Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 96202. April 13, 1999.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
580
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac93e12420b15985003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME305
MENDOZA, J.:
This petition
1
for review on certiorari seeks a reversal of the
2
decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City ordering petitioner
______________
581
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac93e12420b15985003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME305
________________
582
________________
5 RecordsRTC, p. 54.
6 Exhibit C, RecordsRTC, p. 55.
7 CA Decision, p. 2 Rollo, p. 16.
583
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac93e12420b15985003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME305
______________
584
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac93e12420b15985003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME305
The trial court further ruled that in spite of the fact that
the contracts did not have any stipulation on interest,
interest may be awarded in 12the form of damages under
Article 2209 of the Civil Code.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It upheld the
trial courts reliance on private respondents Book of 13
Collectible Accounts (Exh. K) on the basis of Rule 130, 37
of the Rules of Court.
Hence, this appeal. Petitioner contends that
_______________
11 Id., at 4.
12 Id., at 67.
13 Now Rule 130, 43 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
585
________________
586
_______________
587
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac93e12420b15985003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME305
_______________
588
_________________
589
Under the above provision (Rule 132, 10), the memorandum used
to refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence,
and may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac93e12420b15985003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME305
_________________
590
591
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac93e12420b15985003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME305
Art. 1235. When the obligee accepts the performance, knowing its
incompleteness and irregularity and without expressing any
protest or objection, the obligation is deemed complied with.
FINALLY, after a conscientious scrutiny of the records, we find
Exhibit D1 (p. 85 record) to be a material proof of plaintiffs
complete fulfillment of its obligation.
There is no question that plaintiff supplied RDC Construction
with Item 302 (Bituminous Prime Coat), Item 303 (Bituminous
Tack Coat) and Item 310 (Bituminous Concrete Surface Course)
in all the three projects of the latter. The Lutopan Access Road
project, the Toledo wharf project and the BabagLapulapu Road
project.
On the other hand, no proof was ever offered by defendant to
show the presence of other contractors in those projects. We can
therefore conclude that it was Socor Construction Corp. ALONE
who supplied RDC with Bituminous Prime Coat, Bituminous
Tack Coat and Bituminous 26
Concrete Surface Course for all the
aforenamed three projects.
Judgment affirmed.
o0o
_______________
26 RTC Decision, p. 5.
592
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac93e12420b15985003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME305
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac93e12420b15985003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14