"We agree with the Court of Appeals’ observation that petitioner did not object to the entries in the STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT. Petitioner did not do anything despite the clear reminder in the Statements of Account which states: "IMPORTANT: If this statement does not agree with your record, please notify us at once."10 Petitioner remained silent for four years from the time it received the Statements of Account until the filing of the case against it. Petitioner did not even bother to respond to the demand letter sent by respondent. Petitioner’s silence is uncharacteristic of persons who have just been asked to pay an obligation to which they are not liable.11 In one case,12 the petitioner received a statement of account from the respondent without protest, and the petitioner did not controvert the respondent’s demand letter. The Court applied ESTOPPEL IN PAIS where one, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.13 We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner’s SILENCE FOR FOUR YEARS is TANTAMOUNT TO ADMISSION of the entries in the Statements of Account sent by respondent.
The Court of Appeals did not even have to rely on estoppel. Petitioner RECEIVED the STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT as well as the SALES INVOICES as evidenced by the handwritten statement of petitioner’s representative, Alicia Alcaraz,14 who wrote the words "rec’d original" on the Statements of Account.15 Lee testified:
Atty. Meris:
Do you have a proof that the originals of the said invoices are already in the hands of the defendant?
Witness:
Yes, we have given them the statements of accounts which together with the originals as shown by the signature of their employee Alicia Alcaras.
x x x x
Atty. Meris:
(to witness)
How do you know that this is the signature of Miss Alcaras?
Witness:
Because I am very familiar with her signature as I have been receiving communications with her frequently during the time that we are having business transaction with the defendant.16
Petitioner failed to rebut that it received the Statements of Accounts and the Sales Invoices attached to them. In sum, respondent PROVED during the trial that it DELIVERED d the goods, and that it had NOT RECEIVED PAYMENT for the goods so delivered.
In its Answer With Counterclaim,17 petitioner alleged that all its purchases from respondent had already been fully paid and satisfied. Petitioner alleged:
and by way of SPECIAL and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, defendant avers:
4. That there is no cause of action;
5. That the claim is unenforceable under the statute of fraud;
6. That the claim or demand had been paid, waived and/or otherwise extinguished;
7. That in the alternative, granting arguendo that the defendant received some of the said construction materials, the same are defective and not suitable for the purpose of which they have been purchased and/or some of these materials were not received by the defendant corporation. Consequently, it should not be obliged to pay for the same[.]
x x x x18
During the trial, petitioner did not show which of the materials covered by the Sales Invoices had been paid, waived or extinguished, which materials were defective, and which materials were not received. Petitioner only insisted that it had no obligation to respondent. Thus, petitioner FAILED TO PROVE that it did not receive the goods, or that it already paid respondent for the goods delivered.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 29 February 1996 Decision and 13 June 1996 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44782. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED."
EL ORO ENGRAVER CORPRATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EVERETT CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, INC., respondents. G.R. No. 125267, February 18, 2008.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_125267_2008.html
No comments:
Post a Comment