VITARICH CORPORATION vs.
CHONA LOSIN
FACTS:
Chona Losin (Losin) was in the fastfood and catering services business named Glamours Chicken House in Cotabato
City.
Since 1993, Vitarich, particularly its Davao Branch, had been her supplier of poultry meat. In 1995, however, her account
was transferred to the newly opened Vitarich branch in General Santos City.
In the months of July to November 1996, Losins orders of dressed chicken and other meat products allegedly amounted
to 921,083.10. During this said period, Losins poultry meat needs for her business were serviced by Rodrigo
Directo (Directo) and Allan Rosa (Rosa), both salesmen and authorized collectors of Vitarich, and Arnold
Baybay (Baybay), a supervisor of said corporation.
o Unfortunately, it was also during the same period that her account started to experience problems because of the
fact that Directo delivered stocks to her even without prior booking which is the customary process of doing
business with her.
On August 24, 1996, Directos services were terminated by Vitarich without Losins knowledge. He left without
turning over some supporting invoices covering the orders of Losin. Rosa and Baybay, on the other hand, resigned on
November 30, 1996 and December 30, 1996, respectively. Just like Directo, they did not also turn over pertinent invoices
covering Losins account.
On February 12, 1997, demand letters were sent to Losin covering her alleged unpaid account amounting to 921,083.10.
Because of said demands, she checked her records and discovered that she had an overpayment to Vitarich in the amount
of 500,000.00. She relayed this fact to Vitarich and further informed the latter that checks were issued and the same
were collected by Directo.
It appears that Losin had issued three (3) checks amounting to 288,463.30 which were dishonored either for reasons -
Drawn Against Insufficient Funds (DAIF) or Stop Payment.7
On March 2, 1998, Vitarich filed a complaint for Sum of Money against Losin, Directo, Rosa, and Baybay before the
RTC.
RTC ruled against Losin. CA reversed stating:
o As far as Losin is concerned, Directo was a duly authorized agent of Vitarich Corporation. As such, it fell upon
Directo to place her orders of dressed chicken and other related products to their General Santos City branch.
All such orders were taken from the Vitarich bodega by Directo as testified by Alona Calinawan, then
bookkeeper of Vitarich from March 1995 to September 1998, who was responsible for all the customers
accounts, receivables and withdrawals of dressed chicken from their bodega.
o It is noted that the dressed chicken and other related products as manifested by the Charge Sales Invoices, were
taken out of the bodega and received by Directo, who is now at large. There was no evidence presented by
Vitarich to prove that aforesaid stocks were delivered to Losin. Contrary to what Vitarich claimed that Directo
resigned on August 24, 1996, exhibit X shows that he was terminated.
o The fact can not be put aside that Directo was the salesman and authorized collector and by law, the agent of
Vitarich. Criminal acts committed by Directo by his non-remittance of the proceeds of the checks given by Losin,
is his separate accountability with Vitarich and should not be imputed to their client, Losin. In fact, defendant
Directo absconded when plaintiff-appellee started to question his collectibles. The totality of Directos
acts clearly indicated a deliberate attempt to escape liability. (I honestly think this is the only important
part of the case hahahaha)
ISSUE: W/N Losin is liable to Vitarich YES
Initially, Vitarich claims a total of 921,083.10 from respondent Losin, Directo, Rosa and Baybay (defendants in Civil
Case No. 6287 for Sum of Money). According to Vitarich, "[t]he successive and sudden resignations of defendants
Directo, Baybay and Rosa and the sudden change of mind of defendant Losin after previously acknowledging her
accounts are part of an elaborate and sinister scheme of defendants, acting singly or collectively, in conspiracy or not, in
defrauding plaintiff corporation xxx."
Records bear out that Losin transacted with Vitarichs representative Directo. Vitarich presented several charge sales
invoices and statement of account to support Losins accountability for the products delivered to her.
o A total of 921,083.10 was initially charged to her. Losin, on the other hand, presented a copy of the list of
checks allegedly issued to Vitarich through its agent Directo, and a Statement of Payments Made to Vitarich to
support her allegation of payment.
o It is worth noting that both Vitarich and Losin failed to make a proper recording and documentation of their
transactions making it difficult to reconcile the evidence presented by the parties to establish their respective
claims.
As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.
o True, the law requires in civil cases that the party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Section 1, Rule
131 of the Rules of Court provides that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to prove the truth of his claim
or defense, or any fact in issue by the amount of evidence required by law. In this case, however, the burden of
proof is on Losin because she alleges an affirmative defense, namely, payment. Losin failed to discharge that
burden.
After examination of the evidence presented, this Court is of the opinion that Losin failed to present a single official
receipt to prove payment.
o This is contrary to the well-settled rule that a receipt, which is a written and signed acknowledgment that money
and goods have been delivered, is the best evidence of the fact of payment although not exclusive.
o All she presented were copies of the list of checks allegedly issued to Vitarich through its agent Directo, a
Statement of Payments Made to Vitarich, and apparently copies of the pertinent history of her checking account
with Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). At best, these may only serve as documentary records of
her business dealings with Vitarich to keep track of the payments made but these are not enough to prove
payment.
The claims against Rosa and Baybay who allegedly did not fully account for their sales transactions have not been
substantially proven by evidence. In fact, it appears that Rosa and Baybay resigned. Resignation would not have been
possible unless accountabilities with Vitarich had been settled first. It was only the services of Directo that was apparently
terminated by Vitarich. Summons, however, was not served on him, so he could not be made to account for the shortages
of collection.
