G.R. No. 170674 - FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS, INC., VS. BETONVAL READY CONCRETE, INC. AND STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO., INC.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Order dated May 19, 1999 is MODIFIED as follows: (a) to increase the rate of interest imposable on the P1,114,203.34 awarded to appellant Betonval from 12% to 24% per annum, with the aggregate sum to further earn an annual interest rate of 12% from the finality of this decision, until full payment; (b) to reduce the award of actual damages in favor of appellee from P1,500,000.00 to P200,000.00; (c) to hold both appellants jointly and severally liable to pay said amount; and (d) to hold appellant Betonval liable for whatever appellant surety may be held liable under the attachment bond. The rest is AFFIRMED in toto . FSI's motion for reconsideration was denied. [14] In this petition for review on certiorari, [15] FSI prays for the following: (a) decrease the rate of imposable interest on the P1,114,203.34 award to Betonval, from 12% to 6% p.a. from date of judicial demand or filing of the complaint until the full amount is paid; (b) deduct [from the award to Betonval] the cost or value of unused cement based on [its] invoice stating 1,307.45 bags computed at the prevailing price; (c) award actual and compensatory damages at P3,242,771.29; (d) hold Betonval and Stronghold jointly and severally liable to pay such actual and compensatory damages; (e) hold Betonval liable for whatever Stronghold may be held liable under the attachment bond and (f) affirm in toto the rest of the order. [16] The petition has no merit. Betonval's Complaint was not Premature FSI argues that Betonval's complaint was prematurely filed. There was allegedly a need to reconcile accounts, particularly with respect to the value of the unused cement supplied by FSI, totaling 2,801.2 bags [17] which supposedly should have been deducted from FSI's outstanding obligation. FSI's repeated requests for reconciliation of accounts were allegedly not heeded by Betonval's representatives. FSI's contention is untenable. It neither alleged any discrepancies in nor objected to the accounts within a reasonable time. [18] As held by the RTC, FSI was deemed to have admitted the truth and correctness of the entries in the invoices since: [N]o attempts were made to reconcile [FSI's] own record with [Betonval] until after the filing of the complaint , inspite of claims in [FSI's] Answer about its significance, and despite having had plenty of opportunity to do so from the time of receipt of the invoices or demand letters from [Betonval]. [FSI's] excuse that it was impractical to reconcile accounts during the middle of transactions is defeated by the absence of any showing on record that a formal request to reconcile was issued to [Betonval] despite the completion of deliveries or [FSI's] discovery of the alleged discrepancies, as well as its failure to initiate any meeting with [Betonval], including one which the parties were directed to hold for that purpose by the Court. Since [FSI] failed to prove the correctness of its entries against those in [Beton