Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3383)
Factual Background
The plaintiff initiated the action on July 23, 1904, in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon to recover the amount, which was presented to Lim Uyco but was refused payment based on instructions from the defendant's company. The defendant's written response on August 15, 1906, admitted the main facts but counterclaimed for 2,369 pesos, asserting that Tan Leonco owed this amount. The plaintiff denied the allegations in the counterclaim and subsequently claimed a further 5,500 pesos.
Court Proceedings and Arbitration
On October 26, 1904, the judge appointed arbitrators to settle the dispute, but the case returned to court for trial on June 5, 1905. The court, on November 6, 1905, ruled in favor of Tan Leonco and directed the defendant to pay him 800 pesos along with 6% interest from the date of the bill of exchange, dismissing the defendant's counterclaim.
Finding of Facts by the Lower Court
The lower court found that Tan Leonco, prior to leaving for China in 1897, entrusted his abaca plantations to Tan Tonguan. The abaca was processed into 800 pesos worth of fiber, subsequently stored in a warehouse owned by the defendant. The defendant's acknowledgment of receipt in the bill of exchange led the court to conclude that the defendants cannot deny having received this value, even though the abaca did not pass directly through their hands.
Issues Surrounding the Indebtedness
The lower court determined that once the abaca was stored in the defendant's warehouse, ownership transferred to the defendant, despite subsequent destruction of the warehouse and its contents by insurrectos. The defendant argued that they never received the abaca and thus the bill of exchange lacked consideration. However, the court held that adequate delivery had occurred and that the loss of the abaca constituted a risk assumed by the defendant.
Protest of the Bill of Exchange
An additional point of contention concerned whether the plaintiff's failure to formally protest the bill of exchange invalidated his claim. The court reasoned that since the defendant had instructed non-payment, formal protest was unnecessary, supporting the plaintiff's claim. The reliance on the bill of exchange as evidence rather than the basis of the action meant that protest was not a requisite for recovery.
Counterclaim Evaluation
Upon evaluating the defendant's counterclaim, the court found that the evidence did not sub
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-3383)
Case Overview
- Date of Decision: September 13, 1907
- Case Number: G.R. No. 3383
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Parties: Tan Leonco (Plaintiff and Appellee) vs. Go Inqui (Defendant and Appellant)
- Nature of the Case: Recovery of debt evidenced by a bill of exchange.
Factual Background
- Initial Action: The plaintiff, Tan Leonco, commenced an action on July 23, 1904, in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon to recover 800 pesos from the defendant, Go Inqui, representing the mercantile company "J. C."
- Indebtedness: The 800 pesos debt was evidenced by a bill of exchange executed on March 3, 1901, drawn upon Lim Uyco of Manila.
- Payment Refusal: Lim Uyco refused payment upon presentation of the bill, following instructions from the defendant's company.
- Counterclaim: The defendant admitted the facts of the complaint but counterclaimed, asserting that the plaintiff owed him 2,369 pesos with 6% interest.
Procedural History
- Reply and Counterclaim: The plaintiff denied the counterclaim and filed a counterclaim of his own amounting to 5,500 pesos.
- Arbitration: On October 26, 1904, arbitrators were appointed to resolve disputes; however, on June 5, 1905, the case was set for trial without their intervention.
- Lower Court Decision: On November 6, 1905, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff for 800 pesos, plus interest and costs, and dism