SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207552. August 7, 2013.]
MANUEL TAN TRADING and/or MANUEL TAN, petitioners, vs. PVC INCORPORATED, represented by its president, DELFIN DELOS REYES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 August 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 207552 (MANUEL TAN TRADING and/or MANUEL TAN, petitioners, -versus- PVC INCORPORATED, represented by its president, DELFIN DELOS REYES, respondent.)
This is an appeal via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 assailing the Decision dated 27 November 2012 and Resolution dated 3 June 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118806.
The facts:
Petitioner Manuel Tan Trading (MTT) is a single proprietorship engaged in the business of manufacturing nylon hoses — a material commonly used in the lining of rain boots. It supplies nylon hoses to respondent PVC Incorporated (PVCI), which is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing rain boots. EacHCD
Sometime in June 2008, MTT filed a collection complaint against PVCI before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 55, of Malabon City. MTT alleged therein that PVCI failed to pay for the four (4) separate orders of nylon hoses it received between October 2002 to October 2003. The total amount of the orders is P153,967.00.
To prove PVCI's purchases, MTT submitted the following documents:
1. Four (4) unsigned sales invoices i.e., Sales Invoice Nos. 1452, 1465, 1528 and 1529. MTT explained that it issues a sales invoice whenever an order for nylon hoses is placed by PVCI.
2. Two (2) counter-receipts, i.e., Counter Receipt Nos. 3655 and 3661. Counter Receipt No. 3655 corresponds to Sales Invoice No. 1452, while Counter Receipt No. 3661 corresponds to Sales Invoice No. 1465. MTT explained that a counter-receipt is issued by PVCI whenever it receives the ordered nylon hoses.
PVCI, for its part, denied making any such orders and purchases.
On 21 April 2009, the MTC rendered a decision in favor MTT. It ordered PVCI to pay MTT the entire amount of the four (4) orders or P153,967.00. This decision by MTC was affirmed in toto by the RTC upon PVCI's appeal. aCTHEA
Undeterred, PVCI next lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
On 27 November 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision partially granting PVCI's appeal. The appellate court held that PVCI could only be made liable to MTT for two (2) orders i.e., those orders covered by a corresponding counter-receipt. It opines that with respect to the orders that are not covered by a counter-receipt, MTT was not able to establish that the same were, in fact, delivered to PVCI and so cannot claim any payment thereon.
Hence this appeal by MTT. MTT imputes the following errors on the part of the Court of Appeals:
1. It was erroneous for the Court of Appeals to have given due course to PVCI's appeal, since it was filed beyond the reglementary period. MTT alleges that counsel for PVCI was able to receive the decision of the RTC on 18 January 2011 but appealed the same only on 31 March 2011.
2. It was erroneous for the Court of Appeals to have held that MTT was not able to prove all of its claims.
OUR RULING
We deny the petition. aSECAD
First. The decision of the RTC was not yet final when PVCI appealed the same to the Court of Appeals. The 18 January 2011 service of the RTC decision on the counsel of PVCI failed when it was returned with an "RTS moved out" annotation. In lodging its appeal to the Court of Appeals on 31 March 2011, counsel for PVCI alleged that it was not able to receive the RTC decision until 18 March 2011 — explaining that he was forced to relocate from his former office due to typhoon Ondoy. Evidently, the Court of Appeals found merit in such explanation and We see no reason to rule otherwise.
Second. We find the ruling of the Court of Appeals to be based on evidence, and by the evidence the ruling was correctly limited. MTT cites the affidavit of petitioner Manuel Tan in order to supplement and explain the absence of a corresponding counter-receipt for the orders contained in Sales Invoice Nos. 1528 and 1529. However, such affidavit, in itself, cannot be given any probative value unless the person who executed the same testifies on its contents in open court and subjected to cross-examination by the other party. No such testimony is alleged to have been taken in this petition.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. cCaEDA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.