G.R. No. C.A. No. 475 ; March 27, 1946
Lim Tek Goan, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jose Azores, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On May 31, 1941, Lim Tek Goan filed an action against Jose Azores before the Justice of the Peace Court of San Pablo, Laguna, for the collection of the sum of P371.40 plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint and costs. The Justice of the Peace Court absolved the defendant, but on appeal, the Court of First Instance reversed that decision and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed this decision.
According to the plaintiff’s allegations and evidence, on the morning of August 11, 1936, the defendant went to his store to buy certain construction items listed on a specification. The agreement was that payment would be made upon receipt of the items at the defendant’s house. However, when the plaintiff’s driver made the delivery, the defendant was absent, so the items were left with the master carpenter who was then directing improvement and repair works at the house, without the driver receiving payment, thus converting the sale into one on credit instead of cash as stated in the invoices. Days later, the defendant returned to the plaintiff’s store to pay but first haggled over certain items he found expensive, even writing “.65 each” on the invoice to request a reduction. The plaintiff refused to lower the price, and the defendant left without paying, promising to do so later. The plaintiff repeatedly demanded payment from the defendant to no avail, finally filing the action after a delay of over four years. He did not go to court earlier because the defendant and his family were among the wealthiest in town, and he wanted to preserve the goodwill of such lucrative patrons.
The defendant’s defense was one of pure and absolute denial. Through his sole testimony, he absolutely denied having bought the materials in question from the plaintiff. He claimed he could not have made the alleged purchase because at that time he did not live in the house where the materials were used; those living there were Nicolas Azores, his father, and Emerita Santos, his father’s common-law wife with whom he had natural children. Moreover, due to these irregular relations, he was on bad terms with his father’s common-law wife.
After the trial but before the decision was promulgated, Emerita Santos filed a third-party claim, alleging she had already settled the account with the plaintiff and asking either for reimbursement from the plaintiff or for the defendant to reimburse her by subrogation. The court rejected this motion for being filed out of time (after trial), for unduly delaying the adjudication of the original parties’ rights, and because her alleged rights could be protected in a separate action. The third-party claimant did not appeal this order. The defendant also moved for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, namely the testimony of Emerita Santos that she had paid the account. The motion was denied.

ISSUE

The primary issue is one of fact: whether it is true that the defendant bought the materials from the plaintiff on the indicated date, with the promise to pay upon delivery at his domicile, but has failed to fulfill this obligation despite repeated demands. Secondary issues involve the trial court’s denial of the third-party claim and the motion for a new trial, as well as the defendant’s argument that even if the purchase occurred, the obligation belonged to his father or his father’s estate.

RULING

The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance in all respects, with costs against the appellant.
1. On the Factual Issue: The trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, resolved the factual question in favor of the plaintiff, and the appellate court found no reason to adopt a contrary view. The analysis of the evidence was entirely correct. Witnesses for the plaintiff, including the plaintiff himself, his driver Lim Tek Liong (who delivered the materials), and master carpenter Cecilio Juliano (who received them at the defendant’s house in the defendant’s absence), testified truthfully and their declarations withstand rigid scrutiny. The defendant’s argument that it was incredible for a rich man to deny a small debt is not determinative, as human actions are not governed by inflexible logic. The defendant’s conduct in the face of repeated demands for payment, particularly one made by the plaintiff’s lawyers shortly before the suit was filed, militates against his defense of simple denial. If the account were false, his reaction from the beginning would have been one of surprise or indignation, which he did not show. It is also not plausible that a merchant of some standing would fabricate a false account against a customer, especially one of the defendant’s standing.
2. On the Third-Party Claim: The defendant has no right to assign as error the court’s rejection of Emerita Santos’s third-party claim, as she herself did not appeal. In any case, the court acted correctly within its discretion in rejecting the claim under Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as it was filed after trial and would delay the proceedings.
3. On the Motion for New Trial: The motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Emerita Santos’s testimony) was properly denied. The affidavits of merit showed that both the defendant and his lawyer had tried to persuade Emerita Santos to testify in his favor before and during the trial but met with her hostility or indifference. Her decision to speak in his favor after the trial does not make her testimony “newly discovered evidence” in the legal sense. The failure to call a witness believed to be hostile is not ordinarily excused.
4. On the Defendant’s Personal Liability: The defendant’s final argument—that even assuming the purchase was made, the obligation belonged to his father (Nicolas Azores) or, upon his death, to his estate—is untenable. Throughout the litigation, the defendant never claimed to be an agent of his father. On the contrary, he stated he was on bad terms with his father’s illegitimate family and had nothing to do with the repair works. The plaintiff’s evidence conclusively establishes that the defendant made the purchase in his own name. Therefore, his liability is absolutely personal.
Even assuming a relationship of agency existed between Nicolas Azores and the defendant, the defendant, having acted in his own name without disclosing his capacity as an agent, is directly obligated to the seller as if the transaction were his own, pursuant to Article 1717 of the Civil Code. The defendant could not invoke the exception in this article because the contract of sale did not involve property of the supposed principal but of a third party (the plaintiff).