GR 128121; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128121 & 128993; October 9, 2000
PHILIPPINE CREOSOTING CORPORATION, et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PACWOOD, INC.; PACWOOD, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Creosoting Corporation (Creosoting) ordered treated wood poles from respondent Pacwood, Inc. The core dispute centered on the agreed unit price. Creosoting claimed it was granted a 20% trade discount, which, if applied, meant its account was fully settled, particularly after a payment of US$10,000 (P225,000) made at a meeting in Red Ribbon, Greenhills. Pacwood, however, insisted no such discount was granted, and the price per pole was P2,731.55, leaving an unpaid balance.
The trial court initially ruled for Creosoting, dismissing Pacwood’s collection suit and awarding damages to Creosoting. It later amended its decision to order Pacwood to return an attached crane or pay its value. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding no proof of a discount and ordering Creosoting to pay Pacwood the claimed balance of P406,866.04 with interest. Both parties elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether Creosoting is liable to Pacwood for an unpaid balance on the delivered wood poles, and if so, for what amount.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the appellate court’s decision, finding Creosoting liable for a reduced amount. The Court held that the claim of a 20% discount was unsubstantiated. Documentary evidence, specifically invoices and delivery receipts, consistently reflected the unit price of P2,731.55 with no indication of any discount. Testimonial evidence alone could not overcome this documentary proof.
However, the Court credited the payment of US$10,000 (P225,000) made by Creosoting, which Pacwood accepted. Therefore, the correct computation of liability was the total contract price (145 poles x P2,731.55 = P396,074.75) minus the P225,000 payment, leaving a balance of P171,074.75. This amount was subject to legal interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the complaint until full payment. The award of attorney’s fees to Pacwood was reduced to P10,000. The writ of attachment issued against Creosoting’s property was consequently unjustified.