G.R. No. 219317, June 14, 2021
CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. CHARLIE CHUA UY, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation (Cathay) filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against its former employee, respondent Charlie Chua Uy, Jr. (Uy). Cathay alleged that Uy was hired in 1996 and later assigned as Material Handling Officer at its Novaliches plant, tasked with checking, accepting, and releasing steel products, including the sale of special assorted steel bars (retazos) on a cash basis, and remitting the cash proceeds to Cathay’s treasury department. In March 2008, a special audit revealed that cash proceeds from five sales transactions of retazos in February 2008, covered by delivery receipts (Scrap Miscellaneous Sales or SMS) bearing Uy’s signature and totaling P409,280.00, were not remitted. After Uy failed to settle despite demand, Cathay filed the complaint. Uy denied the allegations and counterclaimed for damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Cathay, ordering Uy to pay P409,280.00 with interest and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint on the ground that Cathay failed to prove the existence of the unremitted payments by preponderance of evidence. The CA noted discrepancies, including that the statements of account offered as evidence were dated June 1, 2011 (years after the complaint was filed), that the statement for one transaction (SMS No. 2276) showed no unpaid balance, and that the delivery receipts in the civil case differed from those in a prior dismissed criminal case for qualified theft. Cathay filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that Cathay failed to prove by preponderance of evidence its cause of action against Uy?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed the CA Decision and Resolution, and held Uy liable, though for a reduced amount. The Court, while generally not a trier of facts, reviewed the factual findings due to conflicting conclusions between the RTC and CA. The Court found that Cathay successfully established by preponderance of evidence that Uy failed to remit cash collections from the sale of retazos. The testimonies of Cathay’s witnesses (Elmer San Gabriel, Gerardo Capitulo, and Angelito Ong) coherently detailed Uy’s duties, the audit process, and the discovery of the unremitted transactions. The delivery receipts (SMS) bearing Uy’s signature were duly identified and authenticated. The Court agreed with the CA that the inclusion of SMS No. 2276 was an oversight as its corresponding statement of account reflected no unpaid balance. However, for the four other transactions (SMS Nos. 2285, 2296, 2335, and 2353), the statements of account, despite being dated June 1, 2011, were deemed admissible and credible as they were generated from Cathay’s accounting system to reflect the updated outstanding balances of the customers involved, corroborating the non-remittance. The total unremitted amount for these four transactions was P391,155.00. The discrepancies between the delivery receipts in the civil and criminal cases were irrelevant, as the civil case proceeded independently. Thus, Cathay discharged its burden of proof. The Supreme Court ordered Uy to pay Cathay P391,155.00, with interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint on July 15, 2008 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment.