Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Information | Reference
Case Title:
MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
petitioner, vs. MONARK EQUIPMENT
CORP., respondent. G.R. No. 201001.November 10, 2014.*
Citation: 739 SCRA 432
More... MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP., petitioner, vs. MONARK
EQUIPMENT CORP., respondent.
Search Result
Remedial Law; Evidence; Best Evidence Rule; Documentary Evidence;
1. G.R. No. 201001. November The Best Evidence Rule, a basic postulate requiring the production of the
10, 2014. [*] MCMP CONSTRUCTION original document whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry, is
CORP., petitioner, vs. MONARK contained in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.The Best
EQUIPMENT CORP., respondent. Evidence Rule, a basic postulate requiring the production of the original
Remedial Law; Evidence; Best document whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry, is contained in
Evidence Rule; Documentary Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides: Section 3.
Evidence; The Best Evidence Rule, a Original document must be produced; exceptions.When the subject of
basic postulate requiring the inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
production of the original document other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: (a)
When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
whenever its contents are the
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b)
subject of inquiry, is contained in
When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
Court.The Best Evidence Rule, a produce it after reasonable notice; (c) When the original consists of
basic postulate requiring the numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in
production of the original document court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from
whenever its contents are the them is only the general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is
subject of inquiry, is contained in a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of office.
Court which provides: Section 3.
Original document must be PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of
produced; exceptions.When the the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
subject of inquiry is the
Henry Ll. Yusingco, Jr. for petitioner.
Pestelero Law Office for respondent.
2. custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office. _______________
PETITION for review on certiorari of
the decision and resolution of the * THIRD DIVISION.
Court of Appeals. The facts are
Page 1 of 9
Court of Appeals. The facts are 433
stated in the resolution of the Court.
Henry Ll. Yusingco, Jr. for petitioner.
Pestelero Law Office for respondent. VOL. 739, NOVEMBER 10, 2014 433
433 RESOLUTION VELASCO, JR., J.: MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
For consideration of the Court is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari RESOLUTION
dated April 20, 2012 [1] filed by
MCMP Construction Corp. under Rule VELASCO, JR.,J.:
45 of the Rules of Court. The petition
seeks the reversal of the Decision For consideration of the Court is a Petition for Review on
dated October 14, 2011 [2] and Certiorari dated April 20, 20121 filed by MCMP Construction Corp.
Resolution dated March 9, 2012 [3] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petition seeks the
issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) reversal of the Decision dated October 14, 20112 and Resolution
in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 91860 entitled dated March 9, 20123 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-
Monark Equipment Corporation v. G.R. CV No. 91860 entitled Monark Equipment Corporation v.
MCMP MCMP Construction Corporation. The CA Decision affirmed the
Decision dated November 20, 20074 and Order dated April 28,
20085 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96 in Quezon
3. Construction Corporation. The City (RTC) in Civil Case No.Q-02-47092 entitled Monark
CA Decision affirmed the Decision Equipment Corporation v. MCMP Construction Corporation.
dated November 20, 2007 [4] and The facts of the case are as follows:
Order dated April 28, 2008 [5] MCMP Construction Corporation (MCMP) leased heavy
issued by the Regional Trial Court, equipment from Monark Equipment Corporation (Monark) for
Branch 96 in Quezon City (RTC) in various periods in 2000, the lease covered by a Rental Equipment
Civil Case No.Q-02-47092 entitled Contract (Contract). Thus, Monark delivered five (5) pieces of
heavy equipment to the project site of MCMP in Tanay, Rizal and
Monark Equipment Corporation v.
Llavac, Quezon, the delivery evidenced by invoices as well as
MCMP Construction Corporation. The
Documents Acknowledgment Receipt Nos. 04667 and 5706,
facts of the case are as follows: received and signed by representatives of MCMP, namely, Jorge
MCMP Construction Corporation Samonte on December 5, 2000 and Rose Takahashi on January 29,
(MCMP) leased heavy equipment 2001, respectively. Notably, the invoices state:
from Monark Equipment
Corporation (Monark) for various _______________
periods in 2000, the lease covered
by a Rental Equipment Contract 1 Rollo, pp. 8-25.
(Contract). Thus, Monark delivered 2 Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurred in by
five (5) pieces of heavy equipment Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (Chairperson, 17th Division) and Ramon
to the project site of MCMP in Tanay, A. Cruz; id., at pp. 50-63.
3 Id., at pp. 65-69.
Rizal and Llavac, Quezon, the
4 Penned by Judge Afable E. Cajigal; id., at pp. 26-40.
delivery evidenced by invoices as
5 Id., at pp. 41-48.
well as Documents
434
5. legal action arising from, this Despite the lapse of the thirty (30)-day period indicated in the
transactions. Despite the lapse of invoices, MCMP failed to pay the rental fees. Upon demands made
the thirty (30)-day period indicated upon MCMP to pay the amount due, partial payments were made
in the invoices, MCMP failed to pay in the amount of Php100,000.00 on April 15, 2001 and
the rental fees. Upon demands made Php100,000.00 on August 15, 2001. Further demands went
upon MCMP to pay the amount due, unheeded. As of April 30, 2002, MCMP owed Monark the amount
partial payments were made in the of Php1,282,481.83, broken down as follows:
amount of Php100,000.00 on April
Page 2 of 9
amount of Php100,000.00 on April
15, 2001 and Php100,000.00 on
August 15, 2001. Further demands
went unheeded. As of April 30,
2002, MCMP owed Monark the
amount of Php1,282,481.83, broken
down as follows: Thus, on June 18,
2002, Monark filed a suit for a Sum
of Money with the RTC docketed as
Civil Case No. Q-02-47092. [7] In its Thus, on June 18, 2002, Monark filed a suit for a Sum of Money
Answer filed on July 5, 2002, [8] with the RTC docketed as Civil Case No. Q-02-47092.7 In its
MCMP alleged in defense that the Answer filed on July 5, 2002,8 MCMP alleged in defense that the
complaint was premature as Monark complaint was premature as Monark has refused to give a detailed
has refused to give a breakdown of its claims. MCMP further averred that it had an
agreement with Monark that it would not be charged for the whole
time that the leased equipment
6. it also gives rise to the
disputable presumption adverse to
_______________
MCMP under Section 3(e) of Rule
131 of the Rules of Court that 6 Id., at pp. 28-29.
evidence willfully suppressed would 7 Id., at p. 51.
be adverse if produced. 440 Next, 8 Id., at p. 9.
MCMP claims that the pieces of
435
equipment were not actually
delivered to it by Monark. It bears VOL. 739, NOVEMBER 10, 2014 435
pointing out, however, that the
witnesses of MCMP itself, Jorge MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Corp.
Samonte, a Budget Supervisor of
MCMP, and Engr. Horacio A. was in its possession but rather only for the actual time that the
Martinez, Sr., General Manager of equipment was used although still on the project site. MCMP,
MCMP, both acknowledged the however, admitted that this agreement was not contained in the
delivery of the equipment to the Contract.
project sites. [14] Clearly, the During trial, Monark presented as one of its witnesses,
Reynaldo Peregrino (Peregrino), its Senior Account Manager.
contention of MCMP is false.
Peregrino testified that there were two (2) original copies of the
Evidently, the instant petition must Contract, one retained by Monark, while the other was given to
be dismissed. Nevertheless, the MCMP. He further testified that Monarks copy had been lost and
Court takes notice that the trial court that diligent efforts to recover the copy proved futile. Instead,
imposed upon MCMP a 24 Peregrino presented a photocopy of the Contract which he
personally had on file. MCMP objected to the presentation of
secondary evidence to prove the contents of the Contract arguing
7. the reason for its non-
that there were no diligent efforts to search for the original copy.
production in court; and (3) on the
Notably, MCMP did not present its copy of the Contract
part of the offeror, the absence of notwithstanding the directive of the trial court to produce the
bad faith to which the unavailability same.9
of the original can be attributed. The On November 20, 2007, the RTC issued its Decision finding for
correct order of proof is as follows: Monark as plaintiff, the dispositive portion of which reads:
existence, execution, loss, and
contents. In the instant case, the CA WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing findings and legal premises,
correctly ruled that the above judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and ordering the
defendant to pay the former:
requisites are present. Both the CA
1. Php1,282,481.83 as balance for the rental fees of the subject heavy
and the RTC gave credence to the
equipments (sic) as of April 30, 2002, inclusive of the interests thereof;
testimony of Peregrino that the
2. Twenty-Five percent (25%) of the total amount to be recovered as
original Contract in the possession of payment for the attorneys fees; and
Monark has been lost and that 3. The costs of suit.
diligent efforts were exerted to find SO ORDERED.
the same but to no avail. Such
testimony has remained _______________
uncontroverted. As has been
repeatedly held by this Court, 9 Id., at pp. 57-58.
findings of facts and assessment of
Page 3 of 9
findings of facts and assessment of
436
credibility of witnesses are
_______________
437
Metro Manila, for any legal action arising from, this transactions.
SO ORDERED.
Page 4 of 9
Section3.Original document must be produced; exceptions.When
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following
cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
438
_______________
11 G.R. No. 165487, July 13, 2011, 653 SCRA 765, 777.
Page 5 of 9
439
_______________
440
Page 6 of 9
x x x Nevertheless, it should be noted that this is not the first time
that this Court has considered the interest rate of 36% per annum as
excessive and unconscionable. We held in Chua v. Timan:
The stipulated interest rates of 7% and 5% per month imposed on
respondents loans must be equitably reduced to 1% per month or 12% per
annum. We need not unsettle the principle we had affirmed in a plethora
of cases that stipulated interest rates of 3% per
_______________
14 Id., at p. 15.
15 G.R. No. 175490, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 67, 76-78, citing Imperial
v. Jaucian, G.R. No. 149004, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 517, Tongoy v. Court of
Appeals, No. L-45645, June 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 99.
441
Page 7 of 9
442
_______________
443
444
SO ORDERED.
_______________
17 Thirty (30) days from the date when the second set of invoices were
received by MCMP.
* * Acting member per Special Order No. 1866 dated November 4, 2014.
Page 9 of 9