CASE #36

G.R. No. 103737 December 15, 1994 NORA S. EUGENIO and ALFREDO Y. EUGENIOvs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
Decision on : REVIEW OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON CITY, BR 39 s DECISION in Civil Case No. Q-34718 as AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS COLLECTION OF SUM OF MONEY

Original Case :

FACTS: Appellants are owners of a store in Marikina, Manila, a once recognized dealer of soft drinks products by the private respondent. Sometime in 1981, Pepsi Cola Bottlers Company filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against them for the unremitted sales of soft drinks in the total amount of P 94,651.00 which they failed to settle despite of written and oral demands. Spouses, on the other hand, claimed that company- oppositor was really the one on the contrary which owed them money. They produced TPRs ( temporary provisional receipts ) issued by the private respondents Route manager Jovino Estrada with total amount of P80,500.00 remitted amount. They also alleged that one of the receipts, Sales Invoice Nos 85366 indicating an amount of P5,631.00 is falsified for the signature reflecting of Noras was not really hers. Further, they claimed that if said figures were to be credited on their account, the difference of P 3,546.02 ought be returned to them by the private respondent. The case of private respondent solely depended on the denial made by Route Mgr Estrada for non-issuance of subject TPRs. Said denial was made before an inter-office investigation which was more of an ad hoc arrangement. Thereafter, Estrada disappeared and was not presented in the witness stand. Trial Court ruled in favor of private respondent. It was however declared a nullity for non-compliance to the constitutional provision on decisions forms and contents. Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to reform said order and thereafter affirmed the subsequent decision released by the latter. Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE TPRs SHOULD BE CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF HEREIN PETITIONERS? SC RULINGS: Rulings of the Supreme Court are based on the following findings: 1. Denial made by Estrada in the inter-office investigation was declared to be non-responsive to the hearsay rule and therefore non-admissible as evidence in court; a) The investigation carried out by the private respondent to Estrada is not per se a judicial nor administrative proceeding with only free flowing questions seen in the minutes presented moreso that no cross- examination was afforded to the Eugenios who were the supposed to be respondent in said proceeding. b) Stenographic notes of the mentioned proceeding were not authenticated under oath by the stenographer who took them. c) Failure of the private respondent to present Eugenio and establish his disappearance through acts imputable to the petitioners. 2. The subject TPRs are concluded to be juris tantum showing that private transactions have been fair and regular and that the ordinary course of business has been followed. It is the responsibility of the company to ensure that their duly authorized agents would remit accounts collected in its behalf and to cast burden again to its customer for their agents infraction is a great injustice. 3. CA rulings theorizing categorical deduction on overdue account was inappropriate without separate concrete evidence from the private respondent. 4. The spurious receipt claimed by the petitioners was once admitted by the private respondents Plant Controller thus, giving rise to their right for reimbursement. By failure of the private respondents to produce the quantum of preponderance proof, case was annulled and set aside. Further the company was ordered to reimburse the petitioners with P5710 representing the overpayment collected from the appellants.