Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff, ordering defendant to pay plaintiff, as follows: P2,005,000.00 representing the total amount that remain unpaid; plus, A penalty of three (3%) percent per month on the value of each delivery receipt and sales invoice computed from the time the obligation fell due until the same is fully paid; P401,000.00 as attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff, ordering defendant to pay plaintiff, as follows: P2,005,000.00 representing the total amount that remain unpaid; plus, A penalty of three (3%) percent per month on the value of each delivery receipt and sales invoice computed from the time the obligation fell due until the same is fully paid; P401,000.00 as attorney's fees. [2] On 11 November 1996, private respondent Specified Materials Corporation filed a Complaint [3] for collection of sum of money against petitioner arising from the latter's failure to pay the construction materials it purportedly purchased under a credit line extended by private respondent. At the time of the institution of the action, petitioner's obligation stood at P1,860,000.00, and under the terms of the credit arrangement, materials sold to petitioner was supposed to be paid within thirty days from date of delivery, subject to an interest charge of 3% per month for delayed payments. As petitioner failed to pay for the construction materials, private respondent sent two letters [4] to petitioner and his brother, Perfecto, reminding them of their obligation. In response, petitioner sent three letters all dated 12 August 1996. [5] In the first letter, petitioner manifested his willingness to settle his account with private respondent as long as his obligation conforms with the submitted list of materials he actually used. In the second letter, petitioner requested that any intended legal action on the part of private respondent be suspended until such time that all deliveries and payments made in his account are verified. [6] Finally, in the third letter, petitioner requested that an inventory be undertaken of the construction materials delivered by private respondent as well as those actually withdrawn and used by petitioner. [7] On 3 September 1996, private respondent's representatives met with petitioner in order to reconcile their conflicting records. During said meeting, petitioner allegedly admitted that he failed to take into account some deliveries made in 1995 amounting to around P648,750.00. Petitioner then requested that they meet again after two days so that he could verify his documents but he failed to show up for the subsequent meetings. Thereafter, private respondent sent a final demand letter to petitioner. [8] After the filing of the complaint, summons [9] was issued to petitioner and this was served by Sheriff Juan C. Marquez with the pertinent portion of the return stating: SHERIFF'S RETURN I HEREBY CERTIFY that: I HAVE SERVED a copy/ies of the summons, complaint and annexes issued in Civil Case No. 96-0473, entitled Specified Materials Corp. versus Virgilio P. Cezar . x x x PERSONS SERVED DATE OF SERVICE HOW SERVED Virgilio P. Cezar January 9, 1997 served thru Mr. Arsenio Robles an employee of defendant who [is] authorized to transact business, as per his signature appearing below summons. As petitioner failed to file hi
G.R. No. 176949 - ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VS. LOURDES K. MENDOZA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 176949 -
CaseG.R. No. 150905 - CITIBANK, N.A. MASTERCARD, VS. EFREN S. TEODORO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 150905 -
CaseVS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PHELPS DODGE PHILS., INC..
G.R. No. 126486 -