G.R. No.

214406

BP OIL AND CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner

vs.
TOTAL DISTRIBUTION & LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC., Respondents

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before this Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, dated November 10, 2014 of
petitioner BP Oil and Chemicals International Philippines, Inc. (BP Oil) that seeks to reverse and set
aside the Decision  dated April 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which, in turn, reversed and
1

set aside the Decision  dated January 21, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 148,
2

Makati City, in a case for a collection of sum of money.

The antecedent facts follow.

A Complaint for Sum of Money was filed by petitioner BP Oil against respondent Total Distribution &
Logistic Systems, Inc. (TDLSI) on April 15, 2002, seeking to recover the sum of ₱36,440,351.79
representing the total value of the moneys, stock and accounts receivables that TDLSI has allegedly
refused to return to BP Oil.

The allegations of the parties, as summarized by the RTC, are as follows:

According to the allegations in the complaint, the defendant entered into an Agency Agreement (the
Agreement) with BP Singapore on September 30, 1997, whereby it was given the right to act as the
exclusive agent of the latter for the sales and distribution of its industrial lubricants in the Philippines.
The agency was for a period of five years from 1997 to 2002. In return, the defendant was supposed
to meet the target sales volume set by BP Singapore for each year of the Agreement. As agreed in
the Supplemental Agreement they executed on January 6, 1998, the defendant was supposed to
deposit the proceeds of the sales it made to a depositary account that the defendant will open for the
purpose. On April 27, 1998, BP Singapore assigned its rights under the Agreement to the plaintiff
effective March 1, 1998.

When the defendant did not meet its target sales volume for the first year of the Agreement, the
plaintiff informed the defendant that it was going to appoint other distributors to sell the BP's
industrial lubricant products in the Philippines. The defendant did not object to the plan of the plaintiff
but asked for ₱10,000,000.00 as compensation for the expenses. The plaintiff did not agree to the
demand made by the defendant.

On August 19, 1999, the defendant through its lawyer, wrote the plaintiff a letter where it demanded
that it be paid damages in the amount of ₱40,000,000.00 and announced that it was withholding
remittance of the sales until it was paid by the plaintiff. On September 1, 1999, the plaintiff wrote the
defendant back to give notice that it was terminating the Agreement unless the defendant rectified
the breaches it committed within a period of 30 days. The plaintiff also demanded that the defendant
pay the plaintiff its outstanding obligations and return the unsold stock in its possession.

On October 11, 1999, the plaintiff gave the defendant formal notice of [sic] that it was terminating the
Agreement after it did not hear from the defendant. The plaintiff would find out that the defendant
had filed a request for arbitration with the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (PDRCI).
On October 9, 2000, the plaintiff, through Mr. Lau Hock Lee, sent the defendant another letter to
reiterate its demand for the defendant to return the unremitted collections and stocks in its
possession.

On April 30, 2001, the defendant, through Mr. Miguel G. de Asis, its Chief Finance Officer, wrote the
plaintiff a letter admitting that as of the said date, it had in its possession collections against sales in
the amount of ₱27,261,305.75, receivables in the amount of ₱8,767,656.26 and stocks valued at
₱1,155,000.00.

On July 9, 2001, the law firm of Siguion Reyna Montecillo & Ongsiako sent the defendant a formal
demand letter for the payment of the total amount of ₱36,440,351.79 representing the total amount
of the collections, receivables and stocks that defendant should have returned to the plaintiff as of
May 31, 2001. The amount was based on a summary of account prepared by Ms. Aurora B.
Osanna, plaintiffs Business Development Supervisor.

On April 15, 2002, the plaintiff filed the instant complaint for collection against the defendant. The
defendant initially filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground for [sic] lack of cause of
action because of the existence of an arbitration agreement, as well as a previously filed arbitration
proceeding between the parties. This Court denied the defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of
merit in its Order dated February 21, 2003. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendant
was likewise denied by this Court on April 30, 2003. The Defendant went up to the Court of Appeals
to question the denial of its Motion to Dismiss via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.

On June 9, 2003, the Defendant filed its Answer Ad Cautelam with Compulsory Counterclaim Ad
Cautelam.

In its answer, the defendant alleged that it was appointed as the exclusive agent of the plaintiff to sell
BP brand industrial lubricants in the Philippines. The agency was to last for five years from signing of
the Agreement, or until September 29, 2001. As the exclusive agent of BP products, the defendant
was tasked to promote, market, distribute and sell the BP products supplied the plaintiff.

The defendant further alleged that it did not fail to meet the sales target for Year I. Delays on the part
of the plaintiff in shipping the products moved the commencement of the Agreement from January
1997 to August 1997, making the stipulated sales target no longer applicable.

On June 8, 1999, the plaintiff unexpectedly informed the defendant of its intention to assume more
control of Philippine operations, including the appointment of a full-time representative in the
Philippines and new distributors. No reason was given for this policy change.

Although the defendant pointed out to the plaintiff that the appointment of a new distributor would
violate the Agency Agreement, the plaintiff ignored the defendant's protests and affirmed that it
would proceed with taking over control of the distribution in the Philippines of BP products and with
appointing additional distributors.

While business proceeded, the defendant's counsel, Atty. Eugeniano E. Perez III, sent the plaintiff a
letter dated August 19, 1999 pointing out, among others, that: a) The plaintiffs plan to take over the
lubricant business and appoint other distributors was in breach of the Agency Agreement; b) the
defendant incurred losses because of the plaintiffs non-compliance with the Agreement and lack of
support; and c) the defendant would be carrying on the business would be withholding any funds to
be collected pending compliance with the demand.
Instead of heeding the consequences of its proposed illegal acts, the plaintiffs took steps to take
over the distribution of BP Products in the Philippines and to appoint new agents for this purpose.
Even before the termination of the Agreement, the plaintiff cut off the supply of BP products to the
defendant, and even tried to sell directly to the defendant's customers, without the defendant's
knowledge. To protect its rights, and pursuant to the arbitration clause under the Agreement, the
defendant filed a Request for Arbitration before the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc.
(PDRCI) on 5 October 1999.

By way of affirmative defenses, the defendant argued that: 1.) it has the right to retain in pledge
objects subject of the agency until it is indemnified by the plaintiff for the damages it suffered under
Article 1914 in relation to Articles 1912 and 1913 of the Civil Code; 2.) the complaint is dismissible
on the ground of lack of cause of action for being prematurely filed and/or litis pendencia because
the issue in the case is already a sub-issue in the arbitration proceedings; and 3.) the action should
be stayed in accordance with Republic Act No. 876.

On March 21, 2004, the Court of Appeals came out with its Decision affirming this Court's denial of
the defendant's Motion to Dismiss after the defendant filed it Answer Ad Cautelam. The Court of
Appeals also denied the defendant's Motion for Reconsideration on August 16, 2004. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals sustaining this Court attained finality with the denial by the Supreme Court
on November 10, 2004 of the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the defendant as well as its
Motion for Reconsideration from the said denial.

In light of the finality of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the defendant lost its right to invoke the
pendency of the arbitration proceedings as part of its affirmative defenses. The defendant is
therefore left with only one affirmative defense to the complaint of the plaintiff, and this is the right of
retention given to an agent under Article 1912, 1913 and 1914 of the Civil Code.

This makes the issue to be resolved by this Court uncomplicated: 1) whether the plaintiff has the
right to collect the amount of ₱36,440,35 l. 79 from the defendant together with legal interest
computed from September 1, 1999, attorney's fees and costs of suit; and 2) whether the defendant
is justified in retaining the amounts and stocks in its possession by virtue of the aforementioned
provisions of the Civil Code on agency. 3

In its Decision dated January 21, 2011, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, granting the claim of the plaintiff
and directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of:

(1) Thirty-Six Million Nine Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Nine Pesos and
Thirteen Centavos (₱36,943,829.13) for the value of the stocks and the moneys received and
retained by the defendant in its possession pursuant to the Agreement with legal interest computed
at 6% per annum from July 19, 2001 up to the finality of this decision and at 12% per annum from
finality of this decision up to the date of payment.

(2) Attorney's fees in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱1,500,000.00) and
costs of suit amounting to Four Hundred Thirty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Pesos
(₱439,840.00).

SO ORDERED. 4
After the respondent elevated the case to the CA, the latter court reversed and set aside the
decision of the RTC and found in favor of the respondent in its Decision dated April 30, 2014, thus:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated January 21, 2011 of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 148 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant
complaint is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 5

The CA ruled, among others, that the admission made by respondent in Exhibit "J ," that it was
withholding moneys, receivables and stocks respectively valued at ₱27,261,305.75, ₱8,767,656.26
and ₱1,155,000.00 from petitioner, has no evidentiary weight, thus, petitioner was not able to
preponderantly establish its claim.

Hence, the present petition where petitioner states the following grounds:

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN RENDERING ITS

DECISION AS WELL AS IN DENYING BP OIL'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.SPECIFICALLY:

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT TDLSI HAS MADE A JUDICIAL
ADMISSION THAT IT HAS POSSESSION OF THE STOCKS, MONEYS AND RECEIVABLES THAT
BP OIL SEEKS TO RECOVER IN THE COMPLAINT BELOW, CONSIDERING THAT:

a. EXHIBIT "J' QUALIFIES AS AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT WHOSE AUTHENTICITY AND DUE

EXECUTION WERE DEEMED ADMITTED BY TDLSI FOLLOWING ITS FAIL URE TO
SPECIFICALLY DENY THE SAME UNDER OATH IN ITS ANSWER.

b. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER EXHIBIT "J" MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN ACTIONABLE

DOCUMENT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT TD LSI HAD ACTUALLY ADMITTED PREPARING AND
SENDING THE SAME TO BP OIL IN ITS ANSWER.

i. NO RESERVATION WAS EVER MADE BY TD LSI REGARDING THE AUTHENTICITY OF ITS

CONTENTS AND NO WITNESS WAS EVER PRESENTED BY TDLSI TO DISOWN ITS DUE
EXECUTION.

ii. ASIDE FROM BEING SELF-SERVING, THE ANSWER TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES

GIVEN BY TDLSI'S MR. MIGUEL DE ASIS AND CITED IN THE DECISION AS A BASIS TO
NEGATE TDLSI'S ADMISSION OF EXHIBIT "J" WAS NEVER OFFERED IN EVIDENCE. THE
COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED THE SAME IN RENDERING
ITS DECISION.

c. THE RIGHT OF RETENTION INVOKED BY TDLSI IN ITS ANSWER CARRIES WITH IT THE
ADMISSION: (i) THAT BP OIL IS ENTITLED TO THE STOCKS, MONEYS AND RECEIVABLES
SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT BELOW, AND (ii) THAT TDLSI IS WITHHOLDING THE SAME
FROM BP OIL.

II
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT WITH OR WITHOUT
EXHIBIT "J," BP OIL HAS MET THE QUANTUM OF PROOF REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVE ITS
CLAIM.

a. CIVIL CASES ONLY REQUIRE A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE AND BP OIL HAS

DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF MEETING THIS STANDARD OF PROOF.

b. THE REFUSAL OF THE COURT TO GIVE WEIGHT TO SOME OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY BP OIL HAS NO LEGAL BASIS.

c. THE DENIAL OF TDLSI'S DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT BP OIL HAS MADE OUT
A PRIMA F ACIE CASE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS AGAINST TDLSI AND TDLSI'S FAILURE
TO CONTROVERT THIS PRIMA F ACIE CASE JUSTIFIES A RULING IN FAVOR OF BP OIL.

According to petitioner, Exhibit "J" qualifies as an actionable document whose authenticity and due
execution were deemed admitted by respondent or TDLSI following its failure to specifically deny the
same under oath. Petitioner insists that it has met the quantum of proof required by law.

In its Comment dated March 24, 2015, respondent reiterates the ruling of the CA that Exhibit "J" is
not an actionable document and cannot be considered a judicial admission on its part.

The petition is devoid of any merit.

The Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule
45.  This court is not a trier of facts. It will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the
6

appellate courts are "final, binding[,] or conclusive on the parties and upon this [c]ourt"  when
7

supported by substantial evidence.  Factual findings of the appellate courts will not be reviewed nor
8

disturbed on appeal to this court. 9

This Court's Decision in Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate Court distinguished questions of law
10

from questions of fact:

As distinguished from a question of law - which exists "when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts" - "there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts;" or when the "query necessarily invites
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and
relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and
the probabilities of the situation."11

Seeking recourse from this court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 bears
significantly on the manner by which this court shall treat findings of fact and evidentiary matters. As
a general rule, it becomes improper for this court to consider factual issues: the findings of fact of the
trial court, as affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this court. "The reason
behind the rule is that [this] Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its duty to review, evaluate, and
weigh the probative value of the evidence adduced before the lower courts." 12

However, these rules do admit exceptions.  Over time, the exceptions to these rules have
13

expanded. At present, there are 10 recognized exceptions that were first listed in Medina v. Mayor
Asistio, Jr.:
14
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2)
When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the
findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond
the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7)
The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of
fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by
the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 15

A close reading of the present petition shows that what this Court is being asked to resolve is, what
should prevail - the findings of facts of the RTC or the findings of facts of the CA on the alleged
misapprehension of facts of the RTC. The findings of facts of both Courts are obviously conflicting,
hence, the need for this Court to rule on the present petition.

On the issue of whether Exhibit "J" is an actionable document, the CA ruled:

Here, plaintiff-appellee relies heavily on its Exhibit "J", defendant-appellant's purported letter dated
April 30, 2001, which it alleged to be an "actionable document" which defendant-appellant failed to
deny under oath. It does amounts to a judicial admission on the part of defendant-appellant that it
has possession of its stocks, moneys and receivables belonging to plaintiff-appellee.

x x xx

Here, the purported April 30, 2001 letter is not an actionable document per se. The present
complaint is an action for collection of sum of money arising from the termination of the Agency
Agreement between the parties. Plaintiff-appellee's cause of action is primarily based on the alleged
non-payment of outstanding debts of defendant-appellant as well as the unremitted
collections/payments and unsold stocks, despite demand. In other words, plaintiff-appellee's cause
of action is not based solely on the April 30, 2001 letter allegedly stating the "present value of stocks,
collections and accounts receivables" of defendant-appellant. Clearly, said document is not an
actionable document contemplated in Section 7, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Court but is merely
evidentiary in nature. As such, there was no need for defendant-appellant to deny its genuineness
and due execution under oath. We thus cannot sustain plaintiff-appellee' s contention that the
aforesaid Exhibit "J" amounted to a judicial admission because it's due execution and authenticity
was never denied under oath by defendant appellant.

Verily, an admission is any statement of fact made by a party against its interest or unfavorable to
the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him. To be
admissible, an admission must (a) involve matters of fact, and not of law; (b) be categorical and
definite; (c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and (d) be adverse to the admitter' s interests,
otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible.

In this case, the alluded Exhibit "J" was introduced in evidence by plaintiff-appellee alleging in its
Complaint that:

"18. Under date of 30 April 2001, TDLSI wrote BP Oil a letter admitting that the following stocks,
collections and accounts receivable were still in their possession as of even date:

Amount collected against sales ₱27,261,305.75

Accounts Receivable 8,767,656.26
Estimated Value of Stocks 1,155,000.00

A copy of the 30 April 2001 letter of TDLSI is hereto attached as Annex "J" and made an integral
part hereof."

In its Answer Ad Cautelam with Compulsory Counterclaim Ad Cautelam, defendant-appellant TDLSI

averred, viz.:

"17. Paragraph 18 is admitted, with qualification [that] TDLSI's letter dated 30 April 2001 was
prepared and sent to BP Oil solely on the latter's representations that the figures were being sought
only to negotiate a settlement of the parties' dispute and end the pending arbitration. Instead, in
shocking bad faith, BP Oil refused to settle and made TDLSI's letter the basis of the instant
Complaint."

Hence, while defendant-appellant admitted said Exhibit "J'', it nevertheless qualified and limited said
admission to, merely, the existence thereof. In fact, in its Comment to Plaintiff's Exhibits, defendant
clearly stated:

"(9) EXH. "J" - only the existence of the letter sent by Defendant to Plaintiff dated April 30, 2001,
signed by Miguel de Asis and addressed to Hok Lee Hau, is admitted. The contents as well as the
factual basis thereof, are not admitted. Besides, the circumstances leading to the sending of this
letter were thoroughly explained by Miguel de Asis in his answer to Plaintiffs written interrogatories."

x x xx

Evidently, the afore-quoted letter does not, in any way, categorically declare that the figures stated
therein are "still in [the] possession of' or, in the hands of, defendant-appellant TDLSI. The "present
value" of the accounts receivables, collections and stocks is one thing, the "value in possession or
on hand" of said accounts is another.

Sans the above-discussed Exhibit "J", therefore, this Court is not convinced that plaintiff-appellee BP
Oil was able to preponderantly establish its claim against defendant-appellant TDLSI in the amount
of ₱36,440,351.79 for the value of the moneys, stock and accounts receivables which the latter
allegedly refused to deliver to the former. As aptly argued by defendant-appellant TDLSI, the
purported Acknowledgment Receipts and Delivery Receipts presented by plaintiffappellee BP Oil the
purpose of which is "to prove that TD LSI, through its General manager, Mr. Ivor Williams,
acknowledged receipt and delivery of the stocks" are totally baseless since the same were never
signed as having been "received by" said Mr. Ivor Williams. Hence, without the latter's signature, the
purpose for which said documents were offered becomes nil.

The above findings of the CA are partially correct.

Exhibit "J" reads as follows:

Mr. Lau,

Some considerable time has passed since either party had the opportunity to review their respective
position (sic) on the disagreement between us. It was pleasing to note that a discussion has now
started between us again and you give the impression that a settlement is a better solution for both
parties than to continue through the legal route.

The present value of stocks, collections and accounts receivable was requested. As of today, we
can state the following:

Amount Collected against Sales ₱27,261,305.75

Accounts receivables ₱8,767,656.26
Estimated Value of Stocks ₱1,155,000.00

Please note that the stock value is estimated because the drums are no longer sealable due to their
condition. However, this is not significant in number.

To the mind of the Court, Exh. "J" is not an actionable document but is an evidence that may be
admissible and; hence, need not be denied under oath. Sections 7 and 8 of the 1997 Rules of Court
provide:

Section 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.

Section 8. How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding
Section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the
adverse party, under oath, specifically denied them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts,
but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party
to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused.

A document, therefore, is actionable when an action or defense is grounded upon such written
instrument or document. The complaint filed by petitioner is an action for collection of sum of money
arising from the termination of the Agency Agreement with TDLSI. The CA, therefore, was correct
when it stated that petitioner's cause of action is primarily based on the alleged non-payment of
outstanding debts of respondent as well as the unremitted collections/payments and unsold stocks,
despite demand. Thus, petitioner's cause of action is not based solely on the April 30, 2001 letter
allegedly stating the "present value of stocks, collections and accounts receivables" of TDLSI.
Noteworthy is the denial of respondent TDLSI' s Demurrer to Evidence by the RTC because it clearly
discussed petitioner's cause of action and the sufficiency of the evidence it presented, thus:

Upon consideration of the pleadings and arguments filed by the parties, the Court is convinced to
DENY the demurrer.

The record shows that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that will preponderantly establish its
claim against the defendant. Among the evidence presented which might prove the claim or right to
relief of the plaintiff against the defendant include (I) the purchase orders of TDLSI's third party
customers; (2) original approved copies of the requests for approval sent by TDLSI to BP Oil from
May 21, 1998 to August 14, 1999; (3)TDLSI invoices covering the products subject of the purchase
orders and requests for approval; and (4) The sales invoices issued by BP Oil to TDLSI to its
customers.

The aforesaid evidence presented was to the mind of the Court contain pertinent facts and
such evidence will prove that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant. As
correctly pointed out by the plaintiff, TDLSI cannot premise its demurrer on any supposed lack of
proof of delivery by BP Oil of certain moneys and receivables. The allegations in the complaint, as
well as the evidence presented by BP Oil, establish that generated as they were by the sales made
by TDLSI, the moneys and receivables have always been in TDLSI's possession and it is the
obligation of the latter to deliver them to BP Oil.

The Court is of the view that the better way to weigh and decide this case based on merits is for the
defendant to present its own evidence to refute the plaintiff's allegations. It is better that the
defendant be given a day in court to prove its defenses in a full-blown trial.

The Court cannot just dismiss the case on the ground that upon the facts and law presented
by the plaintiff it was not able to show a right to relief when in fact the evidence presented,
testimonial and documentary, show otherwise and its claim appears to be meritorious. To
ensure that justice would be served and that the case be decided on its real merits upon a careful
review and appreciation of facts and evidence presented it would be best that defendant should
instead present its own defenses in a formal trial and not just to dismiss the case allegedly in the
absence of clear proof that plaintiff has no right to the reliefs prayed for.

Moreover, the Court noted that this case has been prolonged for so long and this Court can no
longer allow any more delay to this case. 1âwphi1

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Demurrer to Evidence is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. 16

It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because a mere allegation is not
evidence.  In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is
17

given on either side.  The RTC's denial of TDLSI's Demurrer to Evidence shows and proves that
18

petitioner had indeed laid a prima facie case in support of its claim. Having been ruled that
petitioner's claim is meritorious, the burden of proof, therefore, was shifted to TDLSI to controvert
petitioner's prima facie case.

The CA, however, ruled that while TDLSI admitted Exhibit "J", it nevertheless qualified and limited
said admission to, merely, the existence thereof, thus, without Exhibit "J" the same court was not
convinced that petitioner was able to preponderantly establish its claim against TDLSI in the amount
of ₱36,440,351.79 for the value of the moneys, stock and accounts receivables which TDLSI
allegedly refused to deliver to petitioner. This is erroneous. The fact is, TDLSI indeed admitted the
existence of Exhibit "J." Thus, Exhibit "J" can be considered as an admission against interest.
Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or
identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not the declarant is
available as a witness.  An admission against interest is the best evidence that affords the greatest
19

certainty of the facts in dispute, based on the presumption that no man would declare anything
against himself unless such declaration is true.  It is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds
20

with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not.  No doubt, admissions against interest may be refuted
21

by the declarant.  In this case, however, respondent failed to refute the contents of Exhibit "J."
22

Be that as it may, the qualification made by respondent in the admission of Exhibit "J" is immaterial
as the contents thereof were merely corroborative of the other pieces of evidence presented by
petitioner and that respondent failed in its defense, to present evidence to defeat the claim of
petitioner. As aptly ruled by the RTC:

After going over the allegations and the evidence presented by the parties, the Court finds as it did in
its Order denying the Demurrer to Evidence of the defendant that the plaintiff presented sufficient
evidence that will preponderantly establish its claim against the defendant. The Court notes that
apart from not presenting any evidence in support of its defense, the defendant did not really
put up any serious defense to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, and its only remaining defense
consisting of the right of retention given to agents under Articles 1912, 1913 and 1914 of the
Civil Code, even if proven to exist, will not negate the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to
the value of the moneys and stocks in the defendant's possession.

To the mind of the court, the evidence presented by the plaintiff, unrebutted by any evidence
on the part of the defendant and even aided by the admissions made by the defendant in its
letter dated April 30, 2001 to the plaintiff (Exhibit "J"), proves that the plaintiff has a cause of
action for the payment of the amount of Thirty-Six Million Nine Hundred Forty-Three
Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Nine Pesos and Thirteen Centavos (₱36,943,829.13) for the
value of the stocks and the moneys received and retained by the defendant in its possession
pursuant to the Agreement with legal interest computed at 6% per annum from July 19, 2001,
when formal demand (Exhibit "L") was made by the plaintiff for the liquidatedamount of
₱36,943,829.13, up to the finality of this decision up to the date of payment thereof.

Considering that the plaintiff was compelled to engage in litigation for almost 10 years, it must also
be indemnified for the costs of suit corresponding to filing fees in the amount of ₱429,840.00 and
attorney's fees equivalent to ₱1,500,000.00. 23

Section 1,  Rule 133 of the Rules of Court mandates that in civil cases, the party having the burden
24

of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. By preponderance of evidence,

according to Raymundo v. Lunaria,  [means] that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is
25

superior to that of the other. It refers to the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on
either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or
"greater weight of the credible evidence." It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

Upon close analysis, therefore, this Court is inclined to believe the findings of the RTC that petitioner
was able to prove its case by a preponderance of evidence and that respondent failed to disprove
petitioner's claim. As such, the CA gravely erred in reversing the decision of the RTC.

A modification, however, must be made as to the rate of interest applied by the RTC. The RTC
ordered the respondent to pay the amount adjudged "with legal interest computed at 6% per
annum from July 19, 2001 up to the finality of the decision and at 12% per annum from finality of the
decision up to the date of payment." Now, the interest imposed should be 12% per annum from July
19, 2001 until June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction per decision
of this Court in Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways, et al. v. Spouses
Heracleo and Ramona Tecson  which set forth the following guidelines:
26

In summary, the interest rates applicable to loans and forbearance of money, in the absence of an
express contract as to such rate of interest, for the period of 1940 to present are as follows:

Law, Rule and Regulations, Date of Effectivity Interest Rate

BSP Issuances
Act No. 2655 May 1, 1916 6%

CB Circular No. 416 July 29, 1974 12%

CB Circular No. 905 December 22, 1982 12%

CB Circular No. 799 July 1, 2013 6%

It is important to note, however, that interest shall be compounded at the time judicial demand is
made pursuant to Article 2212  of the Civil Code of the Philippines, and sustained in Eastern
27

Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals,  then later on in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,  save for the
28 29

reduction of interest rate to 6% for loans or forbearance of money, thus:

1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or
forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing.
Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In
the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from
default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169
of the Civil Code.30

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court dated
November 10, 2014 of BP Oil and Chemicals International Philippines, Inc. is GRANTED.
Consequently, the Decision dated April 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and the Decision dated January 21, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 148, Makati
City is AFFIRMED and REINSTATED, with the MODIFICATION that the interest imposed should be
12% per annum from July 19, 2001 until June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until
fully paid.

SO ORDERED.