Asian Construction and Devt Corp. v.

Tulabut
April 26, 2005 | Callejo Sr., J. | Petitionfor Certiorari | Burden of Proof and presumptions

PETITIONER: Asian Construction and Devt Corp.

RESPONDENT: Noel Tulabut
SUMMARY: Asian Construction and Develeopment Corp. was contracted by the government for the Philippine Centennial
Exposition. They subcontracted it to Tulabut. Tulabut did the works in the Food Plaza and gave progress billing to ACDC in amount
of 3.4M. ACDC again sought the help of Tulabut for two additional cafeterias. Purchase Order given to ACDC worth 400k. ACDC
did not pay, claiming that Tulabut did not complete the work they are obligated to do. Tulabut filed complaint, presenting
testimonial and documentary evidence; ACDC did not adduce any. SC said ACDC is estopped from denying liability because they
merely denied without showing evidence.
DOCTRINE: Once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert
plaintiffs prima facie case, otherwise a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Party having burden of proof must produce
preponderance of evidence.

FACTS:
January 1998, pet. Asian Construction and Devt Corp
(ACDC) was awarded the PH Centennial Exposition (Theme
Park Project) at Clark, Pampanga. They contracted services of
Tulabut (N.T. Tulabut Construction Supply) to supply labor,
materials, tools, equipment, and supervision for other
necessary works for construction of two cafeterias, a snack
stand and a take-out stand in the Food Plaza. ACDC obliged to
pay 3.4M through progress billing. They had a 3.2k balance.
Talabut was again contracted for two additional cafeterias, net
cost of 400k. He was tendered a check for partial payment.
However, it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
Talabut completed the project, total amount due was
P486,409.45 but he was not paid despite written demand for
payment. So he filed a complaint for collection against
petitioner.

completion of the project

-

Resp unable to show that the project had been fully

completed since it was unable to show a cert of
completion in its favor

CA: affirmed RTC

-

Estopped na from denying liability because officers

had approved the purchase orders and billings

Failed to prove that it was a common practice for

subcontractor to pay retention billing only upon main
contractors issuance of cert of completion.

Petitioners arguments on appeal to SC:

-

Defense of ACDC: respondent had not yet fully completed nor

turned over the project subject of the contracts. It has settled
accounts equivalent to the amount of work actually completed.

CA wrong in saying works have been completed,

based only on the approval of purchase orders and
final billings.

Settlement was dependent upon receipt of payment from govt

as the owner of the project. As of the moment, govt has not
yet paid petitioner.

Approval had nothing to do with the actual

completion of the projects which Tulabut was
obligated to accomplish.

In fact, resps failed to prove that the projects have

actually been completed.

Tulabut adduced testimonial and documentary evidence that

showed petitioner has partially paid 125k.
RTC: rule for respondent Tulabut
ACDC appealed to CA
-

If it was indeed liable, should only be reckoned from

the lapse of one year after issuance of certificate of

ISSUE/S: W/N CA erred in applying estoppel and

presumed completion of the project undertaken by
Tulabut - NO
RULING: CA affirmed.
RATIO:

1. As noted by the trial court, a contract exists between ACDC

and Tulabut through the purchase orders and final billings
which are signed by the officers of ACDC.
ACDC cannot escape liability by denying completion of the
project; by signing the documents, they manifested their
approval to the matters stated therein, and cannot later deny it
Estoppel.
2. ACDC failed to adduce any evidence to controvert that of
Tulabut that the project had been completed and turned over to
ACDC, and that it had accepted the same.
3. Tulabut adduced testimonial and documentar evidence to
prove completion, and acceptance of ACDC as well as
ACDCs failure to pay; ACDC on the other hand opted not to
adduce any evidence.

However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once ptiff

makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the burden of
evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima
facie case, otherwise a verdict must be returned in favor of
plaintiff.
- Party having burden of proof must produce
preponderance of evidence
- Preponderance of evidence = evidence of greater
weight, or more convincing than that which is offered
in opposition to it.

4. From Manongsong v. Estimo: he who alleges the

affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the
plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts.

6. Petitioner is estopped from evading obligation by asserting

without proof that the respondent failed to complete the
projects and the non-payment of its principal.
Signatures of ACDC officers serve as affirmation.

5. Terms and conditions of the contract stated in the progress

billings and purchase orders serve as the terms of the
agreement, binding and conclusive