G.R. No. L-2715

FACTS:
The plaintiff-appellee, the partnership Behn, Meyer & Co., filed an action to recover a balance of 686.24 pesos (Mexican currency) from the defendant-appellant, F. Rosatzin, its former bookkeeper. The debt was evidenced by a ledger account for the year 1901, which was entirely in Rosatzin’s own handwriting and showed the stated balance in favor of the partnership. Rosatzin continued in the partnership’s employ and received his regular salary in 1902 and 1903. He did not present any evidence to prove payment of the debt. The trial court rendered judgment against Rosatzin, ordering him to pay the equivalent amount in Philippine currency. Rosatzin appealed, raising several objections to the judgment.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the ledger account in the defendant’s handwriting was admissible as evidence of the debt.
2. Whether the plaintiff partnership was required to prove the non-payment of the debt.
3. Whether the existence and legal personality of the plaintiff partnership were sufficiently proven.
4. Whether the judgment correctly ordered payment in Philippine currency.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment.
1. On the admissibility of the ledger: The ledger page containing the account in Rosatzin’s own handwriting was properly admitted in evidence as a clear admission of the indebtedness by the defendant. Any alleged defect in the partnership’s bookkeeping under the Code of Commerce did not affect the admissibility or probative value of this admission.
2. On the burden of proving payment: Under the applicable law (Article 1214 of the Civil Code), once the plaintiff proves the existence of the obligation, the burden shifts to the debtor to prove its extinguishment, such as by payment. This rule was not altered by the Code of Procedure. The plaintiff was not required to allege and prove non-payment as part of its cause of action. Rosatzin’s continued employment and receipt of salary did not constitute proof of payment.
3. On the partnership’s existence: The defendant, having contracted with the partnership known as Behn, Meyer & Co., was estopped from denying its legal personality. Furthermore, his own evidence failed to prove any change in the partnership’s composition after the debt was incurred.
4. On the currency of payment: The trial court correctly ordered payment in Philippine currency, following the precedent established in Gaspar v. Molina ( G.R. No. 2206 ).