VITARICH CORP. vs.
LOSIN Vitarich had many collectibles from Losin which were not supported by their Charge
2010|Mendoza|Topic: Admissions & Confessions
Admission in this Case: Losin’s issuance of checks was an implied
admission as it recognized that there was an obligation. One does not
issue a check if they don’t have a debt.
Losin was in the fastfood and catering business called Glamours Chicken
House in Cotobato. Since 1933, Vitarich Davao branch had been her supplier of
poultry meat. However, in 1995, her account was transferred to the newly opened
Vitarich General Santos branch.
 From July to November 1996, her meat orders amounted to P921, 083. It
was during these times that her account started to experience problems
because Directo (salesman) delivered stocks to her even without prior
booking, as was the customary process of doing business with her.
o On Aug. 24, 1996, Directo’s services were terminated by Vitarich
without Losin’s knowledge. He left without turning over some
supporting invoices covering Losin’s orders. In addition, Rosa and
Baybay, those who serviced her as well, resigned without turning
over invoices as to her account.
Vitarich sent demand letters to her on Feb. 12, 1997 as to her alleged unpaid
account of P921, 083. Upon checking, Losin discovered she overpaid Vitarich
P500,000. She relayed this to Vitarich and asserted the checks were collected by
Directo.
 It appears that, indeed, Losin issued three checks worth P288,463
dated around August 1996 which were dishonored due to “Drawn
Against Insufficient Funds” or Stop Payments [see “Held” for the
significance of this].
o Vitarich filed a Complaint for Sum of Money vs. Losin, Directo,
Rosa and Baybay for the P921,083 accumulated from July to Nov.
1996.
 Presented charge invoices and statements of accounts to
support Losin’s accountability.
RTC: In favor of Vitarich.
 Losin appealed saying that she made overpayments to Vitarich which should
have been credited. In addition, the RTC erred in ordering the payment of
the three checks with stop payment orders without documentary evidence for
the two checks.
o Presented a copy of the list of checks issued to Vitarich through
Directo, a Statement of Payments Made to Vitarich and bank
statements from RCBC reflecting the checks allegedly given to
Directo.
CA: In favor of Losin. As she gave her checks to Directo, the duly authorized agent of
Vitarich, it was not her fault that he did not give the proceeds to Vitarich and is now “at
large”. The giving of the checks was testified upon by Alona Calinawan, the then
bookkeeper of Vitarich from 1995-1998. In addition, Vitarich’s records show that
Sales invoices.
 "Art. 1921. If the agency has been entrusted for the purpose of contracting
with specified persons, its revocation shall not prejudice the latter if they
were not given notice thereof."
 "Art. 1922. If the agent had general powers, revocation of the agency does
not prejudice third persons who acted in good faith and without knowledge of
the revocation. Notice of the revocation in a newspaper of general circulation
is a sufficient warning to third persons."
o Nowhere in the records can it be found that Losin was notified that
Directo was terminated from Vitarich.
o Vitarich failed to prove that the goods were received by Locsin
o The “Statement of Payments Made to Vitarich” made by Losin’s
bookkeeper, Cinco, coincided with bank statements submitted by
RCBC, thus corroborating Losin’s claim she paid Vitarich.
o Vitarich has the burden of proof, as the plaintiff, which must
produce a preponderance of evidence.
 Preponderance of evidence: the court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their
testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so
far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also
consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number."
 It is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered to be synonymous with the term ‘greater weight of the
evidence’ or greater weight of the credible evidence."
 It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto.
ISSUE: W/N Losin’s issuance of checks were implied admissions that she had a debt
to Vitarich despite arguing she already paid them. – YES.
HELD:
As to fact of payment
1. She was not able to prove that she paid Vitarich. Losin failed to present a
single receipt to prove payment. A receipt, which is a written and signed
acknowledgement that money and goods had been delivered, is the best evidence of
payment, although not exclusively so.
 Her documentary evidence only serve as documentary records of her
business dealings with Vitarich but these are not enough to prove
payment.
 Art. 1249: “The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of
exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of
payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the
fault of the creditor they have been impaired.”
o Even if she hypothetically paid for all her liabilities, no
cash payment nor encashment of the checks was proven.
It was not confirmed that the three checks she issued were
actually cashed by Vitarich (DAIF/Stop Payment).
As to Losin’s liability:
  Records of Vitarich included in its list of collectibles several amounts not
properly supported by Charge Sales Invoice:
o (1) ₱44,987.70; (2) ₱3,300.00; (3) ₱28,855.40; (4) ₱98,166.20;
(5) ₱73,806.00; and (6) ₱93,888.80.
 The Charge Sales Invoices for the amounts listed
were undated and unsigned by Losin, the supposed
consignee of the goods.
 Aside from these collectibles, also included in the list is the amount of
P78,281.00. Although the Charge Sales Invoice with this amount was
undated, the goods were received by Losin’s mother, as attested to
by Rosa and Losin themselves.
 Losin issued checks for amounts 93,888.96 on Aug. 27, 1996,
P59,265 on Aug. 30, 1996 and P144,309.50 on Aug. 31, 1996.
o The Court believes that Losin would not have issued those
checks if she had not received the goods.
 Thus, she impliedly admits that she has
obligations to pay as she received them already
(contrary to her assertion that she did not receive the
goods as per the CA decision).
o The first two checks were received by Vitarich but their
encashment was hindered as she issued a Stop Payment
to Vitarich.

CAB: She is only liable for the amount of P93, 888.96, P59,265.00 (the amounts of
the checks) and P78,281 (the amount equivalent to the goods received by her
mother) or a total of P222,434.96 only.
 She would have been liable as well for the value of the third check
(P144,309.50), but Vitarich did not claim for this amount as it was not listed
in its list of collectibles.
 In addition, the other collectibles in the list also cannot be charged as
Vitarich failed to prove these amounts are chargeable to her.

DISPO: CA reversed, modified judgement.