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:
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.
