Memita v. Masongsong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ricardo Masongsong (Masongsong), doing business as RM Integrated Services, supplied Magnolia chicken products to Nestorio Memita's (Memita) Vicor Store on a 25-day payment credit basis. From March 11, 1996, to June 25, 1996, Memita's outstanding credit reached P603,520.50. Masongsong made several demands for payment, including a demand letter on July 25, 1996, which went unanswered. Procedural History: Masongsong filed a complaint for collection of sum of money, praying for a writ of attachment. The trial court issued the writ, attaching Memita's vehicles. Memita, in his answer, admitted purchasing goods on credit but denied liability based on alleged questionable deliveries, short deliveries, and possible manipulation of delivery receipts. He also filed a counterclaim for damages. The trial court found that the sales invoices, mostly signed by Memita or his representative, evidenced the transaction. Memita failed to specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of these invoices under oath. The trial court denied Memita's motion for postponement for the hearing on January 22, 1998, citing dilatory tactics and the failure to comply with the three-day notice rule. Memita's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The trial court rendered a decision ordering Memita to pay Masongsong P603,520.50 with interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Memita appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Memita then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Memita argued that he was denied due process and his right to a day in court, that the sales invoices were inadmissible due to lack of proof of authenticity and due execution, and that Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was inapplicable.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Memita was denied his right to due process and a day in court. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the seventy-two (72) sales invoices as evidence. Whether Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the case.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's decision is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of due process and right to a day in court: The Court reiterated that due process requires a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, this opportunity is deemed waived if not availed of. Memita had previously sought six postponements with varying reasons, and the trial court had repeatedly warned against further delays. The denial of the motion for postponement on January 22, 1998, was within the trial court's sound discretion, especially considering the dilatory actions and failure to comply with procedural rules. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are meant to be followed to ensure orderly proceedings and prevent undue prejudice to parties. On the admissibility of the sales invoices: The Court held that Memita failed to specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of the sales invoices under oath, as required by Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. His allegations of "questionable" and "short" deliveries were unsubstantiated and did not meet the standard for a specific denial. The burden of proving fraud or mistake rested on Memita, which he failed to discharge. The sales invoices, signed by Memita or his representative, were the best evidence of the transaction and acknowledged receipt of deliveries without protest at the time they were made. On the applicability of Rule 8, Section 8: The Court found Rule 8, Section 8 applicable. Memita's defense was founded upon written instruments (sales invoices) attached to the complaint. His failure to specifically deny these instruments under oath meant their genuineness and due execution were deemed admitted. The Court clarified that the rule applies even if the answer is verified, as the specific denial under oath is the crucial requirement to contest the instrument's authenticity. Furthermore, Memita's claim that he was not a party to all invoices was not a valid reason to avoid the rule, as he had the opportunity to present evidence to support such a claim, which he failed to do.
Main Doctrine
The genuineness and due execution of a written instrument attached to a pleading are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse party. Failure to specifically deny allegations of questionable and short deliveries, without substantiating facts, amounts to an admission of the validity of sales invoices evidencing the transaction.