Memita v.
Masongsong (Short title) - The trial court thus denied the motion for postponement and deemed the
GR # 150912 | May 28, 2007
Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari of CA Decision
Petitioner: Nestorio Memita
Respondent: Ricardo Masongsong
(Rule 8, Rules on Civil Procedure)
DOCTRINE
Whoever alleges fraud or mistake affecting a transaction must substantiate his
allegation, since it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns and
private concerns have been fair and regular.
FACTS
- Masongsong, under the business name of RM Integrated Services, was the
distributor of San Miguel Foods Inc.s Magnolia chicken products.
Masongsong supplied Magnolia chicken products on a 25-day payment
credit to Memitas Store in Burgos Public Market, Bacolod City.
- Masongsong filed a complaint before the trial court and alleged that from 11
March 1996 to 25 June 1996, Memitas credit on goods purchased already
reached the amount of P603,520.50 to which Masongsong made several
demands upon Memita to pay before the complaint.
- Aside from payment, Masongsong also prayed for the issuance of a writ of
attachment against Memita.
- RTC: Ordered the issuance of a writ of attachment against Memita taking
into account the following: (1) the allegations of the verified complaint; (2) the
testimonies of Masongsong and Joel Go, his sales person; and (3)
Masongsongs bond.
- According to the sheriffs return of service, the Provincial Sheriff issued a
notice of levy on attachment to the Registrar of the Land Transportation
Office and a notice of embargo to the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City.
- In his answer, Memita did not deny that he purchased goods on credit from
Masongsong and further stated that his refusal to pay was based on: (1)
questionable deliveries; (2) short deliveries and discrepancies; and (3)
possible manipulation of delivery receipts.
- Memita made a counterclaim and asked for actual damages for the seizure
of two of his vehicles; moral damages; exemplary damages; and attorneys
fees. Trial proceeded soon thereafter.
- Memita failed to testify in his own behalf. Memita and his counsel, Atty.
Zamora, failed to appear for the hearing.
- Atty. Zamora filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement because he had to
proceed to Iloilo City to attend to an urgent personal matter that requires his
personal attendance. Furthermore, he alleged that only minor details were
being discussed in the negotiation for the settlement of the collection case.
- The trial court, however, agreed with the reasons given by Masongsongs
counsel, Atty. Sabornay, who stated that the parties and their counsels
expressly agreed that the setting for 22 January 1998 was intransferrable in
character. Moreover, the motion for postponement did not conform to the
three-day notice rule.
- Atty. Sabornay manifested that Memitas settlement offer was not acceptable
to Masongsong.
case submitted for decision.
- Atty. Zamora filed a motion for reconsideration stating that the personal
matters had something to do with the ailment of his aunt to whom he owed
so much for his education and that said aunt just died recently. The trial
court denied the motion for reconsideration.
- RTC: Masongsong was entitled to the reliefs prayed for in his Complaint.
- CA: Affirmed in toto the RTC decision.
- The appellate court identified two issues for its resolution: (1) whether
Memita was deprived of his right to due process when the trial court denied
his motion for postponement; and (2) whether the trial court erred in
admitting the sales invoices submitted by Masongsong.
- As the first issue, the appellate court emphasized that due process demands
proper obedience to procedural rules.
- As to the second issue, the appellate court pointed out that Memita failed to
explicitly deny or contest the genuineness and due execution of the receipts
or any of the signatures on the receipts and that Memita failed to discharge
the burden of proving his allegations of short or questionable deliveries.
- Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N Rule 8, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, relied upon by the
Honorable Court of Appeals does not apply because the Answer with
Counterclaim of Memita was verified and under oath and that petitioner does not
appear to be a party to all of the seventy-two (72) sales invoices admitted in
evidence by the lower court.
PROVISIONS
Rule 8
Section 8. How to contest such documents. When an action or defense is founded
upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as
provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically
denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an
oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original
instrument is refused. (8a)
Section 10. Specific denial. A defendant must specify each material allegation of
fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the
substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a
defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it
as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment made to the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a
denial. (10a)
Page 1 of 2
RULING & RATIO
1. NO
- Memita insists that the trial court should not have admitted the sales invoices
attached to Masongsongs complaint. In its decision, the trial court stated
that Memita failed to point out any particular Sales Invoice which
substantiates his claim of short deliveries or questionable deliveries.
- The appellate court reiterated the trial courts position and stated that
Memitas Answer failed to explicitly deny or contest the genuineness and
due execution of any of the receipts nor any of his signatures or that of his
authorized representative appearing therein.
- This is in violation of Sections 8 and 10 of Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
which provides procedure on how to contest documents and about specific
denial.
- Memita, in alleging questionable and short deliveries, in effect alleges that
Masongsong committed fraud. As the party invoking fraud, Memita has the
burden of proof. Whoever alleges fraud or mistake affecting a transaction
must substantiate his allegation, since it is presumed that a person takes
ordinary care of his concerns and private concerns have been fair and
regular.
- Memita chose to present evidence which did not set forth the facts nor the
substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Memita
chose to present the concepts of the load order manifest and the issue form
but the load order manifest cannot be considered as the only basis of a
customers order as the customer is not precluded from calling up the San
Miguel Foods, Inc. office and make additional orders.
- The best evidence of the transaction between Memita and Masongsong are
the sales invoices. The sales invoices show that Memita or his
representative acknowledged receipt of Masongsongs deliveries without
protest. Memita aired his doubts about the amounts only after Masongsong
asked him to pay his credit.
- Memitas evidence reveal that Memita failed to prove fraud on Masongsongs
part. Therefore, the trial court is correct in stating that Memita is liable to
Masongsong in the amount of P603,520.50 plus interest of 12% per annum
as agreed upon by the parties and as stated in the sales invoices. Memita is
further liable for attorneys fees in the amount of 10% of the principal claim
and costs of litigation.

DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 9 August 2001 and the
Resolution dated 22 October 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60555
are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2