08 Eurotech

of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  THIRD DIVISION[G.R. NO. 167552 : April 23, 2007]EUROTECH INDUSTRIA TECHNOOGIES, INC., Petitioner  , v.   ED!IN CUI ON #$% ER!IN CUI ON, Respondents . D E C I S I O NCHICO&NA ARIO,  J. : Before Us is a Petition for Review by certiorari   assailing the Decision 1  of the Court of Appeals dated 1 August ! and its Resolution !  dated 1# $arch !% in CA&'.R. (P )o. #1*+# entitled, -urotech ndustrial /echnologies, nc.v. 0on. Antonio /. -chave. /he assailed Decision and Resolution affir2ed the 3rder *  dated !+ 4anuary !! rendered by 4udge Antonio /. -chave ordering the dropping of respondent -D5) Cuion 6-D5)7 as a party defendant in Civil Case )o. C-B&1+8#!./he generative facts of the case are as follows9Petitioner is engaged in the business of i2portation and distribution of various -uropean industrial e:uip2ent for custo2ers here in the Philippines. t has as one of its custo2ers 2pact (yste2s (ales 62pact (yste2s7 which is a sole proprietorship ownedby respondent -R5) Cuion 6-R5)7.  Respondent -D5) is the sales 2anager of 2pact (yste2s and was i2pleaded in the court a :uo in said capacity.;ro2 4anuary to April 1++%, petitioner sold to 2pact (yste2s various products allegedly a2ounting to ninety&one thousand three hundred thirty&eight 6P+1,**<.7 pesos. (ubse:uently, respondents sought to buy fro2 petitioner one unit of sludge pu2p valued at P!%,. with respondents 2a=ing a down pay2ent of fifty thousand pesos 6P%,.7.  5hen the sludge pu2p arrived fro2 the United >ingdo2, petitioner refused todeliver the sa2e to respondents without their having fully settled their indebtedness to petitioner. /hus, on !< 4une 1++%, respondent -D5) and Alberto de 4esus, general 2anager of petitioner, e?ecuted a Deed of Assign2ent of receivables in favor of petitioner, the pertinent part of which states91.7 /hat A((')3R %  has an outstanding receivables fro2 /oledo Power Corporation in the a2ount of /0R-- 0U)DR-D (@/ ;- /03U(A)D 6P*8%,.7 P-(3( as pay2ent for the purchase of one unit of (elwood (pate 1D (ludge Pu2p!.7 /hat said A((')3R does hereby A(('), /RA)(;-R, and C3)- unto the A((')-- 8    the said receivables fro2 /oledo Power Corporation in the a2ount of /0R-- 0U)DR-D(@/ ;- /03U(A)D 6P*8%,.7 P-(3( which receivables the A((')3R is the lawful recipient*.7 /hat the A((')-- does hereby accept thisassign2ent. # ;ollowing the e?ecution of the Deed of Assign2ent, petitioner delivered to respondents the sludge pu2p as shown by nvoice )o. 1!* dated * 4une 1++%. < Allegedly unbe=nownst to petitioner, respondents, despite the e?istence of the Deedof Assign2ent, proceeded to collect fro2 /oledo Power Co2pany the a2ount of P*8%,1*%.!+ as evidenced by Chec= oucher )o. +** +  prepared by said power co2pany and an official receipt dated 1% August 1++% issued by 2pact (yste2s. 1  Alar2ed by this develop2ent, petitioner 2ade several de2ands upon respondents to pay their obligations. As a result, respondents were able to 2a=e partial pay2ents to petitioner. 3n # 3ctober 1++8, petitioners counsel sent respondents a final de2and letter wherein it was stated that as of 11 4une 1++8, respondents total obligations stood at P!+%,. e?cluding interests and attorneys  fees. 11  Because of respondents failure to abideby said final de2and letter, petitioner instituteda co2plaint for su2 of 2oney, da2ages, with application for preli2inary attach2ent against herein respondents before the Regional /rial Court of Cebu City. 1! 3n < 4anuary 1++#, the trial court granted petitioners prayer for the issuance of writ of preli2inary attach2ent. 1* 3n !% 4une 1++#, respondent -D5) filed his Answer 1  wherein he ad2itted petitioners allegations with respect to the sale transactions entered into by 2pact (yste2s and petitioner between 4anuary and April 1++%. 1%  0e, however, disputed the total a2ountof 2pact (yste2s indebtedness to petitioner which, according to hi2, a2ounted to only P!!,.. 18 By way of special and affir2ative defenses, respondent -D5) alleged that he is not a realparty in interest in this case. According to hi2,he was acting as 2ere agent of his principal, which was the 2pact (yste2s, in his transaction with petitioner and the latter was very 2uch aware of this fact. n support of thisargu2ent, petitioner points to paragraphs 1.! and 1.* of petitioners Co2plaint stating 
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks