Facts:

The case involves The Bank of the Philippine Islands as the plaintiff-appellee against Alfred Berwin & Company, the defendant, and Anselmo Diaz, the appellant. The events transpired before the Court of First Instance in Iloilo, with proceedings filed by the bank on September 30, 1927. The Bank filed a motion under various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to summon Anselmo Diaz to testify about his credit with Alfred Berwin & Company as part of enforcing a judgment against them. Upon being summoned, Anselmo Diaz appeared and acknowledged an outstanding debt of P20,000 to Alfred Berwin & Company, evidenced by two promissory notes. However, there remained ambiguity regarding the possession of these promissory notes—whether they were still held by Alfred Berwin & Company or had been negotiated to another party. The records do not clarify if Alfred Berwin & Company retained their claim to the debt or had transferred this right, which is vital du

...

Facts:

Parties Involved:

• Plaintiff and Appellee: The Bank of the Philippine Islands.
• Defendant: Alfred Berwin & Co.
• Appellant: Anselmo Diaz.

Context:
The plaintiff bank filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, invoking specific sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, to summon Anselmo Diaz to testify regarding a credit of P20,000 owed by him to the defendant firm, Alfred Berwin & Co. This was in connection with enforcing a judgment rendered in the case.

Key Events:

1. The court ordered Anselmo Diaz to appear, and he testified on September 30, 1927, acknowledging his debt of P20,000 to Alfred Berwin & Co.
2. The debt was evidenced by two promissory notes issued by Diaz in favor of Alfred Berwin & Co.
3. It was unclear from the records whether the promissory notes were still held by Alfred Berwin & Co. or had been negotiated to a third party.
4. Diaz was notified, during the preliminary attachment, not to pay his debt to Alfred Berwin & Co.

Issue:

The main issues in the case were:

1. Whether Anselmo Diaz could be compelled to pay the P20,000 to Alfred Berwin & Co. or the sheriff, given the uncertainty of who held the promissory notes.
2. Whether the lower court’s order for Diaz to pay the amount was premature in the absence of evidence showing who was entitled to receive the payment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)