GR 150912; (May, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150912 ; May 28, 2007
NESTORIO MEMITA, Petitioner, vs. RICARDO MASONGSONG, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Ricardo Masongsong, a distributor of Magnolia chicken products, supplied goods on credit to petitioner Nestorio Memita’s store. Masongsong filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that Memita incurred an unpaid credit of P603,520.50 from March to June 1996. Despite repeated demands, including a formal letter, Memita failed to settle the obligation. Masongsong prayed for payment and a writ of attachment, which the RTC granted. In his Answer, Memita admitted purchasing goods on credit but refused payment, raising defenses of questionable deliveries, short deliveries, discrepancies, and possible manipulation of delivery receipts. He also filed a counterclaim for damages due to the attachment of his vehicles.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision holding Memita liable for the unpaid credit, despite his defenses of short and questionable deliveries.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic centered on the application of procedural and evidentiary rules. The sales invoices, which detailed the transactions and were annexed to the complaint, constituted the primary evidence of the debt. Under the Rules of Court, the genuineness and due execution of these documents are deemed admitted when not specifically denied under oath. Memita’s Answer failed to make such a sworn specific denial. Consequently, he was deemed to have admitted the validity of the invoices evidencing the deliveries and the debt. His general allegations of short and questionable deliveries, unsupported by pinpointing specific invoices or presenting clear contrary evidence, were insufficient to overcome this presumption. The Court found that Memita’s own witnesses did not substantiate his claim of fraud or discrepancy. Furthermore, his belated raising of these issues only after demands for payment undermined their credibility. Therefore, with the debt established by the deemed-admitted invoices and Memita’s defenses unproven, his liability for the principal amount, agreed interest, attorney’s fees, and costs was properly upheld.