GR 88383; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 88383 . February 19, 1992.
HARRIS SY CHUA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and STATE FINANCING CENTER, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Respondent State Financing Center, Inc. filed a complaint for sum of money against AsiaPhil Timber Corporation and several individuals, including petitioner Harris Sy Chua, based on a Term Loan Agreement, a Promissory Note, and a Comprehensive Surety Agreement. The trial court initially declared all defendants, including Chua, in default. Chua subsequently filed an answer within an extended period granted by the court, leading the trial court to set aside the order of default and the ex-parte proceedings against him. After pre-trial, the case was set for trial on the merits.
During the proceedings, respondent State Financing formally offered its documentary exhibits in writing. Chua opposed this offer, arguing the documents were not properly identified by a witness since the ex-parte presentation had been set aside. Later, for Chua’s failure to appear to present his evidence, the trial court deemed him to have waived his right and submitted the case for decision. The trial court then rendered judgment, dismissing the complaint against Chua, stating no evidence had been presented against him. Respondent State Financing appealed this dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and holding petitioner Harris Sy Chua jointly and severally liable based on the documentary evidence formally offered by the respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic rests on the effect of judicial admissions and the proper formal offer of evidence. In his answer to the complaint, petitioner Chua admitted the allegations regarding the existence and due execution of the Term Loan Agreement and the Comprehensive Surety Agreement, to which he was a signatory. This judicial admission rendered unnecessary the presentation of witnesses to testify on the genuineness and due execution of these documents.
Furthermore, the documents in question were notarial instruments, whose due execution is presumed and need not be proven. While respondent State Financing did not present live testimony, it made a written formal offer of exhibits, specifying each document and its purpose. A copy of this written offer was furnished to Chua, giving him ample opportunity to object and present rebutting evidence. His failure to appear and present his defense constituted a waiver of that right. Consequently, the trial court could properly consider the formally offered documents as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals correctly held Chua liable on the basis of these documents, which established his surety obligation.