GR 34686; (February, 1932) (Digest)
G.R. No. 34686 , February 24, 1932
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. vs. ANTIGUA BOTICA RAMIREZ, ET AL.
FACTS
The Philippine Trust Company (appellant) filed three consolidated cases to collect various debts from the defendants, including the Antigua Botica Ramirez corporation and its individual officers/guarantors (appellees). The debts consisted of an overdraft balance and two promissory notes. The defendants claimed, among other defenses, that the plaintiff had granted extensions for payment and that they had assigned their corporate shares to the plaintiff in payment of their obligations. The trial court dismissed all complaints, ordered the cancellation of a mortgage, discharged a receiver, and ordered the plaintiff to return the corporation’s properties.
ISSUE
Did the trial court err in dismissing the complaints based on the defendants’ evidence and defenses?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that: (1) a surety’s lack of personal consideration for signing a promissory note is immaterial to the creditor’s right to collect; (2) the evidence for alleged extensions of payment was inadmissible hearsay and unsupported; (3) the testimony regarding the assignment of shares as payment was improperly admitted as it concerned transactions with a deceased person (violating the “dead man’s statute”); and (4) certain documentary evidence was improperly excluded. The Supreme Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amounts claimed in each case, with interest and attorney’s fees.
AI Generated by Armztrong.