ACDC v.
Tulabut (Short title) PROVISION
GR # 161904 | April 26, 2005
Petitioner: Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC)
Respondent: Noel T. Tulabut, doing business under the name and style of
N.T. Tulabut Construction Supply
(Rule 131, Section 1)
FACTS
1. ACDC was awarded the development of a theme park in
Pampanga. It contracted the services of Tulabut to supply labor,
materials, tools, equipment and supervision for for the construction
of two cafeterias, two fast food take-out stands and a snack stand.
2. ACDC bound and obliged to pay the price of P3M through progress
billing . Construction ensued and ACDC had paid save for P3K.
3. ACDC again contracted the services of Tulabut for the construction
of two additional cafeterias via Purchase Order (P.O.) for P400K.
ACDC drew and issued a Land Bank Check which was dishonored
because of insufficient funds.
4. Tulabut was able to complete the project and turned the same over
to ACDC. Despite demand for payment, ACDC failed to settle.
5. Tulabut then filed for collection with the RTC and prayed for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment which was granted.
6. In its answer with counterclaim, ACDC calimed that Tulabut had not
yet fully completed nor turned over the project and that it had
settled its outstanding account equivalent to or even more than the
percentage of the work actually accomplished. Also, that settlement
of the billings was dependent upon ACDC's receipt of payment from
the government and the government had not yet paid.
7. Tulabut adduced testimonial and documentary evidence, and
admitted having received partial payment. On the other hand,
ACDC opted not to adduce any evidence in its behalf.
8. RTC ruled in favor of the Tulabut
9. ACDC appealed to the CA, contending that if it was liable, the same
should be reckoned only from the lapse of one year after the
issuance of a certificate of completion, as was the standard practice
in the construction industry and that Tulabut was not able to
establish that the project had been fully completed.
10. CA dismissed the appeal ruling that ACDC was estopped from
denying liability since its officers had approved the pertinent
purchase orders and billings and that it failed to prove the alldged
common practice.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N ACDC failed to adduce evidence to controvert Tulabut's evidence
which proved that the project had been completed and turned over
Rule 131
Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
RULING & RATIO
1. Yes.
1. Tulabut was obliged to establish the material averments of his
complaint by a preponderance of evidence. ACDC as the defendant
was burdened to prove its defenses that Tulabut had failed to
complete the project.
2. While Tulabut adduced testimonial and documentary evidence,
ACDC opted not to adduce a morsel of evidence in its behalf thus,
must bear the consequence.
3. He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of
proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof
never parts. However, in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a
prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of
evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima facie
case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.
4. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having
to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the
weakness of the defendants.
5. Thus, the terms and conditions of the contract unequivocally
expressed in the purchase orders and progress billings must
govern the contractual relation of the parties, for these serve as the
terms of the agreement, which are binding and conclusive.
6. When the words of the contract are clear and readily
understandable, there is no room for construction. The contract is
the law between the parties.
7. ACDC is estopped from evading its pecuniary obligation by merely
asserting without proof that Tulabut failed to complete the projects
and the non-payment of its principal as explained by the CA.
DISPOSITION
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED for lack
of merit. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.