GR 221770; (November, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 221770 . November 16, 2016.
NANITO Z. EVANGELISTA (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, LEOVIGILDA C. EVANGELISTA), PETITIONERS, V. SPOUSES NEREO V. ANDOLONG III AND ERLINDA T. ANDOLONG AND RINO AMUSEMENT INNOVATORS, INC., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Nanito Z. Evangelista entered into several Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) and deeds of assignment with respondents, who operated amusement centers in various malls. Under these contracts, Nanito invested a total of ₱5,728,800.00 and was entitled to receive 50% of the net profits from the operations, with remittances due on the 15th and 30th of each month. Alleging that respondents failed to remit his share of the profits, Nanito filed a complaint for sum of money, accounting, and specific performance. The parties later stipulated in open court to limit the money claim to ₱2,241,632.00. After Nanito presented his evidence, respondents filed a demurrer to evidence, which was denied. Respondents then waived their right to present evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding Nanito’s evidence insufficient to prove his claim.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that petitioners failed to prove their cause of action by a preponderance of evidence.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. In civil cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish his claim by a preponderance of evidence, meaning evidence that is more convincing and worthy of belief than that opposed to it. The Court found that while the documentary evidence presented by Nanito, presumed made in the ordinary course of business, showed the gross monthly revenues of the amusement centers, it critically failed to account for the operational expenses and capital reinfusions necessary to sustain the business. The contracts entitled Nanito to a share of the net profits, which is the revenue remaining after deducting all costs and expenses. The presented evidence was inconclusive as it did not demonstrate what portion of the gross revenue constituted actual net profit. Therefore, petitioners could not substantiate their claim that specific, unremitted net profits existed and were owed to them. The weakness of the defense, due to respondents’ waiver of presenting evidence, does not relieve petitioners of their burden to rely on the strength of their own evidence. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint for failure to prove the cause of action by preponderant evidence was proper.