GENARO CORDIAL, petitioner, vs. DAVID MIRANDA, respondent.G.R. No. 135495. December 14, 2000

FACTS Petitioner contends that there was a contract between him andrespondent, under which the former allegedly agreed to supply rattan polesto the latter at the stipulated price. He further alleges that he had alreadydelivered rattan poles to respondent, who thereafter refused to pay for themdespite repeated demands. Petitioner prays that the CA Decision bereversed and the RTC udgment sustaining his position be reinstated.

Respondent, on the other hand, reiterates the CA ruling that hecontracted with !avilla, not with petitioner. He further alleges that petitionerwas merely a partner or an agent of !avilla.

ISS!ES". #hether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals, $ighth Division, erred

in reversing and setting aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Courtand entering a new one dismissing the complaint, as said Decision of the Court of Appeals is without factual and legal basis.

%. #hether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals, $ighth Division, erredin completely brushing aside the &ndings of fact of the trial court andsupplant'ing them( by its own &ndings which are based merely onsuppositions, surmises and con ectures.

R!LING The CA had ruled that petitioner was a mere agent or partner of !avilla, with whom respondent had admittedly contracted. )t relied on twopieces of documentary evidence* +" the !cale Report, indicating the weight

of the rattan delivered and bearing the name - . !avilla/ and not that of

petitioner0 and +% the cash vouchers re1ecting several cash advances that

had allegedly been made by !avilla, not petitioner, before the rattan wasdelivered on 2ovember 3, "44%. Allegedly, the rattan delivered torespondent was o5set by !avilla6s cash advances.

These documents, however, do not prove the e7istence of apartnership or an agency. First , it should be stressed that the bul8 of thealleged cash advances had been obtained by !avilla even before petitionerand respondent met for the &rst time in April "44%. The cash advances,therefore, were personal to !avilla and should not be charged to petitioner.Second , that the !cale Report bears the name - . !avilla,/ not that of

petitioner, does not necessarily support the cause of respondent. He did not

controvert the claim of petitioner that on 2ovember 3, "44%, the latter hadindeed delivered rattan poles to the former6s house in Angeles City. Hemerely testi&ed that petitioner had delivered the poles in the latter6s allegedcapacity as !avilla6s partner or agent. ut such contention amounts only to

a general denial, because respondent did not set forth the substance of thematters which he had relied upon to support his denial. At the very least, toprove his allegations, he should have presented !avilla as his witness or &leda third9party claim against the latter. Allegations, after all, are not proofs.

The other bases of the CA6s ruling are mere con ectures andsurmises. That petitioner went to the residence of !avilla when no paymentwas made does not at all prove that the former was an agent or a partner of the latter. That !avilla accompanied petitioner to Palawan where the latterwas to get the rattan poles does not support respondent6s thesis. )ndeed,that !avilla did so is consistent with the assertion of petitioner that theformer, who had been in the trade for a longer period, agreed to help himsecure the re:uired permits.

The Civil Code upholds the spirit over the form, and an agreement will bedeemed to e7ist provided the essential re:uisites are present. A contract willbe upheld as long as there is proof of consent, sub ect matter andcause. ;oreover, it is generally obligatory in whatever form it may havebeen entered into. <rom the moment there is a meeting of minds betweenthe parties, it is perfected. The CA and Respondent ;iranda stress theabsence of a -written memorandum of the alleged contract between theparties./ ( Respondent implicitly argues that the alleged contract isunenforceable under the !tatute of <rauds, contained in Article "=>3 of theCivil Code. However, the !tatute of <rauds applies only to e7ecutory and notto completed, e7ecuted, or partially e7ecuted contracts. Thus, where oneparty has performed one6s obligation, oral evidence will be admitted to provethe agreement. )n the present case, it has clearly been established thatpetitioner had delivered the rattan poles to respondent on 2ovember 3,"44%. ecause the contract was partially e7ecuted, the !tatute of <rauds

does not apply