As a rule, only questions of law are entertained in petitions for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However there are also exceptions such as (1) when the CA findings are contrary to evidence which it grossly mis-appreciated and (2) when the CA findings are contrary to the judicial admissions of a party. This case of a company engaged in the business of selling hardware and construction materials (GDC) is an example of said exceptions.
GDC had been supplying a company engaged in fabrication of pre-stress concrete pipes and pre-cast concrete (PSI) with construction materials on credit and at times helped finance PSI’s construction projects through its sister financing company. This arrangement was facilitated by Simon, the PSI general manger and Gary, an officer of PSI who was also one of the customers of GDC.
Initially the construction materials delivered by GDC to PSI were taken from its warehouse in another town situated some kilometers away from PSI compound. Later on for convenience of both parties, the PSI officers particularly Gary and Simon offered GDC to store its construction materials at the PSI compound. Since GDC was at that time also renting out its warehouse to a bakeshop, it accepted the PSI proposal and began utilizing a portion of the PSI compound as its bodega for stocks coming from Luzon and Cebu. Also placed in PSI compound were the equipment necessary for the loading and unloading of the materials.
Thus in the withdrawal of GDC materials from the PSI compound by its customers including PSI and Gary, purchase orders were first obtained in its main office, then withdrawal slips describing the materials and their quantity were issued to customers who presented them to the GDC personnel at PSI compound and the latter would record it and release the materials to the customers. The same pattern was followed in the purchases made by PSI and Gary where the materials were transferred within the same compound, as Gary also had his warehouse located therein.
Later on when its warehouse was already vacated by the bakeshop, GDC decided to resume its operations at its own warehouse and started to retrieve and transfer its alleged stocks from the PSI compound to its own warehouse. However after bringing out only two truckloads, the PSI guards prevented the GDC people from retrieving the remaining materials allegedly upon instructions of Gary. And despite numerous telephone calls to the PSI officers, the latter refused to allow GDC to withdraw its remaining stocks.
Consequently, GDC filed a Complaint for Recovery of Personal Property with Prayer for Replevin and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). GDC asked the court to order PSI, Gary and Simon to return its materials listed in its complaint or their values in the sum of P3,885,750.69.
In answer, PSI and Simon claimed that although GDC delivered construction materials at its compound, it was only on occasions when they bought some construction materials or when GDC delivered construction materials to Gary that were stocked at a separate area designated for Gary. PSI also averred that it does not interfere with the affairs and activities of Gary and GDC and that although GDC also delivers construction materials to Gary, the transaction is purely between them. In his answer, Gary alleged that he never agreed or allowed GDC to store its materials in his designated area in the PSI compound. He averred that neither he, PSI nor Simon agreed to the withdrawal of the stocks inside the compound because all those stocks were not owned by GDC but were his personal properties.
After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of PSI, Gary and Simon. It ratiocinated that GDC was not able to prove its ownership of the subject materials and that there was no agreement to store materials in the PSI compound and that Gary was the owner of those materials. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled that GDC failed to present convincing and concrete evidence to support its claim of ownership and rightful possession of the materials. Was the CA correct?
No. There is sufficient basis in both PSI and Gary’s judicial admissions and the evidence on record that indeed the construction materials were delivered by GDC in the PSI compound. PSI and Simon admitted in their answer such delivery. Their admissions that they bought construction materials from GDC which were stocked at its own compound proved that GDC owned the materials and such ownership was recognized by them by the mere fact that they purchased some of the materials from GDC.
The CA also simply ignored the evidentiary impact of the voluminous withdrawal slips and inventory lists prepared and testified to by GDC personnel. These lists were never denied by PSI, Simon or Gary in their respective answers. While these lists were prepared by GDC personnel, they are not self serving. They were prepared without any anticipation that any litigation between the parties may ensue. A writing or document made contemporaneously with a transaction evidencing facts in issue when adduced as proof of those facts is more reliable proof and of greater probative force than the oral testimony of a witness as to such facts based on memory or recollection (Golden (Iloilo) Delta Sales Corp. vs. Pre-Stress International Corp. et. al. G.R. 176768, January 12, 2009).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net