G.R. No. L-30830 August 22, 1969
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MERIDIAN ASSURANCE CORPORATION, defendants, ELRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, filed a suit in the City Court of Manila to collect the unpaid balance of P4,973.54, with interest, on a promissory note for P20,000 signed by the defendant, Elro Development Corporation. The City Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance. In its answer before the Court of First Instance, the defendant did not deny under oath the due execution and authenticity of the promissory note, which was annexed to the complaint. The defendant instead denied making partial payments and that the alleged balance was due, stating “the truth of the matter being that no such amount is due the plaintiff.” At the pre-trial, the defendant’s counsel admitted the execution of the note. During trial, the plaintiff presented documentary evidence, including the promissory note, a statement of account, and a demand letter. The court admitted these exhibits and gave the defendant five minutes to present its evidence, but the defendant failed to do so. The court then rendered a decision against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, objecting to the admission of the plaintiff’s documentary exhibits on the ground that they were not properly identified by a witness. The trial court denied this motion.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in admitting the plaintiff’s documentary evidence (the promissory note and related documents) without requiring proof of their due execution and authenticity.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. Under the Rules of Court, when an action is founded upon a written instrument attached to the pleading, its genuineness and due execution are deemed admitted unless the adverse party specifically denies them under oath. The defendant failed to deny the promissory note under oath. Furthermore, the defendant’s counsel admitted its execution at the pre-trial. Therefore, proof of its due execution and authenticity was correctly dispensed with. The defendant’s denial in its answer regarding partial payments and the outstanding balance was vague and inconsistent with its admission of the note’s execution. The defendant was given an opportunity to present its evidence but failed to do so. The motion for reconsideration was correctly denied as it was filed after the decision was rendered and the objection to the evidence was without merit. The decision of the trial court was affirmed.