GR L 2905; (August, 1909) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2905
LA VIUDA DE SOLER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AURELIO RUSCA, defendant-appellant.
August 3, 1909
FACTS:
La Viuda de Soler (plaintiff-appellee) initiated an action in the Court of First Instance against Aurelio Rusca (defendant-appellant) to recover P854.24, representing the balance due for goods sold and delivered on August 31, 1904. The plaintiff claimed total sales of P1,554.24, with the defendant having paid only P700, and presented a letter acknowledging indebtedness.
The defendant, on the other hand, contended that he had overpaid and was owed P2.51 by the plaintiff. He presented several receipts (Exhibits 1-10, 15, and 16) to support his claim of payment. However, upon examination, these receipts were found to be for goods sold and delivered in July 1902, February 1902, or August 4, 1902all dates prior to the August 12, 1902 account that formed the basis of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The plaintiff had already credited the defendant with P700 based on receipts (Exhibits 11-14) that were applicable to the relevant account.
The lower court found the plaintiff entitled to recover P600.87 (Philippine currency equivalent of $691 Mexican). The defendant appealed this decision, while the plaintiff did not appeal the amount awarded.
ISSUE:
Did the lower court err in finding the defendant liable for the remaining balance, specifically regarding the validity of payments claimed by the defendant through his presented receipts?
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court found that the receipts presented by the defendant-appellant (Exhibits 1-10, 15, 16) were for goods sold and delivered prior to the specific account upon which the plaintiff was suing (dated August 12, 1902). Therefore, these receipts did not constitute valid payments for the debt currently in question. While the Court acknowledged it could not fully understand the lower court’s exact calculation resulting in P600.87, it emphasized that the plaintiff-appellee had not appealed the judgment amount. As the defendant-appellant failed to provide sufficient reason to change the lower court’s judgment, and the plaintiff-appellee did not appeal, the judgment was affirmed.