Você está na página 1de 1

BA Finance Corporation v.

CA (Short title) RULING & RATIO

GR # L-61464 | May 28, 1988 1. No.
Petitioner: BA Finance Corporation 1. The signatures which were used as "standards" for comparison with the
Respondent: The Honorable Court of Appeals, Augusto Yulo, Lily Yulo alleged signature Lily in the Special Power of Attorney were those from her
(Rule 132, Section 20) residence certificates, her income tax returns and from a document on long
bond paper.
FACTS 2. Not only were the signatures in the foregoing documents admitted by Lily as
hers but most were used in government transactions.
1. Augusto Yulo secured a loan from BA Finance as evidenced by a 3. Jurisprudence provides that the genuineness of a "standard" writing
promissory note he signed in his own behalf and as representative of the A may be established (1) by the admission of the person sought to be
& L Industries. charged with the disputed writing made at or for the purposes of the
2. Augusto presented an alleged special power of attorney executed by his trial or by his testimony; (2) by witnesses who saw the standards
wife, Lily Yulo, who manages A & L Industries and under whose name the written or to whom or in whose hearing the person sought to be
business is registered. charged acknowledged the writing thereof; (3) by evidence showing
3. However, two months prior to the loan, Augusto had already left Lily and that the reputed writer of the standard has acquiesced in or recognized
their children and had abandoned their conjugal home. the same, or that it has been adopted and acted upon by him his
4. When the obligation became due and demandable, Augusto failed to pay the business transactions or other concerns.
same. 4. Also, in another case, it was held that when a writing is offered as a standard
5. BA Finance filed its amended complaint against the spouses Yulo on the of comparison it is for the presiding judge to decide whether it is the
basis of the promissory note and prayed for the issuance of a writ of handwriting of the party to be charged unless his finding is founded upon
attachment for said spouses were guilty of fraud which was issued by the error of law, or upon evidence, as matter of law, insufficient to justify, the
RTC. court will not revise it.
6. BA FInance then filed another motion for the examination of attachment 5. There is no error on the part of the trial judge in using the above documents
debtor, alleging the attachment were not sufficient to secure the judgment. as standards and also in giving credence to the expert witness presented by
This was likewise granted by the court. Lily whose testimony BA Finance failed to rebut and whose credibility it
7. Lily filed her answer with counterclaim, alleging that although they are likewise failed to impeach.
husband and wife, Augusto had abandoned her and their children before the 6. The unrebutted handwriting expert's testimony also noted twelve (12) glaring
filing of the complaint; that they were already separated when the and material differences in the alleged signature in the Special Power of
promissory note was executed; that her signature in the special power of Attorney as compared with the specimen signatures.
attorney was forged because she had never authorized Augusto Yulo in any
capacity to transact any business for and in behalf of A & L Industries. DISPOSITION WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET
8. RTC dismissed BA Finance's complaint against Lily and A & L Industries and ASIDE and the petitioner is ordered to pay the private respondent Lily Yulo the
ordering BA Finance to pay Lily actual damages; unrealized profits; amount of SIX HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P660,000.00) as actual
exemplary damages; and attorney's fees. damages. The remaining properties subject of the attachment are ordered released in
9. CA affirmed the RTC's decision except for the exemplary damages and the favor of the petitioner. SO ORDERED.
attorney's fees which were both reduced.
1. W/N CA erred in the affirming the RTC's findings that the signature of Lily on the 1. The second issue raised by the petitioner is that while it is true that A & L
Special Power of Attorney was forged Industries is a single proprietorship the said proprietorship was established
during the marriage and its assets were also acquired during the same.
PROVISIONS There is no dispute that A & L Industries was established during the
Rule 132, Section 20 Proof of private document. - Before any private document marriage of Augusto and and therefore the same is presumed conjugal.
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must However, for the said property to be held liable, the obligation contracted by
be proved either: the husband must have redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or which in this case did not.
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. 2. The third issue assails the award of actual damages. Although the petitioner
failed to prove the ground relied upon for the issuance of the writ of
attachment, this failure cannot be equated with bad faith. Thus, petitioner is
liable only for actual damages and not for exemplary damages and
attorney's fees.