G.R. No. 103737, 15 December 1994

FACTS:

Petitioner Nora S. Eugenio was a dealer of the soft drink products of private respondent corporation Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc.. Private respondent filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioners alleging that petitioners purchased and received on credit various products in a total amount of P94,651.00 which, so the complaint alleged, they failed to pay despite oral and written demands.

In their defense, petitioners presented four trade provisional receipts (TPRs) allegedly ISSUEd to and received by them from private respondent’s Route Manager Jovencio Estrada. Petitioners contended that had the amounts in the TPRs been credited in their favor, they would not be indebted to Pepsi-Cola.

The court ordered petitioners pay Pepsi Cola. The CA affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the amounts in the aforementioned trade provisional receipts should be credited in favor of herein petitioner spouses.

RULING:

Yes.

According to respondent court, “the questioned TPR’s are merely ‘provisional’ and were, as printed at the bottom of said receipts, to be officially confirmed by plaintiff within fifteen (15) days by delivering the original copy thereof stamped paid and signed by its cashier to the customer. x x x Defendants-appellants (herein petitioners) failed to present the original copies of the TPRs in question, showing that they were never confirmed by the plaintiff, nor did they demand from plaintiff the confirmed original copies thereof.”

We do not agree with the strained implication intended to be adverse to petitioners. The TPRs presented in evidence by petitioners are disputably presumed as evidentiary of payments made on the account of petitioners. There are presumptions juris tantum in law that private transactions have been fair and regular and that the ordinary course of business has been followed. The role of presumptions in the law on evidence is to relieve the party enjoying the same of the evidential burden to prove the proposition that he contends for, and to shift the burden of evidence to the adverse party. Private respondent having failed to rebut the aforestated presumptions in favor of valid payment by petitioners, these would necessarily continue to stand in their favor in this case.

Besides, even assuming arguendo that herein private respondent’s cashier never received the amounts reflected in the TPRs, still private respondent failed to prove that Estrada, who is its duly authorized agent with respect to petitioners, did not receive those amounts from the latter. As correctly explained by petitioners, “in so far as the private respondent’s customers are concerned, for as long as they pay their obligations to the sales representative of the private respondent using the latter’s official receipt, said payment extinguishes their obligations.” Otherwise, it would unreasonably cast the burden of supervision over its employees from respondent corporation to its customers.

The substantive law is that payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor-in-interest or any person authorized to receive it. As far as third persons are concerned, an act is deemed to have been performed within the scope of the agent’s authority, if such is within the terms of the power of attorney, as written, even if the agent has in fact exceeded the limits of his authority according to an understanding between the principal and his agent. In fact, Atty. Rosario, private respondent’s own witness, admitted that “it is the responsibility of the collector to turn over the collection.”

Judgment of CA is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

*Case digest by Legine S. Ramayla, JD – 4, Andres Bonifacio College, SY 2019 – 2020