Está en la página 1de 2

Case Digests

GR No. 181560: November 15, 2010


Vitarich Corporation, Petitioner, v. Chona Losin, Respondent
Mendoza, J.:
FACTS:
Losin was in the fastfood business, and Vitarich has been her supplier of
poultry. Her account was transferred from Davao to General Santos to new
salesmen and collectors Directo, Rosa and Baybay. However, there had been
problems in collecting invoices because they have changed the custom
delivering stocks without prior booking.
The deficiency amounted to P921,000, and the invoices were not delivered
to Vitarich when the three collectors left Vitarich. Demand letters were sent
to Losin, but she put up the defense that her records state that she has
overpaid at least P500,000. Vitarich then instituted a complaint for a sum of
money against the 3 collectors, which it won.
Losin was not satisfied with the result, so it interposed an appeal to the CA.
The court reasoned that Vitarich has not overturned the prima facie case
presented by Losin, thus Losin won.
Vitarich institutes the current petition for review.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in appreciating the facts of the case
HELD:
In part, yes. Petition is partly granted.
Remedial Law: Questions of Facts
1st Issue:
Aquestion of factexists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. Generally, it may not be reviewed by the Supreme Court, but
the exceptions are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises, or conjectures;(2) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;(3) when there isa grave abuse

of discretion; (4)when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts;(5)


when the findings of fact are conflicting;(6) when in making its findings, the
same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7)when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;(8)when
the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based;(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and
(10)when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
The 7th exception applies in the current case. Since both parties failed to
make proper documentation as to the transactions between them, under
Civil Law, a party alleging a fact must prove it thru evidence. Since Losin has
not shown any receipt as to the alleged overpayment, Vitarich can claim its
invoice.
However, because of the lack of evidence, the Court looked at the checks at
the disposal of Vitarich and concluded that Losin would not have issued
those checks had she not received the goods so delivered to her. The first
two (2) checks were apparently received by the Vitarich but were not
encashed because of Losins instruction to RCBC. The legal interest was also
modified as this was not arising out of a loan or forbearance. It will only be
6%. The interest will become 12% per annumonly from such finality until its
satisfaction, the interim period being deemed to be equivalent to a
forbearance of credit.
Petition PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision of the CA is REINSTATED
subject to MODIFICATIONS. Chona Losin is to pay Vitarich the
amount of P222,435.00 plus attorneys fees.