GR 85659; (September, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85659 September 6, 1991
F.E. ZUELLIG (M), INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TOMAS VALLES, doing business under the name and style of JAMES AUTO SUPPLY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner F.E. Zuellig, Inc. filed a collection suit against respondent Tomas Valles for the sum of P16,121.14, representing the cost of automotive parts allegedly purchased on credit and delivered to his store. Valles denied the claim, conditioning his willingness to pay upon the production of the original sales invoice for examination. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, citing Zuellig’s failure to produce the original invoice and to prove that Benigno Tiu, the alleged recipient, was authorized by Valles. Upon reconsideration, a different trial judge reversed this, holding that the duplicate original of the sales invoice (Exhibit A) was sufficient to establish liability.
ISSUE
Whether the duplicate sales invoice (Exhibit A) is admissible as a duplicate original and credible evidence to prove the delivery of goods and the respondent’s liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, denying the petition. The legal logic centers on the rules of evidence regarding duplicate originals and the burden of proof. For a carbon copy to be considered a duplicate original, the signature on it must be a facsimile produced by the same pen stroke that created the signature on the top sheet, or it must be shown that each copy was intended as a repository of the same legal act. Examination revealed that the signature “Benigno Tiu” on Exhibit A was written in blue ink and was not a carbon reproduction, failing the first criterion. The petitioner also failed to establish the second criterion, as the genuineness of the disputed signature itself was not proven. The burden was on Zuellig, as the plaintiff, to prove the due execution of the document. The testimony of its witness, Cesar Ong, claiming to have seen Tiu sign, was deemed not credible due to inconsistencies and the unusual nature of the transaction. The Court found the respondent’s caution in demanding the original invoice justified, especially given the petitioner’s inability to produce it and the lack of corroborating evidence linking Tiu to the respondent’s business. Consequently, the petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proving delivery and the respondent’s obligation to pay.