G.R. No. 215910 - MANUEL C. UBAS, SR., VS. WILSON CHAN.

Ruling

Accordingly, Unimasters is an indispensable party, and since it was not impleaded, the court had no jurisdiction over the case. [30] In any event, the CA found that petitioner's claim of unpaid deliveries had no merit, given that not a single delivery receipt, trip ticket or similar document was presented to establish the delivery of construction materials to respondent. [31] Further, the CA gave scant consideration to petitioner's argument that respondent and Unimasters should be treated as one and the same under the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction because not only was the issue raised for the first time on appeal, but that the records bear no evidence that would establish the factual conditions for the application of the doctrine. [32] Hence, the instant petition. The Issue Before the Court The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred m dismissing petitioner's complaint for lack of cause of action. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. It is well-settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. [33] In this case, petitioner's cause of action is anchored on his claim that respondent personally entered into a contract with him for the delivery of construction materials amounting to P1,500,000.00, which was, however, left unpaid. He also avers that respondent is guilty of fraud in the performance of said obligation because the subject checks issued to him by respondent were dishonored on the ground of stop payment. As proof, petitioner offered in evidence, among others, the demand letter he sent to respondent detailing the serial numbers of the checks that were issued by the latter, including the dates and amounts thereof. He also offered the dishonored checks which were in his possession. Respondent neither disputes the fact that he had indeed signed the subject checks nor denies the demand letter sent to him by petitioner. Nevertheless, he claims that the checks were not issued to petitioner but to the project engineer of Unimasters who, however, lost the same. He also disclaims any personal transaction with petitioner, stating that the subject checks were in fact, issued by Unimasters and not him. Besides, petitioner failed to present any documentary proof that he or his firm delivered construction materials for the Macagtas Dam project. The Court finds for petitioner. Jurisprudence holds that "in a suit for a recovery of sum of money, as here, the plaintiff-creditor [(petitioner in this case)] has the burden of proof to show that defendant [(respondent in this case)] had not paid [him] the amount of the contracted loan. However, it has also been long established that where the plaintiff-creditor possesses and submits in evidence an instrument showing the indebtedness, a presumption that the credit has not been satisfied arises in [his] favor. Thus, the defen