F.E. Zuellig (M), Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a collection case initiated by F.E. Zuellig, Inc. (petitioner) against Tomas Valles, doing business as James Auto Supply (respondent), for the sum of P16,121.14. This amount represented the alleged cost of automotive parts purchased on credit and delivered to Valles' store on June 15, 1977. Valles denied the claim, stating he would pay if the original sales invoice could be produced for his examination. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the complaint, finding that F.E. Zuellig, Inc. failed to produce the original sales invoice and to prove the authority of the individual who allegedly received the goods. However, on a motion for reconsideration, a different judge set aside this decision, deeming a duplicate original of the sales invoice sufficient to establish liability. This ruling was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeals, which found the submitted document not to be a duplicate original and deemed the testimony regarding its authenticity not credible. 3. The Petition: F.E. Zuellig, Inc. filed this petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, faulting the Court of Appeals for rejecting the submitted sales invoice (Exhibit A) and for overturning the trial court's factual findings. The core issue presented is the admissibility and credibility of Exhibit A as proof of the respondent's liability, with the petitioner arguing that the duplicate original should have been accepted as evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether Exhibit A, a duplicate original of the sales invoice, is admissible as proof of the private respondent's liability, considering its authenticity and the failure to produce the original. Whether the testimony of Cesar T. Ong, the petitioner's Administrative Officer, regarding the signing of the sales invoice by Benigno Tiu, is credible, particularly concerning Tiu's identity and authority. Whether the petitioner sufficiently proved the due execution and genuineness of the duplicate sales invoice, and whether the burden of proof was properly allocated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and denied the petition, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility and credibility of Exhibit A: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Exhibit A could not be considered an authentic duplicate original. The signature of Benigno Tiu was written in blue ink, not a carbon reproduction, and its genuineness was disputed. The Court emphasized that it was the petitioner's burden to prove the due execution and genuineness of the duplicate sales invoice, not for the respondent to disprove it. The failure to produce the original sales invoice rendered the duplicate copy more suspect, especially given the circumstances surrounding its non-production due to the salesman's departure. On the credibility of Cesar T. Ong's testimony: The Court found Cesar T. Ong's testimony not convincing. His description of Tiu's physical appearance differed from the private respondent's counsel's description, and his explanation for being present during the delivery was questioned. Furthermore, the fact that Tiu's alleged signature was in block letters, not the usual way of signing, and the absence of similar signatures on other acknowledged sales invoices, cast doubt on its authenticity and Tiu's supposed authority to receive deliveries. On the petitioner's burden of proof: The Court reiterated that the petitioner, as the plaintiff, had the obligation to establish the genuineness of Tiu's signature on the duplicate sales invoice. The petitioner could not shift this burden to the private respondent by highlighting the latter's failure to present Tiu. The Court concluded that Valles was justified in refusing to pay until the original sales invoice was produced, as the duplicate might have been fabricated to foist an obligation for merchandise not received. The petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that a duplicate original of a sales invoice, where the signature of the recipient was written in ballpen ink and not a carbon reproduction, and whose genuineness was not established, is inadmissible as proof of delivery and liability, especially when the original could not be produced and the witness's testimony regarding the signature was not credible.