Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36413)
Facts:
In Baldomero Inciong, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and Philippine Bank of Communications (G.R. No. 96405, June 26, 1996), petitioner Baldomero L. Inciong, Jr., a law graduate and labor consultant, signed on February 3, 1983, a promissory note for Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) together with co-makers Rene C. Naybe and Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr., promising to pay the Philippine Bank of Communications, Cagayan de Oro City branch, the entire amount due on May 5, 1983, with 16% annual interest and 6% annual liquidated damages from maturity until paid. When no payment was made, the bank sent demand telegrams on November 14, 1983 and June 8, 1984, and a final registered letter on December 11, 1984. On January 24, 1986, the bank filed a complaint for collection of money and damages against all three obligors in the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18. The case was dismissed on November 25, 1986 for failure to prosecute but reinstated on January 9, 1987. Summonses were seCase Digest (G.R. No. L-36413)
Facts:
- Promissory Note and Underlying Obligation
- On February 3, 1983, petitioner Baldomero L. Inciong, Jr., together with Rene C. Naybe and Gregorio D. Pantanosas, signed a promissory note in the principal amount of ₱50,000.00, due May 5, 1983, promising to pay Philippine Bank of Communications, Cagayan de Oro City branch, “jointly and severally.”
- The note provided for interest at 16% per annum from maturity and 6% per annum as liquidated damages, plus 10% attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
- Default, Demands and Proceedings Below
- The obligors failed to pay on May 5, 1983. Private respondent sent two telegrams (November 14, 1983; June 8, 1984) and a registered final demand letter (December 11, 1984) which went unanswered.
- A complaint for collection was lodged on January 24, 1986 (Civil Case No. 10507) but was initially dismissed for lack of prosecution on November 25, 1986, then reinstated on January 9, 1987. Summons were served only on petitioner; Pantanosas was dismissed at plaintiff’s motion (January 27, 1987) and Naybe was not served.
- Petitioner’s Defense and Lower Court Findings
- Petitioner claimed he signed as “co-maker” for only ₱5,000.00, alleging Rudy Campos procured blank notes and fraudulently inserted ₱50,000.00 except in one copy.
- The Regional Trial Court held the typewritten “₱50,000” beneath petitioner’s admitted signature was presumed correct under Rule 131, Sec. 5(q), and found his uncorroborated testimony insufficient to vary the note’s terms. Counterclaim and cross-claim were dismissed.
- Appellate and Supreme Court Proceedings
- The Court of Appeals affirmed on August 31, 1990; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The Supreme Court initially denied review (February 6, 1991) for procedural non-compliance, but after motions and reinstatement (August 7, 1991), ultimately resolved the petition on merits.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner may introduce extrinsic (parol) evidence to vary the ₱50,000.00 obligation stated in the promissory note.
- Whether uncorroborated testimony and post-judgment affidavit can overcome the presumption of regularity of a signed negotiable instrument.
- Whether dismissal of the case against Pantanosas (co-maker) and lack of service on Naybe (co-debtor) operates as a release of petitioner’s liability.
- Whether the petition presents any grave abuse of discretion by the courts below warranting relief.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)