G.R. No. 176949 ; June 27, 2012
ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. LOURDES K. MENDOZA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Lourdes K. Mendoza, sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators, filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner Asian Construction and Development Corporation. She alleged that from August 1997 to March 1998, petitioner purchased fabricated steel materials amounting to ₱1,206,177.00, but despite demand, failed to pay. Petitioner moved for a bill of particulars, arguing the complaint lacked attached purchase orders and invoices, but the RTC denied the motion. During trial, respondent presented her salesman, Artemio Tejero, who testified on the deliveries and identified the charge invoices stamped as received by petitioner’s employee. Petitioner waived its right to present evidence due to repeated non-appearance.
The RTC ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to pay the principal amount, accrued interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modification only on the reckoning date for interest computation. Petitioner sought reconsideration, which was denied, leading to this petition.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the charge invoices are actionable documents; (2) whether delivery of the materials was duly proven; and (3) whether respondent is entitled to attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the charge invoices are not actionable documents under Section 7, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. An actionable document is one upon which an action or defense is based. Here, the invoices were merely evidentiary, providing details of the transactions; respondent’s cause of action was based on the contract of sale, not the documents themselves. Thus, petitioner’s failure to deny the invoices under oath did not constitute an admission.
On the second issue, the Court held that delivery was duly proven by preponderance of evidence. Although the invoices were not actionable, they, along with the purchase orders, were sufficiently authenticated by witness Tejero, who was present during delivery and confirmed the receipts were stamped by petitioner’s employee. In civil cases, preponderance of evidence suffices. Petitioner offered only a bare denial and presented no contrary evidence, making respondent’s evidence more convincing.
On the third issue, the Court deleted the award of attorney’s fees. While attorney’s fees may be awarded under specific circumstances, the RTC decision failed to state the factual and legal basis for the award in the body of the decision, mentioning it only in the dispositive portion. This omission violates the requirement that the rationale for such awards must be explicitly stated. Thus, the CA decision was affirmed with the modification deleting the attorney’s fees.