INCIONG vs CA & PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

If you’re the type whose quick to stand as guarantor to your friends’ loan applications, or credit card transactions. You better think twice. Although that could be a remarkable trait anyone would love to find in a good friend but just for the sake of this post think otherwise. Consider the consequences first if in the near future you’d be faced with the same dilemma of choosing between preserving yourself from sudden unwanted cash outlay or helping your friend in dire need.

Maybe the question to ask should be, is he/she really in dire need. Remember, If your friend suddenly gets bankrupt and lost his capability to pay his obligation, it could get ugly for you.

This is a case of a co-maker. Who out of his good intent and for the sake of friendship perhaps entered his friend’s transaction of bank loan in good faith as a co-maker. Let’s see what happened.

Naybe took out a bank loan in the amount of P50 K. This is 1983 so, during those times you wouldn’t say 50K is just 50K you get what I mean?  For that loan he executed a promissory note. Promissory note, negotiable instrument ok?    And Naybe was able to convince INCIONG and another friend Pantanosas to co-sign with him as co-makers.  Remember, if you’re a co-maker you will be held jointly and severally liable together with the loan maker and your other co-makers. And thing is, just as you think everything’s turning out smoothly, the dreadful thing happens. And true enough the promissory note went due and it was left unpaid.

Bank demanded payment from the three but still no payment was made. Bank then filed a suit for collection. (Geez this is one thing court hates, the law on Obligations and Contracts seemed to have conferred to them the duties of a collection agency). I bet if there’s a judge reading this blog he’d probably say “You can say that again.”

So, what happened was, the bank sued the three, but later released Pentanosas from its obligation.  Eto masaklap, the principal borrower Naybe took flight and left for Saudi Arabia hence can’t be issued summons and so the complaint against him was subsequently dropped. Here’s the sad part, INCIONG WAS LEFT TO FACE THE SUIT.

In his defense Inciong alleged that 1. he was TRICKED into signing the promissory note. Having an understanding that he would only be a co-maker for the loan of P5,000 he set his hand into it. His second defense, 2. That the PROMISSORY NOTE IS NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT with the formalities prescribed by law but a mere commercial paper which does not bear the signature of an attesting witnesses.

ISSUE:

Is the petitioner’s contention tenable?

The lower court had resolved the typewritten figure P50T appears below his signature in the promissory note, hence Inciong’s uncorroborated testimony on his limited liability cannot be given merit.

RULING:

The SC finds the petition unmeritorious.

His first contention of fraud. (tanong ko lang, pano ba papasok yung FRAUD sa  Parol Evidence Rule, Sec.9 of Rule 130 when it was not expressly stated. Probably in letter (c) ‘The validity of the written agreement). The court states “Fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence”, so I guess ‘mere Preponderance of Evidence is insufficient evidence.’

2nd contention. Court says, Parol Evidence Rule may overcome contents of PN. (Of course, it’s an ‘agreement reduced in writing’)  But the rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document. It’s only requirement is that it be reduced in writing. Court even said it need not be signed by both parties.

But take note what the court said. that “as a General Rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parol evidence.” Huh? So, I guess that means the PN does not come under what was being described in Sec. 9 of Rule 130. So, kawawa naman si Inciong? I thought Parol Evidence Rule may overcome contents of PN?  I wonder what’s the exception to that General Rule the court stated. They’ve admitted parol evidence in the PN in Maulini vs. Serrano.

So, obviously Inciong lost this case. Anyway it’s just a civil case. And what is P50K anyway right?. 

LEZAMA vs. RODRIGUEZ

Ah this is an all too different case compared to the Castaneda case and all the others. Because, take note, in this case it’s the other way around. There never was a move to disqualify an adverse party’s wife nor husband in invoking the marital disqualification rule. Here the respondents even want the wife to testify. It asked the court to issue a subpoena to the adverse party’s wife to testify as a hostile witness.

Here’s what happened. La Paz Ice Plant Inc. in Iloilo, led by its president Jose Manuel Lezama was going bankrupt and so the company was placed under receivership. During the pendency of the receivership Marciano Roque being a resident of Manila brought an action against the company in the CFI of Manila for the collection of a sum he supposedly had lent to the company in the amount of P150,000. 

So what happened was, Jose Dineros who was acting as receiver of the La Paz Ice Plant after receiving unfavorable judgment in the CFI of Manila upon the collection case, filed an action in the CFI of Iloilo for the annulment of the judgment of the CFI of Manila. So here we have two venues. The case in CFI of Manila who rendered the judgment in favor of Marciano Roque for the collection of the lent money. And the case in CFI of Iloilo filed by Jose Dineros seeking the annulment of judgment of the former.

And take note, in his filed action he named Marciano Roque and the spouses JOSE MANUEL & PAQUITA LEZAMA as defendants alleging that  1. because of the mismanagement of the Lezamas the La Paz Ice Plant was placed under receivership. 2. That through the collusion of the Lezamas, Roque obtained a favored judgment against the company. And 3. that summons by the CFI of Manila was served not on him who is the receiver but on the spouses Lezamas. Claiming that by doing so, the CFI of Manila acquired no jurisdiction of the case and therefore the court decision was void.

Defendant spouses which are herein petitioners (before the SC) while admitting the company’s placement on receivership maintained that 1. Jose Manuel Lezama nevertheless remained president even while on receivership and as such he had the authority to receive court summons in behalf of the company.  And 2. Denied entering into collusion with Roque and averred they did not contest Roque’s claim because they knew it to be legitimate pursuant to a board of director’s resolution.

Now, here comes the controversial issue. Case was heard in the CFI of Iloilo. And at the hearing, Dineros asked the court to subpoena testificandum Paquita Lezama wife of Jose Manuel Lezama to testify as a hostile witness. The request was granted by the court over the objection of the petitioners invoking the Marital Disqualification Rule.

Question, can a wife who is a co-defendant of her husband in an action may be examined as a hostile witness by the adverse party without infringing on her marital privilege not to testify against her husband even concerning alleged fraud?

Court says NO.  She may not be examined as a hostile witness.

The Supreme Court ruling here was worth pondering. I think the court held it beautifully. Court said the Marital Disqualification Rule is two edged. 1. The disqualification of husband and wife to testify in each other’s behalf. 2. AS WELL AS THE PRIVILEGE NOT TO TESTIFY AGAINST EACH OTHER. In the former, the disqualification is extrinsic, the compelling reason is coming from the outside, which is the law itself. In the latter, it becomes a privilege. Intrinsic. A decision not to testify. 

We must understand the essence of this law. And it is not pecuniary interest. The basis of the Marital Disqualification Rule is the RELATIONSHIP of the spouses.  I mean you know, who in his/her right mind would say to the other spouse “I’m going to testify against you. You might want to give me your consent” whatdfu-k. If we continue tolerating that in court we might end up seeing hundreds of couples with crooked reasoning minds.

Here’s the exact words of the Supreme Court:

“It is a natural repugnance in every fair-minded person to compel a wife or a husband to be the means of the other’s condemnation. And subjecting the culprit to the humiliation of being condemned by the words of his intimate life partner” Beautiful isn’t it?

Even if her testimony will support the adverse party’s charges, the more the reason that compelling Paquita Lezama to testify against her husband would be tantamount to a violation Sec. 20 of Rule 130. 

As we just have said, the essence of that law is the relationship between both spouses. Not anything else.

PEOPLE vs. CASTANEDA

This is a case of falsification of public document. The document falsified was a Deed of Sale of a house and lot. The one who falsified was the husband knowing very well that the object sold was a conjugal property in need of mutual consent in order to effect a valid contract of sale.

The one suing was the wife herself alleging that her husband executed a Deed of Sale making it appear that she the spouse gave her marital consent to the said sale.

Here’s the court scene. Prosecution called wife to the witness stand. Defense moved to disqualify her as a witness invoking Sec. 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Prosecution defended its stand resting on the exception to that rule. Notwithstanding such opposition the respondent judge favored the husband and granted the defense’ motion to disqualify the wife to testify.

Sorry, due to constraint of time,  I didn’t include much paragraphs on its case in the CA. And I guess in doing so I must admit I’m also clueless to its outcome, but inferring from what is normal judicial proceedings, CA must have affirmed the lower court ruling. Hence the SC petition for Certiorari.

Two things: 1. May a crime of Falsification of Public Document be considered as a criminal case committed by a husband against the wife. And if it is 2. May it therefore come under the exception to the rule of the marital disqualification.           

Court answered YES.

When the offense directly attacks or impairs the conjugal relation, then it clearly comes within the exception. You see in this case it’s the husband’s breach of his wife’s confidence that gave rise to the offense. So the court said  “Therefore with more reason the exception must apply since the one directly prejudiced is not a third person but the wife herself” who is a party to the conjugal property being purported dubiously to be sold.

The wife wins this case.

EBREO vs EBREO

If someone went up to you selling you an untitled parcel of land only presenting to you the tax decs certificate as proof of ownership that he or she is paying for its tax obligations reasoning to you that technically he/she is the one deemed to be the owner of said property. DON’T BE FOOLED. Chances are the document was fraudulently acquired.

Tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership as the Supreme Court ruled in this case. Besides, registration of ownership of real estate properties must first be settled in the Registry of Deeds before a tax declaration can be issued.

Not of course if there had been a previous owner and a transfer to a subsequent owner is but necessary. Of course such transfer can be effected and proved either through a Deed of Sale, a court declaration of a Judicial Settlement of Estate in case of a previously deceased owner, an Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate, Affidavit of Self Adjudication, Donation documents etc.

In my case when I have processed my mom’s papers when she inherited the property of my deceased aunt, I executed 2 affidavits. An Affidavit of Sole Surviving Legal Heir to prove her right to the succession and an Affidavit of Self Adjudication, an attestation that she is adjudicating the property to effect a legal transfer in her name. These were the requisite documents among others I’ve prepared for the Register of Deeds in order to effect a legally transferred title in her name. And in this case the payment of tax decs is prerequisite to the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title. Of course an obligation subsequent to the TCT issuance is to effect a transfer of the designated name or payer in the former tax declaration certificates to the new owner’s name as the new taxpayer. But to an untitled parcel of land such in this case? I believe registration of ownership comes first.

FACTS:
       

This was a case of a purported Deed of Sale wherein a Tax Declaration Certificate was presented as Secondary Evidence to prove a supposed previously effected Absolute Deed of Sale.    

When you say Secondary Evidence, this means evidences offered other than the Best Evidence itself, meaning if you can’t produce the original, you produce a certified true copy, or a Xerox or photocopy for that matter.

So in this case if you can’t produce the best evidence of proof of ownership, you produce another document that may support your claim. And this is what the defendant did. Relying on the court’s due application of the exception to the Best Evidence Rule which is the Secondary Evidence Rule, not knowing that in fact he was relying on a weak evidence, because there are strict requisites in applying this exemption to that general rule. And defendant-appellant Antonio Ebreo was found short of satisfying those requisites.

The Deed of Sale evidencing the supposed transaction was never presented. We must take note, this is an untitled parcel of land subdivided and extra-judicially partitioned into 6 lots by 5 heirs of the deceased Felipe Ebreo, the 6th lot meaning untitled.

ISSUE:

Question is, by virtue of a registered and previously transferred ownership was there really a Deed of Sale to be presented?

RULING:

The Court ruled otherwise. It held that “substitutionary evidence cannot inceptively be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court. And defendant appellant failed to prove their case is included among the exception to the rule.”

Antonio Ebreo loses this case.

LICHAUCO vs. ATLANTIC GULF

Sometimes I copy-paste like there’s no tomorrow. Look at that. You couldn’t even understand the title. Its all jumbled up with names up there me myself couldn’t even distinguish the plaintiff from the defendant or the petitioner from the respondent, or appellant from the appellee. Well usually all the formers I’ve mentioned occupies the first billing. All the latters are indicated after the abbreviated word versus. That’s the standard format these justices follow in their writings of these final decisions, and for all court judges as well.  

Anyway, here’s a case of a.. a case of a.. what case is this anyway.. It’s somewhere.. here… alright here it is.

Damn I write like a caveman. Don't worry this is just a phase, It is still well understood that I'd still go back to what is standard ethical writing. And don’t worry I wont write my pleadings like this. (As in the previous case post). Geez just imagine if my pleadings were written this way.. all the impertinent and scandalous matters included, seasoned with all the effin cuss words?  Hahaha. Boy it will be stricken out by the court. “Attorney Clavecilla, you never strike me as one who deviates from procedures. I never thought you could write such flowery words” . Actually, if pleadings are written documents to beg the court? I know what to write to tickle some bones yet be decent and discreet about it. I know how and when to stick with standards and conform to what is generally appropriate when there is a need to it. And I think I could beg the court with class.. tsk.

FACTS:

The case is ah... oh this is an old case, setting was pre-Japanese occupation era.  What was being litigated on was the shares of stocks of a dead man, an American industrialist named Richard Thomas Fitzsimmons who ironically happened to be the president of the company Atlantic Gulf which is his adverse party in this case. The case was taken on by his administrator a Filipino named Marcial Lichauco who later on took it on appeal. Reason why his name is up there.

Story goes this way. Fitzsimmons during his office with Atlantic Gulf held a thousand shares of stocks with the company. Thing was, only approximately half of it were fully paid, the other half he executed a promissory note in favor of the company for the remaining unpaid shares.

1942,  the fuckin Japs occupied Philippine Islands right? The japs seized and took possession of offices and all properties and assets in the Philippines. Including Mr. Fitzsimmons' company of course.

In the course of time Richard Thomas Fitzsimmons died. And naturally when a man holds assets and properties during his lifetime of course a special proceeding in court will be instituted for the settlement of his estate for his surviving heirs.And so a judicial settlement of the estate of the deceased was instituted in the CFI... alright Court of First Instance.. this is the RTC then during those times.

1945 I think that was liberation. (dang 'think I should've listened to my late grandpa's stories back then when the  japs took over the big haunted house in the province during my great great grandpa's time, I was busy tying invisible strings to swing the rocking chair to scare everyone in the house when night comes while my sister and cousin's were all at his feet). Dont worry I've checked it with the history books just now? and 1945 was the start of the American liberation of Manila. So right after that time my assumption is Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company resumed business operation and in due course filed a claim against the estate of Fitzsimmons attaching the said indebtedness of his previously executed promissory note.

Enter Lichauco. The administrator of the deceased estate denying alleged indebtedness of the deceased. Here comes Atlantic Gulf now presenting the company's 2 chief accountants to the witness stand as parole evidence since the best evidence to prove the deceased indebtedness together with all the pre-war books and records of the company were destroyed and lost.

Counsel for Lichauco objected to the presentation arguing that the officers of the corporation are "a party to the actions against an executor or administrator of a deceased person are disqualified from testifying as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person" as stated in the old Rule 123 sec. 26 of the Rules of Court. Ow don't bother to check and look the citation has now been revised. And therefore such testimonies of the 2 accountants are inadmissible as evidence. 

RULING:

The Supreme Court rejected this argument stating that the Rule disqualifies only parties or assignors of parties. The officers of the company as well as their stockholders are not prevented by this rule since they are not party to the action.

Moreover, the court held that the testimonies of the chief accountants were vital in knowing the truth since these were the only people in best position to testify and shed light over the status of the personal account of the deceased.

So here the Dead-Man Rule clearly was not applied. Poor Mr. Fitzsimmons, Atlantic Gulf wins this case.

LECHUGAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

This is why I don’t usually conform to downloading readily digested cases. It’s like I’m always deprived of the nitty-gritty facts. I just obliged due to the urgency of my situation. Yes, the contemporaneous events surrounding my dire need to be ready to account for it in case the professor randomly calls my name in a deadly Russian-roulette recitation.    

I just copied and printed this accidentally googled digested case from I dunno who ever wrote this, all I know is its badly written. I didn’t look, there are lots of law student case digest blogs out there, but this one addresses my dire need that time.

Judging by the way it looks, well whatever it is, he or she must've been in a bad dire need situation as well. And boy what a vicious cycle, here I am eventually conforming to the bad habit of relying on others (scratch scratch). I guess there are days really.. and eureka!  there was a supply and I had the demand and… boom another one bites the dust. 

I’ve.. I dunno I’ve used every reasoning ability to exculpate the author of the unsatisfactory work but hey.. no matter how I try my best to tie every loosed ends I still end up not making a clear absolute logical understanding of what really happened. And all I could ever say while reading this was ‘WTH’ & 'WTF’ interchangeably. I mean you know.. you don’t digest like this for cry’s sake.

I dunno. Its just that. If you're serious you write the case in such a way that you’d still understand it 2 to 3 years from now when you’re already practicing, don't you think?.  And this is with the understanding that you will compile these cases and have them book-binded for your future professional use… otherwise you’ll just fuckin forget them ma’men… like I easily forget.  And… goodness gracious you don’t dissect  them like into fuckin 4 or 5 sentences my gad coz you’ll miss a lot on learning day to day legal processes at it's action, and learning the fuckin jargons and usual legal tactics when you're practicin. (LOL I know I speak like a fuckin Italian guy. WTF)

Alright, I'll give you a word of advice on how to properly do these things. Here’s what you do if you want it fast and understand it quick. You go to the internet, alright? You hunt the case down. It’s usually in LawPhil, (thanks to Arellano Law), or Scribd (thanks to Ateneo Law) or Chan-Robles (thanks to the  Chan-Robles associates) or whatever.  Right click the damn page save it to your hard drive or usb, disk, tablet or what have you. Transfer it to your lap-top coz you'll need a mouse for this. Highlight every word, you Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V it to a blank MS Word. Change the fonts to something readable.

Now with the process of elimination you quick read the case. You go down and get to the decision first. You wanna see who the heck won the damn case right? So you could mark him/her if it’s a person or if it’s a juridical person and that will give you a sort of a bird's eye-view on the case.

Now. Here’s the next thing you do, you read the facts. Chopping down everything unnecessary turning it into short numbered paragraphs. Delete what you think you don’t need. Nitty gritty details are not important, but you gotta be careful, coz some unimportantly looking detail may turn out to be one of the vital parts of the case. You’ll find out if you see it still popping out at the lower part of the write up.

Now, here’s how you do the ‘haduken’. In a long legal write up like court decisions its really hard to pin-point what you’re looking for right? The paragraph you think is what you're looking for might end up not the really the paragraph that you need. Coz in most cases every realm or aspects of law would somehow apply right? Civil cases, criminal cases, administrative, remedial, or whatever. You gotta learn how to zero-in on what you need. If it’s evidence you’re looking for or you want it more specific like ‘secondary evidence’ or parole evidence’ then it’s time for you to shout ‘HADUKEN!’ and press Ctrl-F. You type ‘secondary evidence’ in the search box then click and boom!.. automatically brings you to the paragraphs you need. You just have to click the 'next' until you find what you're lookin' for. Then the next thing you do is you try to see the whole picture on the side of the law aspect you’re looking for. And from there you draw the Issue and the Ruling.

Now, here’s what you do next, once you’ve finalized everything, you plug in that fuckin quick-losing-ink printer. Like the cheap one for that matter, the one that Canon manufactured as mass produced designed to eat your ink from the fuckin cartridge that cost fuckin 400 bucks each, massively designed to raise their revenues and fill up their pockets.. stupid bunch of crooks.  You print it out. Now, you get a red pen or blue or pink if you belong to the 3rd gender or any fuckin marker you want for that matter & do scribbled annotations on the sides. You don’t have to write annotations on every paragraph, just choose. The paragraphs are there just for future use, so you could get the whole picture when you read it again, add to your legal vocabulary, and give you quick know hows on legal procedures in action which could easily be retained in your mind. Write just the things you need. The one you think you’ll need in the recitation. Remember, you gotta write it not only for your recitation purposes. You gotta think of the future baby. Plan ahead. You'll somehow need these handy inside your leather satchel once your practicing.

But don’t take my word for it. It’s just my style of digesting cases. You may have your own that works for you better than this. And kudos to the student/s who did the digesting. At least it started up my brains a little bit. Besides, we all need each other. Who else will support each other no matter what law school we come from, except us right? Even though we hardly or do not know each other, we could easily identify coz we all go through the same fuckin hell right?  

And pardon the cuss words. I just watched ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ for the nth time. Para lang sarap magcuss sa English. Aw, there’s one funny scene there. Well most of the scenes there were funny, but here’s for a starter. You know that scene when DiCaprio was putting up his team. The nucleus that started it all? They were just a bunch of slacks you know? A motley crew or somethin who know nothin' about sales but selling meat, or tires and weeds, mostly weeds. He comes up to the crew, right? pulls down this illustration board in front of them that says 'Stratton Oakmont'. The new fly-by-night stocks company they’ll be putting up and he goes “With this script as your new harpoon.. I’ll be teaching you how to catch those Moby fuckin Dicks like Captain Ahab” & suddenly one in the team goes “Captain who?”  Di Caprio goes “Captai….The book moderfucker! The book!” Ha Ha ha and everybody turns to him and goes “Fuck you! Use your fuckin’ brain” Ha Ha I love that scene. Just imagine they were all talkin on the phone introducing themselves to the client and all of them were senior vice president of the company.. dang I dunno that movie was really something to me.

Sorry I digress. Anyway, lets wrap this up. Have a nice day.

     

PEOPLE vs. ROLANDO MENDOZA

You must've noticed the shaky penmanship. I wrote the red scribbled annotations on the sides on this digested case inside a moving public vehicle. an FX Taxi particularly. 2 things to consider though before you rid this off as an unreadable piece of 'sheet'. 1. The f-ck-n (sorry for the flowery word) driver driving recklessly imprudent resulting to damage to my print out. 2. The girl seated next to me who was constantly moving talking on the phone yet eavesdropping on what I was writing.

See that? the A-PNG-TE?...no its not short for 'ang panget' (coz my writing has become panget)...  I hope you see it, the acronym written at the top middle portion. In my mental vocabulary it stands for "The Accused was arraigned and he Pleaded Not Guilty, hence Trial Ensued" That just about explains how in dire need I was to assess this case quickly before 5:00 pm. Or I'll be dead in the bloody recitation again for what the 2nd time?

This is a criminal case of course. Zeroing in on Sec. 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The 'Witness Qualification Rule'. The crux of the case is the issue of credibility of the prosecution witness due to his age. A little boy whose barely 5 years old. The crime was committed when his father whose fucked up in the head. (I cant believe I said the 'f' word here again)  attacked his wife with a bottle of kerosene gas and with intent to kill lit and burned the poor woman which directly caused her death.

Of course accused was charged with parricide and when you're charged with a crime what would eventually happen?.. right... A-PNG-TE.

Accused raised the depressive state of mind of his wife as defense which resulted to the unthinkable act of burning herself.

Oh but the 4 year old boy was there and the boy saw everything. Tsk tsk tsk. We therefore have the presence of a firsthand most credible witness. 

So the prosecution presented the boy to the witness stand and the child categorically declared it was his father who burned and killed his mother. (poor kid, must've been all too shocking for him)  

Counsel for the defense assailing the credibility of the witness due to his tender age objected invoking Sec. 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court saying it is within the purview of the general rule of the provision. And also not one coming along the lines of the exception.

The court ruled NAY... (short for 'nanay', e di ba nanay nya yun namatay, joke).  

HELD:

The Supreme Court said NO. On the contrary, it is actually under the exception, meaning the exception to the rule applies. Court stated that "a four year old boy already speaks clearly and can understand things happening around him"

Obviously accused appealed to CA. But the CA affirmed the previous decision. (Bleh!)

Desperately elevating the matter to SC accused petitioned for a review for certiorari.

But petition was denied affirming assailed decision of the appellate court.

What did SC say? Nothing could have said it more beautifully. SC said. "Any child regardless of age can be competent witness provided he/she satisfy the 3 requisites provided in the exception to the rule. The child must be 1. can perceive, 2. is perceiving, 3. can make known his/her perception to others"  And all the 3 requisites were complied with. 

Accused was finally convicted. Thanks to the kid. I wish somehow this boy was able to rebound from everything that happened. Children deserve better than this, no matter who or what they are.