This case summary involves a dispute between Vitarich Corporation and Chona Losin over unpaid invoices totaling P921,000. Losin claimed to have overpaid by P500,000 based on her records, but did not provide receipts. The Court of Appeals ruled in Losin's favor, finding Vitarich did not overcome Losin's prima facie case. The Supreme Court partly granted Vitarich's petition for review, ruling that since neither party properly documented the transactions, Vitarich could claim the invoices as Losin did not prove overpayment. However, the Court also found evidence of checks from Losin to Vitarich, implying goods were received. The decision of the Court of Appeals was re
This case summary involves a dispute between Vitarich Corporation and Chona Losin over unpaid invoices totaling P921,000. Losin claimed to have overpaid by P500,000 based on her records, but did not provide receipts. The Court of Appeals ruled in Losin's favor, finding Vitarich did not overcome Losin's prima facie case. The Supreme Court partly granted Vitarich's petition for review, ruling that since neither party properly documented the transactions, Vitarich could claim the invoices as Losin did not prove overpayment. However, the Court also found evidence of checks from Losin to Vitarich, implying goods were received. The decision of the Court of Appeals was re
This case summary involves a dispute between Vitarich Corporation and Chona Losin over unpaid invoices totaling P921,000. Losin claimed to have overpaid by P500,000 based on her records, but did not provide receipts. The Court of Appeals ruled in Losin's favor, finding Vitarich did not overcome Losin's prima facie case. The Supreme Court partly granted Vitarich's petition for review, ruling that since neither party properly documented the transactions, Vitarich could claim the invoices as Losin did not prove overpayment. However, the Court also found evidence of checks from Losin to Vitarich, implying goods were received. The decision of the Court of Appeals was re
This case summary involves a dispute between Vitarich Corporation and Chona Losin over unpaid invoices totaling P921,000. Losin claimed to have overpaid by P500,000 based on her records, but did not provide receipts. The Court of Appeals ruled in Losin's favor, finding Vitarich did not overcome Losin's prima facie case. The Supreme Court partly granted Vitarich's petition for review, ruling that since neither party properly documented the transactions, Vitarich could claim the invoices as Losin did not prove overpayment. However, the Court also found evidence of checks from Losin to Vitarich, implying goods were received. The decision of the Court of Appeals was re
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 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.