Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTER OFFICE NEW (Lou)
INTER OFFICE NEW (Lou)
INTER OFFICE NEW (Lou)
x-----------------------x
Issue
Brief answer
No, the Court of Appeals cannot give credence to such a naked claim of
forgery over the testimony of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
handwriting expert on the integrity of the promissory note. On that score,
the appellate court aptly disabled De Vera’s contention. He failed to adduce
clear and convincing evidence that the signature on the promissory note is
a forgery. A bare denial will not suffice to overcome the positive value of the
promissory note and the testimony of the NBI witness. In fact, even a
perfunctory comparison of the signatures offered in evidence would lead to
the conclusion that the signatures were made by one and the same person.
As to the discretion of the modification of interest, only the Court shall
identify such even without the complaint of respondent when find out to be
excessive or contrary to law.
Facts
De Vera and Salvador Chua are kumpadres, the former is the godfather of
the Spouses Chua’s son. On 24 February 1995, Rivera obtained a loan
from the Spouses Chua.
October 1998, almost three years from the date of payment stipulated in
the promissory note, De Vera as partial payment for the loan, issued and
delivered to the Spouses Chua, as payee, a check numbered 012467,
dated 30 December 1998, drawn against Rivera’s current account with the
Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) in the amount of
₱25,000.00.
On 21 December 1998, the Spouses Chua received another check
presumably issued by De Vera likewise drawn against De Vera ‘s PCIB
current account, numbered 013224, duly signed and dated, but blank as to
payee and amount. Ostensibly, as per understanding by the parties, PBB
Check No. 01333 was issued in the amount of ₱135,501.00 with "cash" as
payee. Purportedly, both checks were simply partial payment for De Vera’s
loan in the principal amount of ₱120,000.00. De Vera is required to pay
(the spouses Chua) ₱120,000.00 plus stipulated interest at the rate of 5%
per month from 1 January 1996, and legal interest at the rate of 12%
percent per annum from 11 June 1999, as actual and compensatory
damages; 20% of the whole amount due as attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Manilad affirmed the
Decision of the MTC, but deleted the award of attorney’s fees to the
Spouses Chua.
Discussion
On the other hand, Section 184 of the NIL defines what negotiable
promissory note is. The Promissory Note in this case is made out to
specific persons, herein respondents, the Spouses Chua, and not to order
or to bearer, or to the order of the Spouses Chua as payees. However,
even if De Vera’s side the coverage of Section 70 of the NIL which provides
that presentment for payment is not necessary to charge the person liable
on the instrument, Rivera is still liable under the terms of the Promissory
Note that he issued.
The Promissory Note is unequivocal about the date when the obligation
falls due and becomes demandable—31 December 1995. As of 1 January
1996, Rivera had already incurred in delay when he failed to pay the
amount of ₱120,000.00 due to the Spouses Chua on 31 December 1995
under the Promissory Note.
(2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it
appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be
delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for
the establishment of the contract; or