CONSUMER PACKAGING PRODUCTS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. JESSIE CHING AND LIZA A. RONCAL, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF GENTEX PLASTIC MANUFACTURING AND TO…

Consumer Packaging Products Corporation versus Ching

The Case

This is an appeal by Consumer Packaging Products Corporation against Jessie Ching and Liza Roncal, who do business under the name Gentex Plastic Manufacturing and Topmaster. The corporation sued to collect a sum of money for plastic resins it says it delivered, and it asked for a writ of preliminary attachment. The case matters because it is a clean lesson on the burden of proof in a collection suit: the plaintiff must prove its cause by a preponderance of evidence, and photocopies of delivery receipts that show neither the price of the goods nor the name of the person who received them will not carry that burden.

Procedural History

The corporation filed a complaint for collection of sum of money with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. After trial, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of preponderance of evidence, and it likewise dismissed the defendants' compulsory counterclaim. The corporation appealed, assigning a single error: that the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove its case by preponderance of evidence. The Court of Appeals found no merit in the appeal, dismissed it, and affirmed the decision on appeal. The case then reached the Supreme Court, which likewise found the appeal bereft of merit.

Facts

Consumer Packaging Products Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the production, manufacturing, and marketing of plastic products. Liza Roncal was engaged in the manufacturing, buying, and selling of plastic products under the name Gentex Plastic Manufacturing and Topmaster, and Jessie Ching acted as her business agent. The corporation alleged that from the fifth of April to the twenty-third of May 2006, Ching purchased plastic resins from it with the assurance that they would be paid immediately, and that he never disclosed he was merely acting as Roncal's agent. Relying on those assurances, the corporation delivered resins worth Four Million Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Twelve Pesos and Fifty Centavos. When demand was made, it was ignored. Ching then borrowed the originals of almost all the delivery receipts, supposedly to verify and reconcile them with their records before paying, but after the originals were surrendered, payment was still refused.

In their answer, the defendants denied purchasing plastic resin from the corporation during that period. They alleged that whenever Ching acted as business agent, he made it clear to third parties that he was merely an agent. They pointed out that the delivery receipts bore the letter LB on the letterhead, that one receipt named Precious Plastic as customer, and that the others named Gentex or Topmaster, so the corporation knew it was dealing with those businesses. They also alleged that the complaint was not verified, and they prayed for moral damages and attorney's fees.

At trial, the corporation's vice president testified that Ching had been a client before, that he had caused a criminal case to be filed against Ching for nonpayment, and that Ching signed no document because, in Chinese tradition, his face served as the sole guarantee. The corporation's former driver testified that he made deliveries to Gentex in May 2006, but he stayed in the delivery truck while his helper delivered the items and the receipts, and he could no longer remember the exact number or dates of the deliveries. Ching testified that Roncal was the one doing business under Gentex, that Gentex had ordered goods from another supplier and paid by check, and that the delivery receipts attached to the complaint were signed by persons in charge of Gentex's records. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the delivery receipts did not reflect the identity of the person who actually received the products or the price of the products, and that the corporation failed to prove delivery and the amount claimed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove its case by a preponderance of evidence.
• Whether or not photocopies of delivery receipts that do not show the price of the items and the name of the person who received the deliveries can amount to a preponderance of evidence in a suit for collection of a sum of money.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the constitutional requirement on the certification of conclusions, Article Eight, Section Thirteen of the Constitution, which provides:

No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

This bears on the case because the Court certified that its conclusions were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal was bereft of merit. The corporation's driver could no longer remember the amounts of the deliveries or the exact dates, and he admitted that he was not the one who made the actual delivery, since he merely stayed in the delivery truck while his helper delivered the products and the receipts. The Court found no basis to disagree with the trial court's appreciation and assessment of the evidence.

On the second issue, the Court held that the photocopies of delivery receipts did not show the prices of the plastic products allegedly purchased, and that other than those photocopies, the corporation presented no proof that the defendants purchased and received plastic products worth Four Million Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Twelve Pesos and Fifty Centavos. The Court ruled that the corporation clearly failed to establish its cause by a preponderance of evidence, and it found no basis to disturb the trial court's findings.

Doctrine

A plaintiff in an action for collection of a sum of money must establish its cause by a preponderance of evidence. Mere photocopies of delivery receipts that do not show the price of the items stated therein and do not show the name of the person who received the deliveries cannot amount to a preponderance of evidence. The Court will not disturb the trial court's appreciation and assessment of the evidence where the appellant has not sufficiently substantiated the errors claimed.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed and the decision on appeal was affirmed, so the defendants prevailed and the complaint for collection of sum of money remained dismissed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: mere photocopies of delivery receipts that do not show the price of the items and the name of the person who received the deliveries cannot amount to a preponderance of evidence. Examiners like to use this case to test the burden of proof in collection suits and the weight given to documentary evidence that is incomplete on its face.