Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 131 views

    ACDC v. Tulabut

    Uploaded by

    Cy Panganiban
    1. Tulabut filed a collection case against ACDC for unpaid construction projects. Tulabut provided testimonial and documentary evidence showing completion and turnover of the projects. 2. ACDC did not provide any evidence to dispute Tulabut's claims or prove its defenses. As the defendant, ACDC bore the burden of proof to establish its defenses that Tulabut failed to complete the work. 3. The court ruled in favor of Tulabut, finding that ACDC failed to meet its burden of proof, and was estopped from denying liability since it approved the contracts but did not pay as agreed. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ACDC v. Tulabut

    Uploaded by

    Cy Panganiban
    131 views1 page
    1. Tulabut filed a collection case against ACDC for unpaid construction projects. Tulabut provided testimonial and documentary evidence showing completion and turnover of the projects. 2. ACDC did not provide any evidence to dispute Tulabut's claims or prove its defenses. As the defendant, ACDC bore the burden of proof to establish its defenses that Tulabut failed to complete the work. 3. The court ruled in favor of Tulabut, finding that ACDC failed to meet its burden of proof, and was estopped from denying liability since it approved the contracts but did not pay as agreed. The petition was denied.

    Original Description:

    avt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Tulabut filed a collection case against ACDC for unpaid construction projects. Tulabut provided testimonial and documentary evidence showing completion and turnover of the projects. 2. ACDC did not provide any evidence to dispute Tulabut's claims or prove its defenses. As the defendant, ACDC bore the burden of proof to establish its defenses that Tulabut failed to complete the work. 3. The court ruled in favor of Tulabut, finding that ACDC failed to meet its burden of proof, and was estopped from denying liability since it approved the contracts but did not pay as agreed. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    131 views1 page

    ACDC v. Tulabut

    Uploaded by

    Cy Panganiban
    1. Tulabut filed a collection case against ACDC for unpaid construction projects. Tulabut provided testimonial and documentary evidence showing completion and turnover of the projects. 2. ACDC did not provide any evidence to dispute Tulabut's claims or prove its defenses. As the defendant, ACDC bore the burden of proof to establish its defenses that Tulabut failed to complete the work. 3. The court ruled in favor of Tulabut, finding that ACDC failed to meet its burden of proof, and was estopped from denying liability since it approved the contracts but did not pay as agreed. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ACDC v.

    Tulabut (Short title) PROVISION


    GR # 161904 | April 26, 2005 Rule 131
    Petitioner: Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC) Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
    Respondent: Noel T. Tulabut, doing business under the name and style of present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
    N.T. Tulabut Construction Supply defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
    (Rule 131, Section 1)
    RULING & RATIO
    FACTS 1. Yes.
    1. ACDC was awarded the development of a theme park in 1. Tulabut was obliged to establish the material averments of his
    Pampanga. It contracted the services of Tulabut to supply labor, complaint by a preponderance of evidence. ACDC as the defendant
    materials, tools, equipment and supervision for for the construction was burdened to prove its defenses that Tulabut had failed to
    of two cafeterias, two fast food take-out stands and a snack stand. complete the project.
    2. ACDC bound and obliged to pay the price of P3M through progress 2. While Tulabut adduced testimonial and documentary evidence,
    billing . Construction ensued and ACDC had paid save for P3K. ACDC opted not to adduce a morsel of evidence in its behalf thus,
    3. ACDC again contracted the services of Tulabut for the construction must bear the consequence.
    of two additional cafeterias via Purchase Order (P.O.) for P400K. 3. He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of
    ACDC drew and issued a Land Bank Check which was dishonored proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof
    because of insufficient funds. never parts. However, in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a
    4. Tulabut was able to complete the project and turned the same over prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of
    to ACDC. Despite demand for payment, ACDC failed to settle. evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima facie
    5. Tulabut then filed for collection with the RTC and prayed for the case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.
    issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment which was granted. 4. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
    6. In its answer with counterclaim, ACDC calimed that Tulabut had not produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having
    yet fully completed nor turned over the project and that it had to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the
    settled its outstanding account equivalent to or even more than the weakness of the defendants.
    percentage of the work actually accomplished. Also, that settlement 5. Thus, the terms and conditions of the contract unequivocally
    of the billings was dependent upon ACDC's receipt of payment from expressed in the purchase orders and progress billings must
    the government and the government had not yet paid. govern the contractual relation of the parties, for these serve as the
    7. Tulabut adduced testimonial and documentary evidence, and terms of the agreement, which are binding and conclusive.
    admitted having received partial payment. On the other hand, 6. When the words of the contract are clear and readily
    ACDC opted not to adduce any evidence in its behalf. understandable, there is no room for construction. The contract is
    8. RTC ruled in favor of the Tulabut the law between the parties.
    9. ACDC appealed to the CA, contending that if it was liable, the same 7. ACDC is estopped from evading its pecuniary obligation by merely
    should be reckoned only from the lapse of one year after the asserting without proof that Tulabut failed to complete the projects
    issuance of a certificate of completion, as was the standard practice and the non-payment of its principal as explained by the CA.
    in the construction industry and that Tulabut was not able to
    establish that the project had been fully completed. DISPOSITION
    10. CA dismissed the appeal ruling that ACDC was estopped from IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED for lack
    denying liability since its officers had approved the pertinent of merit. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.
    purchase orders and billings and that it failed to prove the alldged
    common practice.

    ISSUE/S
    1. W/N ACDC failed to adduce evidence to controvert Tulabut's evidence
    which proved that the project had been completed and turned over

    You might also like