Mijares v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Metro Drug, Inc. (Metro Drug) filed a complaint against spouses Editha Mijares and Glicerio T. Mijares (petitioners), doing business under the style "Aklan Drug," for the recovery of P32,034.42 representing the value of pharmaceutical products purchased and received by petitioners. Petitioners denied the allegations, claiming that "Aklan Drug" was a sole proprietorship of Editha Mijares and that they never ordered or received the disputed products. The trial court found that the deliveries were made to a drugstore within the Ospital ng Maynila compound, which was operated by a cooperative managed by Editha Mijares until October 1986. Subsequently, Solomon Silverio, Jr. became the new lessee and operator of a drugstore in the same location, operating under the name "Farmacia delos Remedios." The deliveries in question were made to this new operator, and the payments received were by individuals not employed by petitioners. A check issued by Solomon Silverio, Jr. for partial payment was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Metro Drug's complaint, finding that the products were not purchased, delivered, or received by the petitioners, and thus they were not liable. The RTC also awarded moral damages and attorney's fees to the petitioners. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, holding petitioners liable based on the premise of a perfected contract of sale and the alleged continuity of operations and credit line, leading to the belief that petitioners were still the owners. The CA found that the deliveries were made with the consent of the petitioners as owners. The Petition: Petitioners sought the reversal of the CA decision, arguing that the CA erred in reversing the RTC decision and in concluding that the merchandise was purchased, delivered, and received by them, thereby ordering them to pay the amount claimed, with interest and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court and concluding that the merchandise covered by Exhibits A to H were purchased by, delivered to, and received by the petitioners. Whether the doctrine of estoppel applies against the petitioners. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the petitioners to pay the respondent the sum of P32,034.43 with interest, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 1992, and its Resolution dated January 10, 1994, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila dated March 8, 1991, is REINSTATED only insofar as it dismisses Metro Drug's complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged error of the Court of Appeals in reversing the RTC decision and concluding that the merchandise was purchased, delivered, and received by the petitioners: The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented by the petitioners, including the testimony of Editha Mijares and the Contract of Lease with Solomon Silverio, Jr., was more than sufficient to overcome the uncorroborated testimony of Metro Drug's salesman/collector, Dioscoro Lamenta. The Court noted that by October 1986, Editha Mijares was no longer involved in the operation of the drugstore, and a new entity, "Farmacia delos Remedios" operated by Solomon Silverio, Jr., took over. The deliveries in question were made to this new operator, and the check issued for partial payment was drawn by Silverio. Therefore, there was no meeting of the minds between Metro Drug and the petitioners, and no contract of sale could have arisen, precluding any cause of action in favor of Metro Drug against the petitioners. On the applicability of estoppel: The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of estoppel was unavailing against the petitioners. The Court reiterated the elements of estoppel, emphasizing the requirement of lack of knowledge and the means of knowledge on the part of the party claiming estoppel. It found that Editha Mijares had informed Dioscoro Lamenta of the change in ownership and management, referring him to Solomon Silverio for collection. Furthermore, even if such information was not conveyed, Metro Drug, through Lamenta, had the means of knowledge to ascertain the true ownership of the drugstore. The issuance of a check by Solomon Silverio under the name "Farmacia delos Remedios," coupled with Editha Mijares' instruction to collect from Silverio, constituted highly suspicious circumstances that should have prompted Metro Drug to conduct proper inquiries. Lamenta's own testimony revealed that he did make inquiries but could not recall the results, indicating that Metro Drug had the means to discover the truth but failed to exercise reasonable diligence, thus barring them from invoking estoppel. On the award of moral damages and attorney's fees: The Supreme Court deleted the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor of the petitioners. The Court held that malicious prosecution requires malice and the absence of probable cause, and that mere filing of a suit does not render a person liable if done in good faith. Petitioners failed to show that Metro Drug was motivated by bad faith when it instituted the collection action. The Court stated that if damage results from the filing of a complaint, it is damnum absque injuria unless malice or bad faith is proven. Therefore, the award for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation was also deleted.
Main Doctrine
A party claiming the benefit of estoppel must not have been misled through their own want of reasonable care and circumspection; a lack of diligence is fatal to the claim of estoppel. If a party has the means of knowledge to ascertain the truth and actually avails of such means, they cannot invoke estoppel.