G.R. No. 29197, October 20, 1928
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GO CHONG BING, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On February 4, 1921, defendant Go Chong Bing executed a promissory note for P20,500 in favor of the widow of Tan Toco. The widow, through her attorney-in-fact Mariano de la Rama Tan Bungco, endorsed the note to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). The note matured on May 19, 1921. On January 31, 1922, a payment of P7,000 was made on account.
On February 5, 1921, Go Chong Bing executed another promissory note for P21,500 in favor of the same widow, which was similarly endorsed to PNB through the same attorney-in-fact. This note matured on June 5, 1921, and a payment of P7,000 was also made on January 31, 1922.
As the notes remained unsatisfied despite demands, PNB filed a suit on May 26, 1926, to recover the unpaid balances. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of PNB, awarding the principal amounts due (P13,500 for the first note and P14,500 for the second) plus legal interest from May 27, 1926, until fully paid. PNB acquiesced to the judgment, but the defendants appealed, contending that there was no proof that the widow endorsed the notes to PNB or that she made the payments on account.

ISSUE

Whether the endorsement of the promissory notes by the widow of Tan Toco through her attorney-in-fact and the application of the payments made on account were sufficiently proven.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. The uncontradicted testimony of Ramon Mendoza established that Mariano de la Rama Tan Bungco was the duly authorized attorney-in-fact of the widow of Tan Toco. This evidence was sufficient to prove that the endorsement of the notes to PNB was validly made by the widow through her agent. The Court also held that, since the widow’s liability to PNB for the notes had been proven, it was to her benefit to acknowledge that the payments on account were made by her. The evidence established that the payments were indeed made, and under the circumstances, they could only be credited to the debtor. The Court found no reversible error in the judgment appealed from.