Shuy. He also added that he incurred indebtedness to the plaintiff and whenever he delivered copras the amount of the copras sold were applied as payments to his loan. The witness also pointed out that the plaintiff did not give any official receipts to those who transact business with him (plaintiff). This Court gave weight and credence to the documents receipts (pesadas) (Exhibits "3" to "64") offered as evidence by the defendant which does not bear the notation "pd" or paid on the total amount of the purchase price of copras appearing therein. Although said "pesadas" were private instrument their execution and authenticity were established by the plaintiff's daughter Elena Tan and sometimes by plaintiff's son Vicente Tan. x x x.14 (Emphasis supplied)
--In his last assigned error, plaintiff-appellant herein impugns the conclusion arrived at by the trial court, particularly with respect to the giving of evidentiary value to Exhs. "3" to "64" by the latter in order to prove the claim of defendant-appellee Guillermo that he had fully paid the subject loan already.
The foregoing deserves scant consideration.
Here, plaintiff-appellant could have easily belied the existence of Exhs. "3" to "64", the pesadas or receipts, and the purposes for which they were offered in evidence by simply presenting his daughter, Elena Tan Shuy, but no effort to do so was actually done by the former given that scenario.15 (Emphasis supplied)
SEC. 20. Proof of private document. - Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)
On cross-examination, [Vicente] reiterated that he and her [sic] sister Elena Tan who acted as their cashier are helping their father in their business of buying copras and mais. That witness agreed that in the business of buying copra and mais of their father, if a seller is selling copra, a pesada is being issued by his sister. The pesada that she is preparing consists of the date when the copra is being sold to the seller. Being familiar with the penmanship of Elena Tan, the witness was shown a sample of the pesada issued by his sister Elena Tan. x x xx x x x x x x x x
x x x. He clarified that in the "pesada" (Exh. "1") prepared by Elena and also in Exh "2", there appears on the lower right hand portion of the said pesadas the letter "pd", the meaning of which is to the effect that the seller of the copra has already been paid during that day. He also confirmed the penmanship and handwriting of his sister Ate Elena who acted as a cashier in the pesada being shown to him. He was even made to compare the xerox copies of the pesadas with the original copies presented to him and affirmed that they are faithful reproduction of the originals.17 (Emphasis supplied)
x x x [T]he preponderance of evidence is on the side of the defendant. x x x The defendant explained that for the receipts (pesadas) from April 1998 to April 1999 he only gets the payments for trucking while the total amount which represent the total purchase price for the copras that he delivered to the plaintiff were all given to Elena Tan Shuy as installments for the loan he owed to plaintiff. The defendant further averred that if in the receipts or "pesadas" issued by the plaintiff to those who delivered copras to them there is a notation "pd" on the total amount of purchase price of the copras, it means that said amount was actually paid or given by the plaintiff or his daughter Elena Tan Shuy to the seller of the copras. To prove his averments the defendant presented as evidence two (2) receipts or pesadas issued by the plaintiff to a certain "Cariño" (Exhibits "1" and "2" - defendant) showing the notation "pd" on the total amount of the purchase price for the copras. Such claim of the defendant was further bolstered by the testimony of Apolinario Cariño which affirmed that he also sell [sic] copras to the plaintiff Tan Shuy. He also added that he incurred indebtedness to the plaintiff and whenever he delivered copras the amount of the copras sold were applied as payments to his loan. The witness also pointed out that the plaintiff did not give any official receipts to those who transact business with him (plaintiff). x x x
Be that it may, this Court cannot however subscribe to the averments of the defendant that he has fully paid the amount of his loan to the plaintiff from the proceeds of the copras he delivered to the plaintiff as shown in the "pesadas" (Exhibits "3" to "64"). Defendant claimed that based on the said "pesadas" he has paid the total amount of P420,537.68 to the plaintiff. However, this Court keenly noted that some of the "pesadas" offered in evidence by the defendant were not for copras that he delivered to the plaintiff but for "mais" (corn). The said pesadas for mais or corn were the following, to wit:x x x x x x x x x
To the mind of this Court the aforestated amount (P41,585.25) which the above listed pesadas show as payment for mais or corn delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff cannot be claimed by the defendant to have been applied also as payment to his loan with the plaintiff because he does not testify on such fact. He even stressed during his testimony that it was the proceeds from the copras that he delivered to the plaintiff which will be applied as payments to his loan. x x x Thus, equity dictates that the total amount of P41,585.25 which corresponds to the payment for "mais" (corn) delivered by the plaintiff shall be deducted from the total amount of P420,537.68 which according to the defendant based on the pesadas (Exhibits "3" to "64") that he presented as evidence, is the total amount of the payment that he made for his loan to the plaintiff. x x xx x x x x x x x x
Clearly from the foregoing, since the total amount of defendant's loan to the plaintiff is P420,000.00 and the evidence on record shows that the actual amount of payment made by the defendant from the proceeds of the copras he delivered to the plaintiff is P378,952.43, the defendant is still indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of P41,047.53 (sic) (P420,000.00-P378,952.43).25 (Emphasis supplied)
In fact, as borne by the records on hand, herein defendant-appellee Guillermo was able to describe and spell out the contents of Exhs. "3" to "64" which were then prepared by Elena Tan Shuy or sometimes by witness Vicente Tan. Herein defendant-appellee Guillermo professed that since the release of the subject loan was subject to the condition that he shall sell his copras to the plaintiff-appellant, the former did not already receive any money for the copras he delivered to the latter starting April 1998 to April 1999. Hence, this Court can only express its approval to the apt observation of the trial court on this matter[.]x x x x x x x x x
Notwithstanding the above, however, this Court fully agrees with the pronouncement of the trial court that not all amounts indicated in Exhs. "3" to "64" should be applied as payments to the subject loan since several of which clearly indicated "mais" deliveries on the part of defendant-appellee Guillermo instead of "copras"[.]26 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Both the Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 90070 were penned by Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
2 RTC Decision, p. 4; rollo, p. 48.
3 Petitioner's Complaint, Annex E; rollo, p.71.
4 Petitioner's Complaint, pp. 1-2; rollo, pp. 67-68.
5 RTC Decision, pp. 16-17; rollo, pp. 60-61.
6 The RTC found that respondents remained indebted to petitioner for the total balance of P41,047.53. However, after a re-computation, this Court finds that a simple mathematical error was committed. Respondents' balance should be reflected as P41,047.57.
7 CA Decision, pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 27-28.
8 Petitioner refers to Exhibits "5," "7," "25," "30," "32," "32-A," "33," "34," "38," "43," "45," and "47." See Tan Shuy's Petition for Review on Certiorari, p. 6; rollo, p. 9.
9 Petitioner refers to Exhibits "65" to "69." See Tan Shuy's Petition for Review on Certiorari, p. 6; rollo, p. 9.
10 Republic v. Regional Trial Court, G.R. No. 172931, 18 June 2009, 589 SCRA 552.
11 Id.
12 Guy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165849, 10 December 2007, 539 SCRA 584; Obando v. People, G.R. No. 138696, 7 July 2010, 624 SCRA 299.
13 See Bernaldez v. Francia, 446 Phil. 643 (2003)
14 RTC Decision, pp. 16-17; rollo, pp. 60-61.
15 CA Decision, pp. 10-11; rollo, pp. 26-27.
16 RTC Decision, p. 17; rollo, p. 61.
17 RTC Decision, p. 4; rollo, p. 48.
18 See Obando v. People, supra note 12; Sy v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 760 (2000), citing Son v. Son, 321 Phil. 951 (1995), Tison v. CA, 342 Phil. 550 (1997), and Quebral v. CA, 322 Phil. 387 (1996).
19 RTC Decision, pp. 16-18; rollo, pp. 60-62; CA Decision, pp. 10-13; rollo, pp. 26-29.
20 Civil Code, Art. 1232.
21 Civil Code, Art. 1245.
22 Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 200 Phil. 150 (1982), (citing Tolentino, Commentaries & Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 276-277 (1962); D. José Castán Tobeñas, Derecho Civil Español, Común y Foral, Vol. II 525 (6th ed. 1943); D. José María Manresa y Navarro, Comentarios al Código Civil Español, Vol. VIII 324 (1932)); Aquintey v. Tibong, G.R. No. 166704, 20 December 2006, 511 SCRA 414, citing Jayme v. Court of Appeals, 439 Phil. 192 (2002).
23 Aquintey v. Tibong, G.R. No. 166704, 20 December 2006, 511 SCRA 414, citing Jayme v. Court of Appeals, 439 Phil. 192 (2002); Civil Code, Art. 1245.
24 Lopez v. Court of Appeals, L-33157, 29 June 1982, 114 SCRA 671, citing Tolentino, Commentaries & Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV 276-277 (1962); D. José María Manresa y Navarro, Comentarios al Código Civil Español, Vol. VIII 324 (1932); Calixto Valverde y Valverde, Tratado de Derecho Civil Español, Vol. II 174(1935)).
25 RTC Decision, pp. 16-18; rollo, pp. 60-62.
26 CA Decision, pp. 11-13; rollo, pp. 27-29.
27 RTC Decision, p. 18; rollo, p. 62; CA Decision, p. 14, rollo, p. 30.