Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 430 views

    GR No. 176949 (2012) - Asian Construction v. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Nikki Estores Gonzales
    The case involved a complaint filed by Lourdes Mendoza, sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators, against Asian Construction and Development Corporation to collect payment of P1,206,177 for fabricated steel materials and supplies delivered from August 1997 to March 1998. Asian Construction denied liability. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Mendoza. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified, ruling that the charge invoices presented as evidence were not actionable documents in themselves as the cause of action was based on the sales contract between the parties, not the invoices. The invoices only provided details of the transactions and were evidentiary in nature.

    Copyright:

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

    GR No. 176949 (2012) - Asian Construction v. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Nikki Estores Gonzales
    430 views2 pages
    The case involved a complaint filed by Lourdes Mendoza, sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators, against Asian Construction and Development Corporation to collect payment of P1,206,177 for fabricated steel materials and supplies delivered from August 1997 to March 1998. Asian Construction denied liability. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Mendoza. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified, ruling that the charge invoices presented as evidence were not actionable documents in themselves as the cause of action was based on the sales contract between the parties, not the invoices. The invoices only provided details of the transactions and were evidentiary in nature.

    Original Description:

    3. GR No. 176949 (2012) - Asian Construction v. Mendoza

    Original Title

    3. GR No. 176949 (2012) - Asian Construction v. Mendoza

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a complaint filed by Lourdes Mendoza, sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators, against Asian Construction and Development Corporation to collect payment of P1,206,177 for fabricated steel materials and supplies delivered from August 1997 to March 1998. Asian Construction denied liability. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Mendoza. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified, ruling that the charge invoices presented as evidence were not actionable documents in themselves as the cause of action was based on the sales contract between the parties, not the invoices. The invoices only provided details of the transactions and were evidentiary in nature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    430 views2 pages

    GR No. 176949 (2012) - Asian Construction v. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Nikki Estores Gonzales
    The case involved a complaint filed by Lourdes Mendoza, sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators, against Asian Construction and Development Corporation to collect payment of P1,206,177 for fabricated steel materials and supplies delivered from August 1997 to March 1998. Asian Construction denied liability. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Mendoza. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified, ruling that the charge invoices presented as evidence were not actionable documents in themselves as the cause of action was based on the sales contract between the parties, not the invoices. The invoices only provided details of the transactions and were evidentiary in nature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    v.
    LOURDES K. MENDOZA

    G.R. No. 176949 June 27, 2012


    PONENTE: DEL CASTILLO, J.

    FACTS:

    On January 6, 2000, respondent Lourdes K. Mendoza, sole


    proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators, filed before the Regional Trial
    Court of Caloocan City, Branch 126, a Complaint for a sum of money,
    docketed as Civil Case No. C-19100, against petitioner Asian
    Construction and Development Corporation, a duly registered
    domestic corporation.

    In the complaint, respondent alleged that from the period


    August 7, 1997 to March 4, 1998, petitioner purchased from Highett
    various fabricated steel materials and supplies amounting
    to P1,206,177.00, exclusive of interests; that despite demand,
    petitioner failed and/or refused to pay; and that due to the failure
    and/or refusal of petitioner to pay the said amount, respondent was
    compelled to engage the services of counsel.
    Petitioner moved for a bill of particulars on the ground that no copies
    of the purchase orders and invoices were attached to the complaint to
    enable petitioner to prepare a responsive pleading to the complaint.
    The RTC, however, in an Order dated March 1, 2000, denied the
    motion. Accordingly, petitioner filed its Answer with
    Counterclaim denying liability for the claims and interposing the
    defense of lack of cause of action.

    To prove her case, respondent presented the testimonies of (1)


    Artemio Tejero (Tejero), the salesman of Highett who confirmed the
    delivery of the supplies and materials to petitioner, and (2) Arvin
    Cheng, the General Manager of Highett. The presentation of
    evidence for petitioner, however, was deemed waived and terminated
    due to the repeated non-appearance of petitioner and its counsel. On
    December 1, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondent.
    On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the charge invoices are actionable documents.


    RULING OF THE COURT:

    The petition is hereby partly granted. The assailed Decision dated


    April 28, 2006 and the Resolution dated March 9, 2007 of the Court of
    Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69180 are hereby affirmed with
    modification. The charge invoices are not actionable documents.
    Based on the foregoing provision, a document is actionable when an
    action or defense is grounded upon such written instrument or
    document. In the instant case, the Charge Invoices are not actionable
    documents per se as these “only provide details on the alleged
    transactions.” These documents need not be attached to or stated in the
    complaint as these are evidentiary in nature. In fact, respondent’s cause
    of action is not based on these documents but on the contract of sale
    between the parties.

    You might also like