Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Liza Cabatingan seeks PHP 4,500 from Joel Dacalos as the remaining balance for an order of 1,000 labels. The parties’ submissions and the available Messenger screenshots are the record considered for this decision. The supplied rules require the party seeking relief to support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. The court decides only what this record proves. 2. The screenshots are presented exhibits, not automatically conclusive proof of every disputed matter. They show an order and deposit, and a later hold request. They do not include the intervening conversation or records of production. The parties have both had an opportunity to address those gaps. No further obtainable proof is identified, and adjournment is not allowed. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the order and deposit are established; whether the record establishes the effect of Joel’s hold request and work performed; and whether Liza proved the claimed PHP 4,500 balance. Liza bears the burden on her payment claim under Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof. Rule 18, Business Records Define the Deal, directs attention to the records showing what was agreed. Rule 2, Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories, gives greater weight to reliable records than unsupported assertions. Rule 6, The Remedy Should Match the Harm, requires the requested amount to be supported by the proven basis for payment. Submissions of the parties 4. Liza argues that Joel approved the order for PHP 6,800 and paid PHP 2,000, and that his later request to hold printing did not expressly cancel the order. She says she is willing to explain the revised PHP 4,500 demand and has offered to release the completed labels. Her submissions do not provide the promised calculation, production timing, or supporting cost records. 5. Joel accepts that he approved the order and paid the deposit. He says he asked Liza not to print yet because the packaging had changed, and understood her reply, “Okay, will check,” to mean she would check before proceeding. He does not claim that the exchange expressly cancelled the order, and he cannot say whether Liza later checked or printed. He argues that the record does not establish when production began or how the PHP 4,500 was calculated. Evidence and findings 6. The screenshots identified as exhibits 2, 4, 6, and 8 repeat the same material content. They show Joel approving 1,000 labels for PHP 6,800 and Liza acknowledging a PHP 2,000 deposit. Joel confirms these points in his submissions. The court finds the order and partial payment established. The arithmetic difference between the stated price and deposit is PHP 4,800, but that arithmetic does not prove that this amount, or the revised PHP 4,500, is presently payable. 7. The screenshots also show Joel’s 10:18 a.m. message asking Liza not to print yet and Liza’s reply, “Okay, will check.” The screenshots omit what followed. The exchange does not show an express cancellation agreement, but neither does it show that printing had begun before the request, that Liza later proceeded, or what her check found. Joel candidly says he has no independent information on those points. Liza’s submissions assert that production circumstances matter and offer to explain them, but do not establish the timeline or work performed. The court therefore finds the effect of the hold request and any production work not proven on this record. This is not a finding that no work occurred. 8. Liza’s claim is for PHP 4,500. Her submissions repeatedly offer clarification but do not state a calculation or identify records supporting that amount. The screenshots establish neither a revised price nor an agreed charge of PHP 4,500. The court finds the claimed balance not proven. Reasons 9. The order-and-payment issue is established. The screenshots are direct written evidence of the order and deposit, and Joel expressly confirms them. This finding recognizes the original business commitment; it does not resolve what amount remains due after the hold request or establish that the deposit was forfeited or refundable. No party has supplied a supported claim for a separate deposit remedy, so the court makes no such award. 10. On the hold-and-production issue, Joel’s argument succeeds only to the extent that it identifies a gap in Liza’s proof. Joel does not prove cancellation, and the court does not treat his hold request as an agreed cancellation. But Liza seeks payment and must prove the facts supporting it. The missing messages and production records leave the court unable to determine whether work was done, when it was done, or whether the parties agreed that payment would be due despite the hold. Liza’s assertion that uncertainty is not proof of no work is correct, but it does not satisfy her burden to prove a payment entitlement. 11. The amount issue is independently decisive. The record shows a stated order price of PHP 6,800 and a deposit of PHP 2,000, which mathematically leaves PHP 4,800. Liza asks for a different amount, PHP 4,500, without explaining the difference or linking it to completed work, an agreed adjustment, or another charge. The court cannot select an amount by speculation. Joel need not prove that nothing is owed; the burden to support the requested payment remains with Liza. The offer to release completed labels does not establish that they were completed or prove their value or the amount due. 12. The court has considered Liza’s point that an incomplete screenshot is not conclusive proof against her. That is so, and the court does not infer that she failed to print or acted improperly. The result follows instead from the absence of affirmative proof supporting the amount claimed. The order is established, but the requested additional payment is not. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Joel Dacalos on Liza Cabatingan’s claim for PHP 4,500. The claim is denied, and no payment is awarded to Liza on this record. This judgment does not find that production never occurred, does not declare the original order cancelled, and does not decide any unclaimed remedy concerning the PHP 2,000 deposit or the labels. It reflects only that Liza did not prove the additional amount she asked the court to award.