VIRGINIA R. MENDOZA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. GROLIER INTERNATIONAL, INC. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
COSICO, J.:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court RULES in favor of the Defendant Grolier International Inc. The instant complaint as well as the counterclaim are ORDERED DISMISSED for lack of merit. Defendant is ABSOLVED from liabilities for damages.
SO ORDERED.” [Decision, p. 8]
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the plaintiff which was denied in the Order dated April 29, 2004 of the trial court where it ruled[2]:
“In the end, we are sorry to say that this case should boil down to questions of credibility; or whose version is more credible and trustworthy.
WHEREFORE, there being no new matters raised in the instant motion which would warrant the reversal of the Decision of this Court dated December 12, 2003, this Court hereby resolves to DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.” [Order, p. 2]
Undaunted by the adverse rulings, plaintiff-appellant is now before us assailing the said decision arguing that the trial court erred in finding that she had failed to prove defendant-appellee’s breach of contract by a preponderance of evidence as to entitle her to recover damages by reason of such breach.
The Facts
The facts of the case are undisputed.
On May 10, 2001 a complaint for damages was filed by plaintiff-appellant Virginia R. Mendoza against defendant-appellee Grolier International, Inc. (“GROLIER”) for the latter’s alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the Contract of Lease[3] executed over the first floor of the commercial building known as Virginia Bldg. owned by plaintiff-appellant and located at San Fernando City, La Union. In her complaint, plaintiff-appellant made the following allegations[4]:
“3. On May 9, 1991, plaintiff and defendant entered into a Contract of Lease for the lease of the Ground Floor of said Virginia Bldg. to be utilized as business office of the Defendant. x x x
4. Said Contract of Lease was renewed yearly until May 12, 1997 when the said Ground Floor subject of the lease was gutted by fire, as evidence by a Spot Report issued by the Municipal Fire Marshall of then Municipality of San Fernando, La Union x x x
5. Immediately after the occurrence of the fire as above-mentioned, Plaintiff and her staff inspected the gutted place and found out that the fire originated from the inside of the leased premises and was due to the negligence and lack of care of the Defendant and its personnel in violation of the terms and conditions of the Contract of Lease;”
Among other matters, plaintiff-appellant prayed that defendant-appellee be ordered to pay damages in the amounts of: P360,000.00 as actual damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, P100,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
In Answer[5] thereto, GROLIER denied its liability and alleged that the fire department failed to determine the cause of the fire or its origin. Moreover, it averred that it had used the leased premises purely for a commercial purpose and exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in devoting the same according to the use stipulated in the contract.
During the pre-trial[6], the issues submitted for resolution were: For the plaintiff — (1) Whether or not the defendant breached the Contract of Lease and should be answerable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the fire that razed the latter’s premises and (2) Whether or not the plaintiff should be entitled to exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and costs of suit. For the defendant – whether or not defendant should be made liable for the fire that gutted the first floor of the building owned by plaintiff. Issues having been joined, trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
Plaintiff-appellant presented five (5) witnesses including herself and documentary evidence[7] which included the spot report prepared by the fire department involving the fire incident, while defendant-appellee presented two (2) witnesses and also submitted documentary evidence[8]. As synthesized by the trial court, the testimonies of the witnesses are as follows:[9]
“Plaintiff presented the following witnesses:
RICARTE DULAY RUIZ testified as follows:
He is a security guard presently employed at Dominion Bus Lines since 1998. Prior to his employment at Dominion Bus Lines he was employed at Times Transport Inc. from 1989 to 1997 using Virginia Bldg. and surrounding premises as terminal located at Quezon Avenue and Flores St., San Fernando, La Union City. On May 12, 1997 while he was at the office of Times Transit assigned at the Information, recording the arrival of buses at about 5:00 to 5:30 a.m. a driver of a passenger jeepney which passed by gave him a warning sign that there was a fire going on in the office of Grolier. He immediately pulled down the switch of the electricity and called up the Fire Department. The fire lasted for about an hour. Thereafter, the Police Investigator of San Fernando, La Union arrived and checked the place. He was with the Police Investigator when the burned premises was checked and they recovered flat iron, one (1) electric fan, pliers, screw driver and steel saw (lagare). He was also investigated at the San Fernando Police Station where the investigator made a police report.
FO3 OSCAR NATHANIEL DUQUE testified that:
He is a Fire Investigator assigned at the Bureau of Fire Protection in San Fernando City, La Union He prepared the Spot Report dated February 12, 2002 marked Exh. B. On May 12, 1997, at about 5:00 a.m. while he was in their office, a former Security Guard of Times Transit informed their office that Virginia Building is being razed by fire. Together with [the] driver of their truck, SFO2 Reynaldo Cruz and the nose nasal man FO1 Amante Castillo, they immediately responded to the place of the incident and sprayed water at the Virginia Building particularly the Grolier International office and put out the fire. Peeping through the window because the office was closed, they saw the three blades of jalousie window were detached. He also saw that an electric iron was still plugged, he also saw a steel saw, and a tire range at the top of the table. The incident is still under investigation because they are still looking for a lead since Grolier Office transferred to another place. They were after Grolier because it was where the fire started. They took pictures of the plugged electric iron but the pictures kept in their bodega were damaged by a heavy rain. His original spot report kept in their bodega was also damaged.
ORLANDO UNTALASCO testified as follows:
He is a fireman connected with the Bureau of Fire Protection, San Fernando Fire Station, assigned at the Investigation Division. In May 1997, he was assigned as Chief Investigator. He learned of the fire accident at the Virginia Building while he was in his house through a co-worker and he immediately proceeded to the fire scene and arrived twenty (20) minutes after the fire fighting operation. As part of his investigation he gathered physical evidence like the flat iron plugged placed on top of the table with comb[u]stible materials like papers, a lagare (pang metal), a hammer, and chisel, screw driver. He observed the jalousies of the window at the southern part of the building were removed and the window grills were jacked. He saw a vault inside the Grolier Offices still closed but there was showing that there was an attempt to open it. He took the statement of the janitor and manager of Grolier. The manager whom he investigated told him that the janitor stayed for 24 hours in the office. Per his investigation and statement he took from the janitor, the latter admitted that he stayed in the office for 24 hours but when the fire incident happened he was at the Hill One Hotel located at Rizal Avenue, San Fernando City. After he took the statement of employees of Grolier he made a Progress Report with attachments like the physical evidence gathered at the fire scene and the sworn statement of the manager and the janitor of Grolier. His findings stated in his report that there was a crime committed before the fire incident wherein the suspect was the janitor because the latter stays in the office for 24 hours. That he was not able to file [an] arson case because he has no more jurisdiction over the case because he was transferred to another branch of their office. The reason for his findings and conclusion was that there was an attempt to forcibly open the vault (3 feet height and four (4) feet width). The southern part of Grolier’s Office was forcibly opened, the jalousies were removed and the grills hacked. The plugged flat iron was place on top of the table with papers around. Three (3) hours after the fire incident he was able to talk to the janitor in the morning at about 10:00 to 11:00. He could not produce now his Report because the same which was placed in their bodega was damaged by flood. He is aware of the spot report prepared in connection with the fire incident because he also signed the same.
ANGELES ATENDIDO testified as follows:
She is employed with Mencorp Transport System and private secretary to the General Manager. The Grolier Office was a former lessee of Virginia Building but the said office was gutted by fire sometime in 1997 per lease contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, the first contract was in 1991 to May 31, 1997 where Grolier hold office at the ground floor, the said contract was terminated because of the fire incident. The second contract was executed in (sic) June 1, 1997 when the Defendant transferred office at the second floor of the Virginia Building. The incident was given attention only last year because the owner, Virginia Mendoza, was so busy with the labor problems of Times Transportation Company wherein she is a co-owner. Per instruction of Ms. Virginia Mendoza, he contacted the contractor, Mr. Joseph Panson, who made an estimate of the damaged premises captioned Summary of Quotations, Labor and Materials. She also consulted their lawyer, who sent a demand letter dated March 15, 2001 demanding Grolier International to pay for the damages during the fire that gutted the space occupied by it. Grolier, in answer demanded Virginia Mendoza to pay for the damages they suffered. Their lawyer also wrote the Fire Marshall of San Fernando City requesting for the official result of the investigation of the fire which was personally delivered by their Building Administrator Leonila Devijo. A reply from the City Fire Marshal dated March 26, 2001 addressed to Atty. Cesar Brillantes (Exh. H) was received with the Certification by the Fire Marshal of San Fernando City (Exh. I). She is aware of the lease contract between Defendant and Plaintiff. The lease contract, first contract was in 1991 until May 31, 1997. After the fire, the first contract was terminated and Grolier and Mrs. Mendoza executed another lease contract on June 1, 1997, when Defendant transferred office to the second floor of the same Virginia Building. Despite the fire incident that occurred on the first floor, Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to lease the second floor of the same building.
VIRGINIA MENDOZA testified that:
She is the Plaintiff in the instant case. She entered into a Contract of Lease with Defendant Grolier which occupied its office on the ground floor annex to the main building (almost 110 square meters) which expired on May 16, 1992 renewable yearly. She was informed of the fire that razed her building on May 12, 1997 which housed the terminal buses of Times Transit and Dominion while she was in her house in Quezon City. She proceeded to La Union and arrived there at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon and inspected the office gutted by fire. The office was very much damaged by fire and saw the electric iron still plugged. She instructed her staff to have a thorough investigation to determine the cause of the fire and to look for the janitor who stays and sleeps in the premises of the burnt office. There is no conclusion as to the investigation made because the staff of Grolier did not go to the Police for investigation. After the fire, Defendant requested another space in the main building with the assurance that they will not allow anybody to sleep in the office. The second lease dated June 1, 1997 x x x lasted for two (2) years after the fire because Defendants transferred to Baguio. During the duration of the two (2) years lease, she discussed with the Defendant about the damages and their liabilities wherein Defendant mentioned that they also incurred damages but their discussion was not settled. Prior to the filing of the instant case, she asked her secretary, Angeles Atendido, to make an estimate of the damages. With respect to the filing of the instant case she agreed to pay her lawyer P100,000.00 attorney’s fee and appearance fee of P1,500.00.
Plaintiff rested her case and formally offered her Exhibits A to J.
Defendant presented two (2) witnesses namely: Luzviminda A. Marquez, Area Cashier and Federico Daleon, Comptroller.
LUZVIMINDA MARQUEZ, testified that she is the Area Cashier of Defendant assigned at San Fernando, La Union with office located at the first floor of Virginia Building, San Fernando City, La Union. She is in charge of everyday collections and deposits to the bank and if the bank is already closed, she kept the collections in their vault inside the office. The building where they were holding office is more or less 20 years old, its floorings has cracks and chipping off, and the water was dripping the ceiling during rainy days and they use pails to drip the water that enter the office, the flush of the toilet are no longer functioning. The door is made of glass and the jalousies are clear. On May 12, 1991 at about 6:30 to 7:00 a. m., she was informed by their messenger by the name of Porfirio Campos that their office was gutted by fire. She went to the office and saw the burned office. She saw her drawer as that of her secretary were opened and everything were raged by fire like calculators, fax machines, tables and typewriters. She noticed that the vault and the grills were sawn (nilagare). Her belongings and her money inside her drawer were lost. She proceeded to the Office of the Fire Department where she was shown the hammer and wire cutter which were found inside the office and was told that they also saw a gallon. Because their office was gutted by fire they hold office at the second floor from May 1997 to 2001. She came to know that this case was filed in 2001. Nobody stays in the office at nighttime because she is the one holding the key and their area manager.
FEDERICO DALEON who testified that he is the Finance and Operations manager. His functions are to oversee the finances and in control of the company, with related functions such as, receiving all demands for payments from all the areas or branches of their company. He is aware that there was a lease contract between their office and the plaintiff for the use of the first floor as their office. He is based in Makati office and he visited the office after the fire to check on the nature of what happened, to check whether stocks were lost and he reduced his report in writing. Plaintiff offered Grolier’s Office to transfer to the second floor of the building immediately after the fire. The building where they occupied office is an old building, the flooring is made of cement, with jalousie windows. He has not received any communication from the area manager regarding the fire that occurred.” [Decision, pp.3-6]
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
As earlier adverted to, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendant-appellee dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s complaint and made the following pronouncements[10]:
“Suffice it to say, no iota of evidence was proven by the Plaintiff that the Defendant is guilty of negligence which caused the fire. Therefore, Defendant could not be held liable for damages. It is clearly shown through the Report and testimony of the witnesses for the Plaintiff, particularly the investigators, that the origin of the fire which razed the premises occupied by the Defendant is unknown. To repeat, the very own witnesses called by the Plaintiff cannot even claim who was at fault if there was negligence in the first place.” [Decision, 8]
The Present Appeal
The issues presented before this Court for resolution are:
(1) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO VALIDLY DISMISSED APPELLANT’S COMPLAINT, DESPITE THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE PROVING ITS CLAIM.
(2) WHETHER OR NOT THE LAPSE OF FOUR YEARS BARRED THE APPELLANT FROM ENFORCING THEIR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.
Plaintiff-appellant argues[11] that the dismissal of her complaint was erroneous, as she has sufficiently proven her claim by a preponderance of evidence through testimonial and documentary evidence. Parenthetically, although there is no direct evidence on the negligence of defendant-appellee, Mendoza was able to prove through circumstantial evidence that the liability arising from the fire which damaged the building can be solely attributed to the negligence of GROLIER. The testimonies of plaintiff-appellant’s witnesses on the matter remain unrebutted.
Moreover, the court a quo faults the appellant for not immediately putting the blame on the appellee after the incident allowing the lapse of four (4) years after the incident happened. To state, the complaint was based on a contract and an action based on a written contract must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the cause of action accrues. Neither would plaintiff-appellant’s act of accommodating the defendant-appellee in renting another space in her building constitute a waiver of her right to file an action against GROLIER.
On the other hand, defendant-appellee posits,[12] among other things, that plaintiff-appellant’s witnesses clearly had all the opportunity to conduct and continue their investigation. Failure to conduct further investigation rendered their testimonies unbelievable and riddled with improbabilities. This is hardly the preponderance of evidence required by law from plaintiff to prove her case for damages.
This Court’s Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
As may be deduced from the records of the case, it is clear that plaintiif-appellant premises her right to recover on the complaint from the alleged breach of contract committed by defendant-appellee, specifically, the clauses in the Contract of Lease which provide as follows:
“2. DEPOSIT & PUBLIC UTILITIES: x x x
USE: The premises shall be exclusively used for business office purposes by the lessee and its personnel; the lessee is allowed to put up or install signboards and the like inside and outside the premises;
4. PROHIBITION: The lessee shall not sell, assign or sublease its right over the premises nor shall convert the same or portion thereof for residential purposes;”[13]
Since the violation of the terms of a contract by one of the contracting parties is an affirmative fact which requires proof, the burden to prove such fact in issue lies with the plaintiff. Thus, in the course of the trial in civil cases, the plaintiff is burdened to make out a prima facie case in her favor before the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff’s prima facie case.[14] To shift the burden of evidence, plaintiff must discharge her burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence.[15] However, let it be stated that plaintiff must rely on the strength of her own evidence and not upon the weakness of the evidence of the opposing party.[16] The burden of proof never parts and failure to discharge such burden by a preponderance of evidence is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. In this regard, the concept of “preponderance of evidence” refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.[17]
Prescinding therefrom and after a careful study of the records, we find no sufficient reason to disturb the findings of the trial court.
As earlier mentioned, plaintiff-appellant seeks to recover damages for GROLIER’s breach of contract by reason of its negligent act of causing the fire and which destroyed the leased premises. However, an examination of the evidence presented by her does not satisfactorily support a finding that the cause of the fire was defendant-appellee’s breach of contract. This fact is emphasized in the following portions of the testimonies of plaintiff-appellant and two of her witnesses from the fire department, to wit:
First, Nathaniel Duque during his direct examination[18] testified that he does not know where the fire started and in his cross-examination, he declared:
“q Going back to the spot report which was marked as Exhibit B for the plaintiff. May I also ask that this Exhibit B be likewise marked as Exhibit 2. This is only the report that you prepared regarding the incident?
a Yes, ma’[a]m.q Can you read to me the origin of fire?
a Undetermined. [TSN, May 20, 2002, pp. 11-12]
Second, Orlando Untalasco who previously investigated the case had this to say:
Court:
What is the bottom findings here? Was it arson or a case of negligence?
A — We did not come to that, sir. I was not able to follow up the case to be filed because I was transferred to another office.Court:
Do you know what is the official findings of your government office as to the reason of the fire? Is it arson or negligence or what?
A — In my findings, sir, intentional burning. [TSN, August 28, 2002, p. 14]
Third, plaintiff-appellant herself testified that she was not able to get a conclusive result as to the cause of the fire which damaged her property:
“q Where you able to get any definite result of the investigation conducted?
a No, sir.” [TSN, January 8, 2003, p. 9]
A perusal of the Spot Report[19] shows that the cause of fire is undetermined while the Fire Report[20] submitted by plaintiff-appellant as further evidence only established that a fire incident occurred on May 12, 1997 in the Virginia Building owned by plaintiff-appellant where the first floor was leased to Grolier. Corollary to this, a scrutiny of the other evidence presented by plaintiff-appellant does not even relate to nor establish defendant-appellee’s negligence and alleged breach of contract in causing the fire.
Moreover, while further investigation was conducted regarding the incident after the execution of the spot report and which investigation was never completed, it is not amiss to note that none of plaintiff-appellant’s witnesses testified that the cause of the of fire was due to negligence of the employees of Grolier. In this regard, Orlando Untalasco testified that there were two other reports prepared by his office other than the spot report but they were destroyed by flood.[21] However, the witness did not say in any of these reports that the fire was caused by Grolier’s negligence. On the contrary, Untalasco belied such fact and found upon his investigation that a crime was committed before the fire incident as the physical evidence therein suggested that there was forcible entry in the premises and an attempt to forcibly open Grolier’s vault.[22] In any case, what remains uncontroverted is the finding in the spot report which states that the cause of fire is undetermined.
In addition, plaintiff-appellant also failed to show a causal connection about the overnight stay of Grolier’s janitor inside the leased premises as proof of Grolier’s negligence in causing the fire. In the first place, no proof was adduced that the physical evidence recovered by the fire department, such as, the flat iron, the hammer, chisel, screw driver and the saw (“lagare”) belong to Grolier or its janitor and is the cause of the fire.[23] Verily, Luzviminda Marquez the Area Cashier of Grolier testified that no one stays inside the office during the evenings.[24] On the other hand, plaintiff-appellant’s witness, Untalasco even suspects that someone or a group of individuals may have forcibly entered the leased premises before the fire incident happened as was suggested by the physical evidence gathered from the scene.
Significantly, whether or not Grolier’s janitor was inside the leased premises on May 12, 1997 and may have caused the fire, the same has been disputed by Untalasco, who in the course of his investigation was able to interview the said janitor and discovered that the latter was not in the leased premises when the building was razed by fire having checked in at a hotel in the evening in question.[25]
Considering the foregoing, it is thus clear that plaintiff-appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the proximate cause of the fire was the alleged breach of contract and negligence of Grolier. The records are bereft of any instance which will show that Grolier did indeed breach its obligations under the lease contract for failing to use the leased property for business purposes. Neither does the records of the case support a conclusion that Grolier has been negligent in allowing its janitor to stay within the premises overnight. As aptly found by the trial court, the fact that the janitor sleeps and stays in the leased premises for twenty-four (24) hours cannot be taken to mean as a violation of the contract of lease for occasional overnight stay or even overnight security watch over the place is not violative of the contract. In this connection, plaintiff-appellant likewise failed to show that Grolier’s janitor was indeed using the leased premises as his residence.
On a final note, while we agree with plaintiff-appellant that an action based on a written contract can be filed within ten (10) years from the time the cause of action accrues, nonetheless, she failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence Grolier’s breach of contract to entitle her to recover damages. To repeat, one who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts.[26]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 101 of Quezon City dismissing the complaint for damages in Civil Case No. Q-01-44086 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Sundiam and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo at 144.
[2] Id. at 155-156.
[3] Id. at 5-7.
[4] Id. at 1-4.
[5] Id. at 23-29.
[6] Id. at 50-51.
[7] Formal Offer of Evidence (For the Plaintiff), Rollo at 77-78.
[8] Formal Offer of Evidence (For the Defendant), Records at 117-118.
[9] Id. at 139-142.
[10] Id. at 144.
[11] Rollo at 23-37.
[12] Id. at 50-57.
[13] Id. at 5-6.
[14] Asian Construction and Development Corp. v. Tulabut, G.R. No. 161904, April 26, 2005.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] TSN, March 11, 2002 at 15.
[19] Rollo at 8.
[20] Id. at 92.
[21] TSN, November 4, 2002 at 14.
[22] TSN, August 28, 2002 at 12, 15-16.
[23] Id. at 6-7.
[24] TSN, April 4, 2003 at 6.
[25] TSN, November 4, 2002 at 8.
[26] Asian Construction and Development Corp. v. Tulabut ,G.R. No. 161904, April 26, 2005.