GR 42420; (November, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 42420 ; November 20, 1936
WALTER A. SMITH CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. J. W. FORD, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Walter A. Smith Co., Inc., a corporation based in Iloilo, sued J.W. Ford in the Court of First Instance of Manila to collect the unpaid value of lumber delivered to Ford from 1927 to 1930, totaling P2,489.92. Ford denied receiving all the lumber, admitting only those deliveries with receipts signed by him or persons he acknowledged. He also argued improper venue, prescription of some claims, and a defense of compensation, claiming that Walter A. Smith, the corporation’s president, was personally indebted to him. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Ford to pay the amount with interest.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in overruling Ford’s demurrer and motion to dismiss based on improper venue.
2. Whether Ford admitted receipt of all the merchandise.
3. Whether the trial court erred in condemning Ford to pay the claimed amount.
4. Whether the plaintiff corporation no longer had a claim against Ford due to an assignment of accounts.
5. Whether the trial court erred in denying Ford’s motion for a new trial.
RULING
1. The trial court did not err. By filing an answer that included special defenses and a prayer for dismissal, Ford waived his objection to venue and voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.
2. The trial court correctly held that Ford failed to effectively deny receipt. Evidence showed the lumber was invoiced in his name and delivered to his address. His vague answers about not knowing or remembering whether the signatories were his employees did not overcome the plaintiff’s evidence.
3. The trial court correctly ordered payment. Ford’s defense of compensation failed because Walter A. Smith’s personal debts could not be set off against the corporation’s claim, as the corporation has a separate juridical personality from its president and stockholders.
4. The plaintiff corporation retained its claim. The contract with Manila Lumber Inc. was merely a collection agency agreement, not an absolute assignment of rights; the corporation remained the real party in interest.
5. The denial of the motion for a new trial was proper, as no reversible error was found in the judgment.
The appealed judgment was affirmed in toto.
AI Generated by Armztrong.