Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Mendiola v Quitugua [1969] TTLawRp 26; 4 TTR 314 (26 March 1969)

4 TTR 314

THOMAS C. MENDIOLA, Plaintiff

v.

DAVID R. QUITUGUA, Defendant

Civil Action No. 249

Trial Division of the High Court

Mariana Islands District

March 26, 1969

See, also, 4 T.T.R. 383

Action for money due and owing. The Trial Division of the High Court, Robert Clifton, Temporary Judge, held that where defendant was untruthful on the witness stand and had fabricated evidence the court was fully justified in accepting plaintiff's version of the transactions involved.

1. Courts-Judicial Notice

The court can take judicial notice of the contents of its own records.

2. Marianas Custom-"Manadalag"

Plaintiff's actions, while considered a community aid, manadalag, such as one might do for anyone with no expectation of repayment, furnished some element of gratitude which among other things resulted in gifts by the defendant.

3. Civil Procedure-Burden of Proof

Where defendant was untruthful on the witness stand and guilty of wrongfully fabricating evidence to present in court, the court is fully justified in accepting plaintiff's version of the events; the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies.

CLIFTON, Temporary Judge

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. That defendant, at the request of plaintiff, sold a motorcycle belonging to the plaintiff for the sum of $500.00, and that at the request of plaintiff he sold a Chevrolet Impala automobile belonging to the plaintiff for the sum of $1500.00. That defendant received a total sum of $2000.00 for the use and benefit of plaintiff and promised to apply said sums received by him on a debt due by the plaintiff to the Bank of Hawaii. That the defendant failed to pay said sum of $2000.00 to the Bank of Hawaii but instead only paid the sum of $717.00 leaving a balance of $1283.00 in the defendant's hands due and owing to the plaintiff.

2. That there is no sum due or owing to the defendant on the counterclaims alleged in the defendant's answer and counterclaim. Specifically, the plaintiff owes the defendant nothing on account of a washer, a drier and a Telefunken radio-phonograph, he owes nothing on account of charges for chartering an airplane flight from Guam to Rota in November, 1966, he owes nothing on account of alleged commission for the sale of said Chevrolet Impala automobile for the plaintiff or for repairs or tires for said automobile, and he owes plaintiff nothing· on account of the transportation of 125 bags of cement for plaintiff or for the sum of $100.00 given to the plaintiff in Saipan or on account of $704.21 allegedly given by defendant to the plaintiff on or about May 23, 1966. That the said washer, drier and Telefunken radio-phonograph, a chartered airplane flight taken on or about October 19, 1965, the payment of said $100.00 to the plaintiff, the sale of said Chevrolet Impala automobile by the defendant for the plaintiff without charge, and the said transportation of cement, all constituted gifts to the plaintiff by the defendant, or services without charge to the plaintiff.

OPINION

In this action the plaintiff in his complaint, as amended, claims that the defendant owes him $2247.63, proceeds from sales by the defendant of a motorcycle for $600.00 and an automobile for $1647.63 which had been owned by the plaintiff and which the defendant had promised to apply to an installment loan owed to a bank by the plaintiff. The defendant filed an answer containing a counterclaim, in which defendant alleges that the plaintiff is indebted to him for goods sold and delivered by defendant to the plaintiff, and cash in the total sum of $1874.93.

It is regrettable that the plaintiff and defendant are engaged in this somewhat bitter law suit because the defendant during some of his childhood lived in the home of the plaintiff and they have maintained a close relationship ever since and have had several informal business transactions in recent years. However, the plaintiff was sued by a bank for an indebtedness on which the defendant had agreed to pay installments from money owed by him to the plaintiff, and plaintiff sued the defendant in this action and attached defendant's boat. The attachment is probably the reason that the defendant presented the items of his counterclaim at the trial, based on alleged evidence fabricated by him, although this is no justification for his presenting such evidence and falsely testifying in support of it.

The plaintiff purchased from the defendant a Farmmobile automobile in 1965. This sale was written on an installment contract which was discounted by the defendant to the Bank of Hawaii. The balance on the contract including insurance was $2536.89 and the Bank of Hawaii set up an account (Plaintiff's Exhibit #1) showing the balance owing. Plaintiff paid the first three installments, totalling $195.00, to the bank on the contract and then it was agreed that the defendant, having resold a Chevrolet Impala for the plaintiff and previously having sold a motorcycle for him, would pay the amounts due plaintiff from these sales, that is, apply them to the balance due to the Bank of Hawaii. It was stipulated that the defendant had paid only $731.00 on these installments (including charges of $14.00 for delinquent payments) and so the defendant had to pay the Bank of Hawaii the balance due on the account. The payment of $731.00, less $14.00, therefore, represented a legitimate offset to the amounts due plaintiff from the proceeds of the sale of the motorcycle and the Chevrolet. It was stipulated that the sale price of the motorcycle which should be credited to the defendant was $500.00. It was stipulated that the sale price of the Chevrolet automobile was $1500.00 and that this sale was evidenced by Defendant's Exhibit #C, a sales contract to a Mr. and Mrs. Sablan. However, it was not stipulated as to the amount which would be credited to the plaintiff on account of such sale. The plaintiff's son testified that it was agreed that the car would be sold for $1800.00. Defendant claimed that no sale price was mentioned and that he had authority, therefore, to sell the car for $1500.00 and could deduct from this a commission of 20% and amounts which he had to pay for repairs to put the car in salable condition. The court has resolved this question by finding that there was no price fixed for the sale, although the question was a close one. However, as the original sale to the plaintiff was for only $2114.38 including insurance and surcharge on the insurance because of the age of plaintiff's son, a price of $1800.00 after its use by plaintiff's son might be excessive and because of a doubt that defendant would have disregarded a set price. However, as to the alleged commission, the court has found that no commission was due, because of the near father and son relationship of the parties and their mutual services and gifts.