FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255644. September 14, 2021.]
AMADOR D. MARTIN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "CHARISSE @ CHARLS ENTERPRISES", petitioner,vs.COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255644 — AMADOR D. MARTIN, doing business under the name and style "CHARISSE @ CHARLS ENTERPRISES" v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC.
The petition hinges on the resolution of whether petitioner Amador D. Martin is liable for payment to respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. for the Coca-Cola products delivered to him by the latter and how much exactly is the amount of his liability. These are pure factual issues which the Court, not being a trier of facts, will not take cognizance of under Rule 45. 1 It is not the duty of the Court, in petitions for review under Rule 45, to re-examine or assess anew the evidence on record, whether testimonial or documentary. 2 More so when the factual findings of the trial court carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals, as in this case.
Indeed, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals here correctly noted the following partial payments on record: (a) P24,140.00 on September 16, 2011; (b) P16,840.00 on October 25, 2011; and (c) P4,000.00 on November 8, 2011. These amounts were all deducted from the total amount of P1,043,665.21 indicated in respondent's demand letter dated January 2, 2012. This is why the May 25, 2012 Statement of Account only reflected the amount of P998,685.21 as the outstanding balance of petitioner's obligation. Suffice it to state that when the existence of a debt is fully established, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor, who has the burden of showing, with legal certainty, that the obligation has been paid. 3 This, petitioner failed to do.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 2, 2020 and Resolution dated December 22, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 111576 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Amador D. Martin is ordered to PAY to respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. Nine Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-Five Pesos and 21/100 (P998,685.21) representing the principal amount of his obligation plus twelve percent (12%) interest per annum from receipt of the demand letter dated January 2, 2012 up to June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) interest per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. The total amount due shall in turn earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until full payment. 4
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.United Coconut Planters Bank v. Spouses Walter Uy and Lily Uy, 823 Phil. 284, 300 (2018).
2.Bright Maritime Corp. v. Racela, G.R. No. 239390, June 3, 2019.
3.Decena v. Asset Pool A (SPV-AMC), Inc., G.R. No. 239418, October 12, 2020.
4. In accordance with Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 304 Phil. 236, 254 (1994) and Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).