Quebral vs. Union Refinery Corporation

When a defendant's demurrer to evidence is granted by the trial court but is reversed on appeal, the defendant loses the right to present evidence, and the appellate court must render judgment based on the plaintiff's evidence.

Union Refinery Corporation (URC) filed a complaint to collect P102,991.54 for unpaid oil products allegedly purchased by Quebral and Gay-ya under the business name Taurus Commercial. URC alleged fraud, claiming the defendants sold the products to third parties but did not pay URC.

• Filed in RTC (Branch 172, Valenzuela).
• RTC dismissed the case against Quebral upon his demurrer to evidence but rendered judgment against Gay-ya (who was declared in default).
• URC appealed to the CA.
• CA reversed the RTC, holding Quebral liable.
• Quebral elevated to the SC via petition for review on certiorari.

• URC approved Quebral's credit application, authorizing him to sell its products in specified areas.
• Quebral named Gay-ya as a person authorized to receive goods/deliveries.
• URC delivered oil products based on two sales invoices (totaling P102,991.54) to locations allegedly outside the authorized area, but Gay-ya and Quebral did not pay.
• Gay-ya executed a promissory note assuming liability for P91,904.73, which Quebral signed under "Conforme."
• Quebral wrote a letter to URC's official (Exhibit K) introducing Gay-ya as his "representative" and discussing collections from the disputed deliveries.
• After URC rested its case, Quebral filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing URC failed to prove his liability.

• URC's evidence failed to prove his credit application was approved.
• Even if approved, the deliveries were made outside the authorized areas.
• He never signed any purchase orders for the disputed transactions.
• Exhibit K (his letter) was inadmissible as a mere photocopy and its contents were not properly established.

• Quebral judicially admitted the approval of his credit application in his answer.
• Quebral's own letter (Exhibit K) proved he authorized Gay-ya as his representative and acknowledged the deliveries.
• Quebral's admission to the sheriff and his "Conforme" signature on Gay-ya's promissory note established his liability.
• By filing a demurrer, Quebral waived his right to present countervailing evidence.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC's dismissal based on Quebral's demurrer to evidence.
  2. Whether Quebral's right to present evidence was lost after the reversal of the order granting his demurrer.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  1. The CA did not err. The SC found the CA's factual findings—based on URC's uncontradicted evidence—were amply supported. Quebral's liability was established through judicial admission, documentary evidence (Exhibit K), and his own conduct.
  2. Yes. Under Rule 35, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court, when a demurrer is granted and later reversed on appeal, the movant loses the right to present evidence. Judgment must be based on the plaintiff's evidence, which here sufficiently proved Quebral's liability.

• Effect of a Demurrer to Evidence (Rule 35, Sec. 1) — A defendant who files a demurrer gambles the right to present evidence. If the demurrer is granted but reversed on appeal, the defendant is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence, and judgment shall be rendered based on the plaintiff's evidence.
• Exception to Finality of CA Factual Findings — The SC may review factual findings of the CA when they are contrary to those of the trial court, as in this case.

• "Whoever avails of [a demurrer to evidence] gambles his right to adduce evidence."
• "If the defendant’s motion for judgment on demurrer to evidence is granted and the order of dismissal is reversed on appeal, judgment is rendered in favor of the adverse party because the movant loses his right to present evidence."

• Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles — Cited for the rule that objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered, not earlier. Quebral failed to make a timely objection to Exhibit K.
• Nepomuceno v. Commission on Elections, Bagnas v. Court of Appeals, Cruz v. People — Cited to support the procedural consequence of a demurrer: reversal on appeal results in loss of the right to present evidence.
• Calde v. Court of Appeals — Cited as an exception where the SC may review CA factual findings when they conflict with trial court findings.

• Rule 35, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court — Governs the effect of a judgment on a demurrer to evidence, specifically the loss of the right to present evidence upon reversal on appeal.