3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

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

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. LOURDES K. MENDOZA,
respondent.

Actionable Documents; A document is actionable when an

action or defense is grounded upon such written instrument or
document; These documents need not be attached to or stated in
the complaint as these are evidentiary in nature.—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, respondent’s cause of action is not
based on these documents but on the contract of sale between the
parties.
Evidence; Preponderance of Evidence; In civil cases, only a
preponderance of evidence or “greater weight of the evidence” is
required.—It bears stressing that in civil cases, only a
preponderance of evidence or “greater weight of the evidence” is
required. In this case, except for a bare denial, no other evidence
was presented by petitioner to refute respondent’s claim. Thus, we
agree with the CA that the evidence preponderates in favor of
respondent.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Benedictine Law Center for petitioner.
  Respicio, Velasquez & Rodriguez Law Office for
respondent.

_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.

285

VOL. 675, JUNE 27, 2012 285

Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs.
Mendoza

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697248693823eaa240003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

In civil cases, the party with the most convincing

evidence prevails.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assails the Decision2 dated April 28,
2006 and the Resolution3 dated March 9, 2007 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69180.
Factual Antecedents
On January 6, 2000, respondent Lourdes K. Mendoza,
sole proprietor of Highett Steel Fabricators (Highett), filed
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City,
Branch 126, a Complaint4 for a sum of money, docketed as
Civil Case No. C-19100, against petitioner Asian
Construction and Development Corporation, a duly
registered domestic corporation.
In the complaint, respondent alleged that from the
period August 7, 1997 to March 4, 1998, petitioner
purchased from Highett various fabricated steel materials
and supplies amounting to P1,206,177.00, exclusive of
interests;5 that despite demand, petitioner failed and/or
refused to pay;6 and that due to the failure and/or refusal of
petitioner to pay the said amount, respondent was
compelled to engage the services of counsel.7
Petitioner moved for a bill of particulars on the ground
that no copies of the purchase orders and invoices were
attached to

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 9-92 with Annexes “A” to “I” inclusive.
2 Id., at pp. 22-41; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam
and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Japar
B. Dimaampao.
3 Id., at pp. 43-44.
4 Id., at pp. 46-48.
5 Id., at p. 46.
6 Id., at pp. 46-47.
7 Id., at p. 47.

286

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs.
Mendoza

the complaint to enable petitioner to prepare a responsive

pleading to the complaint.8 The RTC, however, in an Order
dated March 1, 2000, denied the motion.9 Accordingly,
petitioner filed its Answer with Counterclaim10 denying
liability for the claims and interposing the defense of lack
of cause of action.11

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697248693823eaa240003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

To prove her case, respondent presented the testimonies

of (1) Artemio Tejero (Tejero), the salesman of Highett who
confirmed the delivery of the supplies and materials to
petitioner, and (2) Arvin Cheng, the General Manager of
Highett.12
The presentation of evidence for petitioner, however,
was deemed waived and terminated due to the repeated
non-appearance of petitioner and its counsel.13
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On December 1, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision14 in
favor of respondent, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered ordering the [petitioner] corporation to pay the [respondent] the
following:
a. P1,206,177.00, representing the principal amount, which is the
purchase price of the materials and other supplies ordered by and
delivered to [petitioner];
b. P244,288.59, representing the accrued interest as of August 31,
1999 plus xxx additional interest to be computed at the rate of
12% per annum until the total indebtedness is paid in full;

_______________
8  Records, pp. 8-10.
9  Id., at p. 11.
10 Rollo, pp. 51-53.
11 Id., at pp. 51-52.
12 Id., at pp. 55-56.
13 Records, p. 93.
14 Rollo, pp. 54-59; penned by Judge Luisito C. Sardillo.

287

VOL. 675, JUNE 27, 2012 287

Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs.
Mendoza

c. P150,000.00 for and as Attorney’s fees; and

d. Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.”15

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the
Decision of the RTC. The decretal portion of the CA
Decision16 reads:

“WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the RTC [Br. 126,

Caloocan City] dated December 1, 2000 is hereby AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION, in that the reckoning point for the
computation of the 1% monthly interest shall be 30 days from
date of each delivery.
SO ORDERED.”17
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697248693823eaa240003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

Petitioner sought reconsideration but the same was

unavailing.18

Issues

Hence, this petition raising the following issues:

I. WHETHER X  X  X THE CHARGE INVOICES ARE

ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS.
II. WHETHER X  X  X THE DELIVERY OF THE ALLEGED
MATERIALS [WAS] DULY PROVEN.
III. WHETHER X  X  X RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO
ATTORNEY’S FEES.19

_______________
15 Id., at p. 59.
16 Id., at pp. 22-41.
17 Id., at p. 40.
18 Id., at p. 43.
19 Id., at p. 13.

288

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs.
Mendoza

Petitioner’s Arguments
Petitioner argues that a charge or sales invoice is not an
actionable document; thus, petitioner’s failure to deny
under oath its genuineness and due execution does not
constitute an admission thereof.20 Petitioner likewise
insists that respondent was not able to prove her claim as
the invoices offered as evidence were not properly
authenticated by her witnesses.21 Lastly, petitioner claims
that the CA erred in affirming the award of attorney’s fees
as the RTC Decision failed to expressly state the basis for
the award thereof.22
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent, in her Comment,23 prays for the dismissal
of the petition contending that the arguments raised by
petitioner are a mere rehash of those presented and
already passed upon by the CA.24 She maintains that
charge invoices are actionable documents,25 and that these
were properly identified and authenticated by witness
Tejero, who testified that upon delivery of the supplies and
materials, the invoices were stamped received by
petitioner’s employee.26 Respondent contends that the
award of attorney’s fees was justified as the basis for the
award was clearly established during the trial.27

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697248693823eaa240003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

Our Ruling

The petition is partly meritorious.

_______________
20 Id., at pp. 13-14.
21 Id., at pp. 14-16.
22 Id., at pp. 16-17.
23 Id., at pp. 107-111.
24 Id., at p. 107.
25 Id., at pp. 108-109.
26 Id., at p. 110.
27 Id.

289

VOL. 675, JUNE 27, 2012 289

Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs.
Mendoza

The charge invoices are not

actionable documents
Section 7 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court states:

“SEC. 7. Action or defense based on document.—Whenever an

action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document,
the substance of such instrument or document shall be set
forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof
shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall
be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like
effect be set forth in the pleading.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Based on the foregoing provision, a document is

actionable when an action or defense is grounded upon
such written instrument or document. In the instant case,
the Charge Invoices28 are not actionable documents per se
as these “only provide details on the alleged
transactions.”29 These documents need not be attached to
or stated in the complaint as these are evidentiary in
nature.30 In fact, respondent’s cause of action is not based
on these documents but on the contract of sale between the
parties.
Delivery of the supplies and
materials was duly proved
But although the Charge Invoices are not actionable
documents, we find that these, along with the Purchase
Orders,31 are sufficient to prove that petitioner indeed
ordered supplies and materials from Highett and that
these were delivered to petitioner.

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697248693823eaa240003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

28 Records, pp. 82-86; Exhibits “H-L.”

29 Lazaro v. Brewmaster International, Inc., G.R. No. 182779, August
23, 2010, 628 SCRA 574, 582.
30 Id.
31 Records, pp. 72-81; Exhibits “B-G.”

290

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs.
Mendoza

Moreover, contrary to the claim of petitioner, the Charge

Invoices were properly identified and authenticated by
witness Tejero who was present when the supplies and
materials were delivered to petitioner and when the
invoices were stamped received by petitioner’s employee,
Roel Barandon.32
It bears stressing that in civil cases, only a
preponderance of evidence or “greater weight of the
evidence” is required.33 In this case, except for a bare
denial, no other evidence was presented by petitioner to
refute respondent’s claim. Thus, we agree with the CA that
the evidence preponderates in favor of respondent.
Basis for the award of Attorney’s fees
must be stated in the decision
However, with respect to the award of attorney’s fees to
respondent, we are constrained to disallow the same as the
rationale for the award was not stated in the text of the
RTC Decision but only in the dispositive portion.34
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby PARTLY
GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 28, 2006 and
the Resolution dated March 9, 2007 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 69180 are hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. The award of attorney’s fees in the
amount of P150,000.00 is hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro (Acting Chairperson),** Peralta,***

Bersamin and Perlas-Bernabe,**** JJ., concur. 

_______________
32 Rollo, pp. 29-32.
33 Oño v. Lim, G.R. No. 154270, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 514, 525.
34 SCC Chemicals Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 405 Phil. 514, 523-
524; 353 SCRA 70, 78 (2001).
**  Per Special Order No. 1226 dated May 30, 2012.
***  Per raffle dated June 25, 2012.
****  Per Special Order No. 1227 dated May 30, 2012.

 
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697248693823eaa240003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

291

VOL. 675, JUNE 27, 2012 291

Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs.
Mendoza

Petition partly granted, judgment and resolution

affirmed with modification.

Notes.—Where the insurer alluded to an actionable

document, a Marine Insurance Policy, in its complaint, the
contract of insurance between it and the insured, as
integral to its cause of action against the shipping
company, said Marine Insurance Policy should have been
attached to the Complaint. (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc.
vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., 599 SCRA
565 [2009])
Sales invoices are not actionable documents—an invoice
is nothing more than a detailed statement of the nature,
quantity, and cost of the thing sold and has been
considered not a bill of sale. (Lazaro vs. Brewmaster
International, Inc., 628 SCRA 574 [2010])

——o0o—— 

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697248693823eaa240003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7