Case Digest: Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Mendoza

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LOURDES K. MENDOZA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 176949, 27 June 2012.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Lourdes K. Mendoza (Mendoza), sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators (Highett), a Complaint for a sum of money against Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC), a duly registered domestic corporation.

Mendoza alleged that ACDC purchased from Highett various fabricated steel materials and supplies amounting to P1,206,177.00, exclusive of interests; that despite demand, ACDC failed and/or refused to pay.

Petitioner moved for a bill of particulars on the ground that no copies of the purchase orders and invoices were attached to the complaint to enable petitioner to prepare a responsive pleading to the complaint, which motion was denied by the court. Accordingly, ACDC filed its Answer with Counterclaim denying liability for the claims and interposing the defense of lack of cause of action.

Mendoza presented the testimonies her salesman Artemio Tejero who confirmed the delivery of the supplies and materials to ACDC.

The presentation of evidence for petitioner, however, was deemed waived and terminated due to the repeated non-appearance of ACDC and counsel.

The Court ruled in favor of Mendoza, finding ACDC liable for purchase price of the materials it ordered.

On appeal before the Supreme Court, ACDC argues that a charge or sales invoice is not an actionable document; thus, its failure to deny under oath its genuineness and due execution does not constitute an admission thereof. ACDC likewise insists that respondent was not able to prove her claim as the invoices offered as evidence were not properly authenticated by her witnesses.

ISSUE: W/N ACDC is liable for the materials ordered.

RULING: Yes.

A document is actionable when an action or defense is grounded upon such written instrument or document. In the instant case, the Charge Invoices are not actionable documents per se as these only provide details on the alleged transactions. These documents need not be attached to or stated in the complaint as these are evidentiary in nature. In fact, Mendoza’s cause of action is not based on these documents but on the contract of sale between the parties.

Although the Charge Invoices are not actionable documents, these, along with the Purchase Orders, are sufficient to prove that ACDC indeed ordered supplies and materials from Highett and that these were duly delivered.

Moreover, contrary to the claim of ACDC, the Charge Invoices were properly identified and authenticated by witness Tejero who was present when the supplies and materials were delivered to ACDC and when the invoices were stamped received by its employee.