G.R. No. L-18335. July 31, 1963.
SALUD LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. ALBERTO REALUBIN and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Salud Ledesma purchased gasoline and motor oil on credit from respondent Alberto Realubin’s Caltex service station from June to September 1956, totaling P2,790.60. The purchases were made through her drivers, who signed printed invoices containing stipulations for interest, attorney’s fees, and venue. Realubin retained the original white copies of these invoices, indicating the debts were unpaid. In November 1957, Ledesma sent Realubin a handwritten letter apologizing for her inability to pay and promising settlement soon. When sued for collection, Ledesma initially denied the purchases and her drivers’ authority, but later admitted the authority at trial. She then claimed full payment, presenting pink invoice copies, and alleged the handwritten letter was a forgery.
The trial court rendered judgment for Realubin. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications, finding the letter authentic based on handwriting comparison and rejecting Ledesma’s payment defense. It noted her testimony denying the letter warranted a possible perjury investigation. Ledesma appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing errors in the appellate court’s evaluation of her defenses, its failure to apply the presumption of payment, and its modification of the awarded interest and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) its factual findings regarding Ledesma’s defenses of payment and forgery; (2) not applying the presumption of payment; and (3) modifying the trial court’s award of interest and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with a modification on the interest rate. On the first issue, the Court found no error. The appellate court correctly noted Ledesma’s answer raised only the special defense of her drivers’ lack of authority. While evidence on payment was admitted despite not being pleaded, the court had discretion to assess its credibility and weight, and its factual findings are generally conclusive. Its observation on the letter’s authenticity and the consequent implication for Ledesma’s credibility was within its domain.
On the presumption of payment, the Court ruled it was inapplicable. Realubin proved the fact of non-payment of the June-September purchases, and the Court of Appeals found the October purchases were settled separately in cash. A proven fact prevails over a mere presumption. Finally, the Court held the appellate court correctly increased the attorney’s fees to cover services on appeal, which were not included in the trial court’s award. However, it erred in increasing the interest on the principal debt from 6% to 12%. Since Realubin did not appeal the trial court’s judgment, he was deemed to have accepted the 6% rate. Thus, the legal rate of interest would apply only from the date of the Court of Appeals’ decision until full payment.