Case Digest (G.R. No. 4776)
Facts:
Manuel Ormachea Tin-Congco, Deceased, Represented by the Chinaman Tiu Tusay, Judicial Administrator of His Estate v. Santiago Trillana, G.R. No. 4776, March 19, 1909, the Supreme Court, Torres, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the Chinaman Manuel Ormachea Tin-Congco (after his death represented by Florentino Tiu Tusay, judicial administrator); the defendant-appellant was Santiago Trillana.
On January 15, 1904, Manuel Ormachea filed an amended complaint alleging that he and Luis Vizmanos Ong Queco had carried on a partnership operating a distillery in Hagonoy and other Bulacan towns, that during the partnership the defendant purchased merchandise and received cash advances evidenced by 135 vales (notes) aggregating about P4,000, that the partnership was dissolved roughly two years earlier and accounts were apportioned so that the defendant’s obligations became Ormachea’s individual claim. The vales (some in Tagalog with translations) were attached to the complaint and plaintiff sought principal plus legal interest, totaling P5,500, with costs.
Trillana answered on November 15, 1904, admitting certain facts but denying others and pleading as special defenses that he had settled his accounts by periodical deliveries of tuba (nipa palm liquor) and that, if any obligation remained, it should be paid in kind (tuba) according to local custom rather than in cash. He further contested the probative force of various numbered vales and alleged irregularities as to indorsements and dates.
After trial, the trial court on February 27, 1907 rendered judgment for the plaintiff but fixed the recovery at P2,832.22 and ordered payment in tuba under the same conditions stipulated between the debtor and the partnership; execution was suspended on bond. The defendant excepted and sought a new trial and amendment, arguing several vales were not his, some were signed by others, some lacked dates, and that a written acquittance (Exhibit A) from Jose R. Lopez (Lawa), the former distillery manager, purportedly released him from indebtedness.
By order of May 7, 1907 the trial court overruled the motion to modify except insofar as it added the provision that payment be made in tuba at the plaintiff’s distillery within six months, failing which the defendant would be obliged to pay in cash; on November 12 the motion for a new trial was denied and the denial confirmed. The lower court ultimately found that, after excluding certain vales signed by others (P173), the debt was P2,832.22 4/8. The defendant appealed, advancing that Exhibit A (dated November 19, 1903) and the alleged prior liquidation rendered many vales invalid as evidence.
The trial record established that Lopez Lawa had been manager from circa 1894–1901, that the advances evidenced by the vales were made from the funds of the partners Ormachea and Vizmanos (not Lawa), and that when the partners withdrew in 1901 the outstanding credits against third parties (including those against Trillana) went to Ormachea. Lawa’s alleged acquittance was issued in 1903 after he had ceased to be manager, was written in Spanish apparently by the defendant himself, and Lawa testified t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in admitting and treating the attached vales as sufficient proof of indebtedness against Santiago Trillana?
- Did the acquittance (Exhibit A) signed by Jose R. Lopez (Lawa) in 1903, and the defense that payments had been made in tuba, extinguish Trillana’s obligations or require the court to order payment in kind rather than in cash?
- Was the trial court’s modification ordering payment in tuba within six months, with a fallback to cash if not ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)