Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50110:gr-154276-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:30:06+00:00

Document:
CONRADO CUYUGAN, Petitioner, v. RODOLFO SIASOCO, Respondent.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June 17, 2002 in CA-G.R. No. CV-65439 which modified the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City.
The case originated as a Complaint2 for Sum of Money with Attachment, filed on October 18, 1995, by Conrado Cuyugan (petitioner) against Rodolfo Siasoco (respondent) with the RTC of Marikina City. Petitioner alleged that he owned a printing press, called CPAAA Prints, located in Marikina City; that prior to the May 1995 elections, the respondent, then a candidate for vice mayor of Marikina, ordered from the petitioner various election campaign materials such as stickers, handbills, posters, sample ballots and others; that as a result, the respondent incurred an obligation of P212,890.00 to the petitioner; that the petitioner made several demands for the respondent to pay; and that in spite of several demands, the respondent failed to settle his obligations.
In his Answer,3 the respondent averred that, indeed, he ordered campaign materials from the petitioner; however, his monetary obligations to the petitioner have all been settled and what remain unpaid are the obligations of other candidates for which the respondent is not responsible. The respondent then pleaded a counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
2. That the plaintiff (petitioner) was one of the sources of the election materials by the defendant inclusive of all the party mates running.
Respondent appealed the decision to the CA.
On June 17, 2002, the CA rendered its Decision,6 modifying the decision of the RTC, by reducing the liability of the respondent to P20,945.00 plus interest of 6% per annum counted from the time the complaint was filed up to the date of full payment.
In its Decision, the CA found that the respondent ordered campaign materials worth an aggregate of only P290,945.00, of which a total of P270,000.00 had already been paid, leaving an unsettled obligation of only P20,945.00. The CA based respondent's obligations on the purchase orders he executed to order the materials as well as the statement of account issued by the petitioner. Then, the CA based the respondent's total payments on the checks he issued to the petitioner, who admitted encashing the same. The CA held that the respondent should not be held accountable for campaign materials indicated in the statement of account but intended for other candidates in the respondent's campaign ticket, as he did not agree to shoulder these.
Hence, the instant Petition for Review by the petitioner.
The Court is not persuaded by petitioner's arguments.
The issue for resolution by the Court is: whether the respondent is liable for the campaign materials of the other candidates belonging to his party.
To resolve the issue at hand, there is a need to answer the following questions: whether the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to establish his claim against the respondent with regard to the other candidates' materials; and, whether a presentation of such evidence had been obviated by stipulations made during pre-trial, in which respondent purportedly admitted liability.
Since the trial court and the appellate court diverge on the issue of whether the respondent ordered and took delivery of the campaign materials of his fellow candidates in his political party, which makes him liable for their payment, the Court now examines the evidence on record.
Witness: I usually prepare delivery receipts.
Atty. Bugaring: My question is this properly acknowledged by the person who received the same? Yes or no.
Witness: I could not recall.
Witness: First delivery was acknowledged and then the latest delivery, I could not recall.
Witness: In some instances because there were times that when they picked up the goods, I was not in the office.
Atty. Bayhon: Argumentative Your Honor.
Atty. Bugaring: As shown by your Exhibit "C" and submarkings. I am showing to you your Exhibit "C." You agree with me that most of these delivery receipts was (sic) not acknowledged by the recipient. You could go over it and tell me.
Atty. Bugaring: So in these delivery receipts that were not acknowledged, you agree with me that you are (sic) not present in your office, as you said earlier... that the reason that they were not acknowledged because you are (sic) not around.
(TSN, 16 July 1998, pp. 10-15).
It is clear from the foregoing testimony that the unpaid campaign materials worth Php212,890.00 were not duly proven to have been delivered and received by appellant Siasoco or his authorized representative. Hence, there is no basis to hold Siasoco liable for the campaign materials ordered by his party-mates.
On the other hand, the respondent presented purchase orders, marked as Exhibits "1" to "13," representing the materials he ordered from the petitioner. The purchase orders cover only the materials intended for the respondent and exclude the items intended for the other candidates. When cross-checked with the Statement of Account dated May 20, 1995 (Exhibit "C" [for petitioner] and Exhibit "26" [for respondent]) issued by the petitioner, the purchase orders indeed corresponded with the items or materials intended for candidate Siasoco only. There were no purchase orders for the campaign materials of the other candidates, as the respondent never issued any. This is based on the fact that the petitioner did not receive any such purchase orders from the respondent, as proven by the petitioner's failure to present these documents in evidence. This is compelling proof that the other candidates obtained their own materials for their own account, not that of respondent.
In the matter of payments made, it is not disputed that the respondent already paid a total of P270,000.00, in the form of checks, to the petitioner. When subtracted from the P290,945.00, the respondent's total obligations represented by the purchase orders, the respondent's remaining obligation is P20,945.00, as correctly found by the CA.
Thus comes the next question: did the respondent stipulate during pre-trial that he is liable for the other candidates' election campaign materials? The petitioner claims that even if he was unable to present sufficient evidence to prove the respondent's liability for the other candidates' election campaign materials, this was made unnecessary by the respondent's own admission or stipulation of the fact during the pre-trial of the case.
2. That the plaintiff [petitioner] was one of the sources of the election materials by the defendant [respondent] inclusive of all the party mates running.
Nothing in the stipulations indicates that the respondent admitted liability for the materials of the other candidates. If anything, the admission went only as far as to admit that petitioner was one of the sources of election materials of respondent's and his partymates' campaign materials. There is no admission that respondent is solely responsible for all the materials obtained from petitioner. Applying the rules on construction, under the plain meaning rule, only the literal meaning (of the stipulation) should control; that is, that the petitioner was one of the sources of election materials. No further interpretation outside this literal meaning must be applied.16 In this case, absent qualifying or restrictive words, the respondent should not be made responsible for settling his party's obligations to the petitioner.
For if indeed the respondent judicially admitted his liability for the other candidates' materials, as the petitioner claims, there should have been no need for a full-blown trial before the RTC. A summary judgement would have sufficed. Yet, such was not the case. As borne out by records, the petitioner himself did not move for a summary judgement. On the contrary, the respondent had been consistent in his pleadings, including his Answer17 and Pre-Trial Brief18 with the RTC, in denying his liability for the other candidates' accounts. This makes it impossible to conclude that the respondent admitted or stipulated his liability for the election materials of his partymates.
Therefore, the Court adopts the findings of the CA that the respondent's total responsibility for the campaign materials amounts to only P290,945.00. Out of that amount, a total of P270,000.00 had already been paid, leaving the respondent with an unsettled obligation of only P20,945.00.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 17, 2002 is AFFIRMED.
* The Court of Appeals having been included as a co-respondent, is deleted from the title pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
1 Penned by Justice Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. with the concurrence of Justices B.A. Adefuin-De la Cruz and Regalado E. Maambong, rollo, p. 28.
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified Petition for Review on Certiorari . The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
9 National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148830. April 13, 2005, 456 SCRA 17, 24.
10 Salva v. Court of Appeals, 364 Phil. 281, 290 (1999).
12 TSN, July 16, 1998, p. 12.
13 TSN, April 30, 1998, pp. 14-15.
14 TSN, July 16, 1998, p. 29.
15 TSN, September 3, 1998, pp. 1-28.
16 Southern Cross Cement Corp. v. Philippine Cement Manufacturers Corp., G.R. No. 158540. July 8, 2004, 434 SCRA 65, 93; National Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Commission, 383 Phil. 910, 918 (2000).
19 Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 1.
20 New Testament Church of God v. Court of Appeals, 316 Phil. 330, 333 (1995) citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84966, November 21,1991, 204 SCRA 160, 168.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.