Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By:
DEXTER GARY P. FLORES
I Statement of the Legal Problem
The petitioner, Victronics Computers, Inc., was only paid 50% percent of the purchase
price of the computers and peripherals the company have delivered to the six different
branches of Victoria Court under the Victoria Court, GMT Consolidated Company and
Victoria Group of Companies. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the said
corporation on July 26, 1991 with the RTC of Makati for a sum of money and damages
for not paying the outstanding balance within and after the period stipulated in the
Purchase Order despite demands for its payment made on Velhagen and King which
was then the Genral Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the corporation. The case
was docketed as Civil Case No. 91-2069 and was raffled off to Branch 63 of the Makati
RTC.
On August 9, 1991, the six respondent corporations filed with the RTC of Makati a
complaint, dated 7 August 1991, for the nullification of the abovementioned Purchase
Order and for the damages done against the herein petitioner and one Teodorico B.
Kabigting, who is the manager of the Management Information Systems Division of the
said company. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 91-2192 and was raffled to
Branch 150 of the said court.
2
III Highlights of the Case
Petitioner Victronics Computers, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the sale of
computer systems and peripherals, submitted a quotation for office systems to service
the networking requirements of various Victoria Court branches.
Satisfied with the said quotations, private respondents Velhagen and King placed an
order with the petitioner in a Purchase Order 1 form on which is written “GMT
CONSOLIDATED” above the printed word COMPANY, and the address 2129 Pasong
Tamo St., Makati, Metro Manila below it. The private respondents ordered six(6) sets of
80 DATA 386 computer system with peripherals for the net consideration, after
deducting a P7,000 discount, of P767,000.00 subject to the following conditions : a)
payment – 50% downpayment, 50% COD upon completion of the delivery. b) delivery –
within 30 calendar days upon receipt of P.O. and 50% downpayment. c) penalty – 1%
of total P.O. amount per day of delay.
Upon payment of the said 50% downpayment and the issuance of a P.O., the first three
of the computer systems was delivered on May 22, 1991. Delivery of the remaining
computer systems and peripherals was completed on June 20, 1991.
Only 50% of the purchase price of each of the sets delivered to the different
establishments was paid by the said corporations. The outstanding balance not having
been paid within and after the period stipulated in the Purchase Order despites
demand for its payment on Velhagen and King, the petitioner filed on July 26, 1991,
with the RTC of Makati a complaint for a sum of money and damages against: Karl c.
Velhagen and Archie R. King, who operate the business under the names Victoria
Court, GMT Consolidated Company and Victoria Group of Companies. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 91-2069 and was raffled to Branch 63 of the said court
which was then presided by herein respondent Judge Julio R. Logarta. Defendants
Velhagen and King were each served a summon and a copy of the complaint on
August 8, 1991.
On August 9, 1991 the six respondent corporations filed a complaint with the RTC of
Makati dated August 7, 1991 for the nullification of the abovementioned Purchase
Order and for damages against the herein petitioner and one Teodoro B. Kabigting on
the basis of fraud and undue influence and ordering the supplier of the said computers
jointly and severally liable. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 91-2192 and was
raffled to Branch 150 of the Makati RTC.
On August 22 1991, respondent Velhagen and King filed a Motion to Dismiss and to
suspend the proceedings based on the following grounds: a) petitioner failed to verify
the complaint, b) plaintiff failed to sue the proper parties and c) there is a prejudicial
question or a pending incident before another court
On September 5, 1991, Velhagen and King filed in Civil Case No. 91-2192 a Special
Appearance and Motion to Dismiss asking the trial court to dismiss the case on the
grounds of improper service of summons and lack of jurisdiction over its defendant
therein.
On September 16,1991 Branch 63 of the Makati RTC issued an order dismissing Civil
Case No. 91-2069 because of Litis Pendentia.
On September 19, 1991, petitioner filed in Civil Case No. 91-2069, a contempt charge
against the respondents for forum-shopping claiming that after having received the
summons and a copy of the complaint, both respondent did not file an answer with
compulsory counterclaim but instead filed a separate action one day later.
3
Judge Zeus Abrogar ordered the reservice of summons on the petitioner on September
25, 1991.
On October 4, 1991 petitioner requested and obtained a copy of the said order of
dismissal of Civil Case No. 91-2069.
On October 9, 1991 the petitioner filed in Civil Case No. 91-2069 an Ex Abundante
Cautela Motion to Refer Forum Shopping Charge to Executive Judge. On the same
date, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said order of dismissal.
On October 14, 1991 after proper service of summons, petitioner filed a Motion to
Dismiss Civil Case No. 91-2192 on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping.
On December 11, 1991 petitioner filed in Civil Case No. 91-2069 a motion for the
consolidation of the two cases before Branch 63 where the prior case was filed and on
January 6, 1992 it filed in the same case a Manifestation Pro Hac Vice wherein it states
that there was no pending action before Branch 150 as it had not yet acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
Petitioner filed in Civil Case No.91-2192 an answer with compulsory counterclaim on
January 20, 1992.
On 7 February 1992, the Clerk of Court Branch 63 sent the petitioner by registered mail
a copy of the 22 January 1992 Order in Civil Case No. 91-2069 which resolved the
various motions filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an instant petition as a
consequence of the January 22, 1992 order.
On June 10, 1992 the court resolved to give due course to the petition and required the
parties to submit their respective Memoranda, which they subsequently complied with.
4
V Critique of the Supreme Court Decision
I agree with the Court’s decision to make Civil Case No. 91-2069 the ground in
examining the case and deciding in favor of the petitioner because the respondents
failed to prove that the second case was initiated without an unadulterated good faith
and is not brought to harass the petitioner of the first case. The lawyers of the
defendant failed to convince the court that they acted based on good faith. It is proven
that the second action was self-serving and is done to vex the other party. Contracts
are binding and stipulations of the contract should be at all times be followed and with
the respondent company not fulfilling its obligation, the company should be held liable
for its damages to the vendor as stated in the Article 1582 of the Civil Code.