c

c


m Bonifacio Maceda Jr, obtained a 7.3M loan from DBP for the construction of his New Gran Hotel
Project.
m Maceda then had a construction contract with Moreman Builders. Maceda bought construction
materials and equipments which Moreman deposited in the warehouse of Wilson and Liliy Chan
free of charge.
m Due to Moreman͛s failure to complete the project, Maceda filed a case for rescission and
damages against them. RTC ruled in favor of Maceda. While pending appeal in CA, Maceda
demanded from the Chan͛s the deposited materials but Chan said that these materials had
already been withdrawn by Moreman in 1977.
m Thus, Maceda now filed a an action for damages and preliminary attachment against the Chan͛s.
After four years, the RTC dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. Five years after, a motion
for reconsideration was filed but was denied by RTC. On appeal, the RTC granted the MFR.
m Chan filed a motion to dismiss, while Maceda filed a motion to declare Chan in default.
m RTC declared Chan in default. CA affirmed the decision. Thus on the RTC, Maceda presented his
witnesses to show that indeed bags of cement were deposited in the warehouse of Chan. RTC
then ruled in favor of Maceda. RTC stated that since the bags were stored by Moreman builders
without any lien or encumbrance, Chan was duty bound to release it. CA affirmed in toto the
decision of the RTC.

Œ


1.) WON procedural infirmities should have been a ground to dismiss the case
2.) WON there was a contract of deposit

 

Œ

1.) -es
The original MFR was filed 5 years after the decision, thus far beyond the 15 day reglementary
period. This is a gross error on the part of the trial court.
2.) No

In a contract of deposit, the burden of proof on proving the contract is on the plaintiff. In the
case at hand, the record is bereft of any contract of deposit between the parties. The delivery
receipts presented also lack probative value so as to prove the existence of the contract for they
are unsigned and not duly authenticated by Moreman or by Maceda. Moreover, Maceda also
failed to prove that there were construction materials and equipment in petitioners'
warehouse at the time he made a demand for their return

In relation to the claim of damages, actual damages must be proven with a reasonable degree of
certainty, which in this case, Maceda failed to present.