BPI vs SMP

FACTS:

 SMP delivered 4000 bags of polystyrene products to Clothespak Mfg.

 Delivery receipts were issued
 CLothespak issued postdated checks in SMP’s Favor, but was dishonoured upon presentation
with BPI for the reason “Account Closed”
 BPI filed an action for sum of money with prayer for prelim attachment against Clothespak
 BPI’s action was granted, and the 4000bags were attached
 SMP filed a 3rd party claim, alleging that they are still the owner of the goods. Because
clothespak failed to pay them, there was no transfer of ownership.
 The provisional receipt SMP issued, according to latter, was with the words “Materials belong to
SMP Inc. until your checks clear”
 BPI assailed the receipt’s admissibility for being a mere triplicate copy.

RTC: SMP is the owner; wrong attachment of goods

CA: AFFIRMED

ISSUE: WON the receipt is admissible as evidence

RULING: Yes, admissible!

1. SMP is the owner. Its contract with clothespak is a contract to sell and not contract of sale.
Being a contract to sell, ownership will only be transferred upon full payment notwithstanding
delivery.

2. The receipt presented by SMP is deemed an original, considering that the triplicate copy of the
provisional receipt was executed at the same time as the other copies of the same receipt
involving the same transaction. Section 4, Rule 130 provides:

Sec. 4. Original of document.·

(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally
regarded as originals.