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.
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.
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.
