CONSUMER PACKAGING PRODUCT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, – VERSUS – JESSIE CHING AND LIZA A. RONCAL, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF GENTEX PLASTIC MANUFACTURING …
BRUSELAS, JR. J.:
CPPC contends that it had made deliveries of raw materials to Gentex during the month of May 2006, contrary to what Ching and Roncal maintain. It also insists that its delivery driver, Prado, had personal knowledge of the actual delivery of plastic resins to Gentex; and that Prado could still remember the amount of the deliveries made. It also argues that its failure to indicate the value of the goods in the delivery receipts was not unnatural, given that the transactions were between and among Chinese companies and individuals. Finally, it argues that the values of the delivered plastic resins could not be denied by Ching because he received the statement of account which contained the subject delivery receipts and the corresponding value thereof which totalled P4,014,312.50.
The above allegations and the arguments in support thereof, however, appear to be a mere rehash of the issues and arguments raised in the appeal and which have already been passed upon in our Decision. Hence, we find no cogent reason to reverse, much less, modify our Decision.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Salazar-Fernando, and Peralta,* JJ., concur.
* Actg. Third Member vice J. Gaerlan per Office Order No. 100-14-RSF dated 12 March 2014.
[1] Rollo, pp. 71-80.
[2] Rollo, pp. 62-70.
[3] Rollo, pp.85-87.