Title: Lazaro vs Brewmaster GR No.

182779, August 23, 2010

Topic: Sec. 1 Rule 16 – Grounds for motion to dismiss (states no cause of action)

Original Complaint Jurisdiction Parties

Complaint for Sum of Money MeTC of Makati City Petitioner:
VICTORINA (VICTORIA) ALICE LIM
LAZARO

Respondent:
BREWMASTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Facts:

MeTC:

Respondent Brewmaster is engaged in selling and distributing beer and other products. It filed a complaint for sum
of money against petitioners Prescillo Lazaro and Victorina Alice Lazaro with the MeTC Makati City.

The complaint alleged as follows:

a. That the petitioners obtained on credit from from Brewmaster beer and other products in
the total amount of 138,502.92 evidenced by sales invoices.
b. That despite repeated demands, petitioners refuse to pay.

Photocopies of sales invoices showed that they were sold to TOTAL.

Petitioner denied having transacted with respondent and averred that the documents attached to the complaint
showed that it was Total which purchased goods from respondent. During the preliminary conference, petitioners
did not appear. Hence, the case was submitted for decision.

MeTC dismissed the complaint ratiocinating that respondent failed to meet the burden of proof required to
established by preponderance of evidence. That the sales invoices showed that the beer were sold to TOTAL, they
did not indicate that the goods were received by the petitioners.

RTC:
Respondent appealed to the RTC attaching additional evidence that the petitioners were operators and franchisees
of the TOTAL gasoline.

RTC affirmed the assailed the decision. It found no reversible error.

CA:
CA reversed RTC decision. The appellate court said that by instead referring to the sales invoices and bypassing
[the] ultimate facts [alleged in the complaint], the MeTC contravened the evident purposes of the [Revised] Rule
on Summary Procedure directing that the judgment be based on the allegations of the complaint, which were,
firstly, to avoid delay and, secondly, to consider the non-appearance at the preliminary conference as an admission
of the ultimate facts.

SC:
Petitioner contends that the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure does not warrant the automatic grant of relief in
favor of the plaintiff when the complaint fails to state a cause of action. She avers that respondents complaint fails
to state a cause of action; hence, no relief can be given to respondent.
Petitioner points out that the sales invoices formed part of the complaint and should be considered in determining
whether respondent has a cause of action against her. Consideration of the said sales invoices, she avers, would
show that there is no contractual relationship between her and respondent; the invoices did not indicate in any
way that petitioner was liable for the amount stated therein.

Issue:
Whether CA erred in giving relief to the respondent despite lack of cause of action in its complaint against
petitioner.

Ruling: NO

Contrary to petitioners stance, we find that the Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action. The
following allegations in the complaint adequately make up a cause of action for collection of sum of money against
petitioner: (1) that petitioner and her husband obtained beer and other products worth a total of P138,502.92 on
credit from respondent; and (2) that they refused to pay the said amount despite demand.

As correctly held by the CA, the sales invoices are not actionable documents. They were not the bases of
respondents action for sum of money but were attached to the Complaint only to provide details on the alleged
transactions. They were evidentiary in nature and not even necessary to be stated or cited in the Complaint.

At any rate, consideration of the attached sales invoices would not change our conclusion. The sales
invoices, naming Total as the purchaser of the goods, do not absolutely foreclose the probability of petitioner
being liable for the amounts reflected thereon. An invoice is nothing more than a detailed statement of the nature,
quantity, and cost of the thing sold and has been considered not a bill of sale. Had the case proceeded further,
respondent could have presented evidence linking these sales invoices to petitioner.

In Pea v. Court of Appeals, petitioners therein likewise argued that the sales invoices did not show that
they had any involvement in the transactions covered by the same. What the Court said in reply to this argument
bolsters our view in this petition:

Although it appears in the other sales invoices that the petitioners were the
salespersons who brokered the sales of the products covered by the said sales invoices to the
vendees therein named, the said entries are not conclusive of the extent and the nature of the
involvement of the petitioners in the sales of the products under the said sales invoices which
are not absolutely binding. They may be explained and put to silence by all the facts and
circumstances characterizing the true import of the dealings to which they refer. The facts
contained in the said sales invoices may be contradicted by oral testimony.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision are AFFIRMED.