From that moment the parties may reciprocally demand

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: o Estrada of its Malate Warehouse, showing payments in the total sum of P80,500.00 made by Abigail's Store. Petitioners contended that had the amounts in the TPRs been credited in their favor, they would not be indebted to Pepsi­Cola. According to Atty. Azurin (legal counsel of Pepsi), during the investigation on December 4, 1981, Estrada allegedly denied that he issued and signed the aforesaid TPRs. He also presented a supposed affidavit which Estrada allegedly executed during that investigation to affirm his verbal statements therein. Surprisingly, however, said supposed affidavit is inexplicably dated February 5, 1982. At this point, it should be noted that Estrada never testified thereafter in court and what he is supposed to have done or said was merely related by Azurin. RTC held in favor of respondent corporation CA affirms the RTC decision ISSUE: W/N the petitioners may be held liable for the amount due in light of the discrepancies in the TPRs HELD: GRANTED. (RTC/CA decisions reversed) 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. . . . Defendants­appellants (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 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 evidenti...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online