7 G.R. No.

143338 July 29, 2005 immaterial, irrelevant, was not properly identified and hearsay
evidence. Del Monte insists that Exhibit E was not properly identified
by Lavarino who testified that he had nothing to do in the preparation
THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION (SOLIDBANK),
and execution of petitioners exhibits, one of which was Exhibit E.
petitioner,
Further, as there were markings in Exhibit A which were not contained
vs.
in Exhibit E, the latter could not possibly be considered an original
DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS, INC., NARCISO G. MORALES, AND
copy of Exhibit A.
SPOUSE, respondents.
Respondents separately filed their motions to dismiss on the similar
Facts:
ground that with the exclusion of Exhibits A and E, petitioner no
CBTC filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money against Spouses
longer possessed any proof of respondents alleged indebtedness.
Morales for a P1Million loan that was extended to the latter, as
evidenced by a promissory note, where the Morales defaulted in the
RTC dismissed the case and CA affirmed ruling that the best evidence
payment thereof.
rule or primary evidence must be applied as the purpose of the proof
is to establish the terms of the writing meaning the alleged
CBTC attached to its complaint a photocopy of the promissory note
promissory note as it is the basis of the recovery of the money
supposedly executed by respondents, a copy of the demand letter it
allegedly loaned to the defendants (respondents herein). Hence, this
sent respondents dated 20 January 1983, and statement of account.
petition.
During the trial, CBTC presented Lavarino, then the manager of its
Collection Department. Lavarino stated that Morales obtained the Issue:
loan but failed to pay a single monthly installment on this loan, CBTC a
Whether or not the promissory note is an actionable document.
demand letter. Lavarino also identified the following exhibits for CBTC:
photocopy of the duplicate original of the promissory note attached Ruling:
to the complaint as Exhibit A; petitioners 20 January 1983 demand
letter marked as Exhibit B; Tolentinos letter to petitioner dated 10 NO. Respondents failed to deny specifically the execution of the
February 1983 and marked as Exhibit C; and the 09 March 1984 promissory note. This being the case, there was no need for petitioner
statement of account sent to respondents marked as Exhibit D. to present the original of the promissory note in question. Their
judicial admission with respect to the genuineness and execution of
CBTC made its formal offer of evidence. However, as the original copy the promissory note sufficiently established their liability to petitioner
of Exhibit A could no longer be found, CBTC instead sought the regardless of the fact that petitioner failed to present the original of
admission of the duplicate original of the promissory note which was said note. Indeed, when the defendant fails to deny specifically and
identified and marked as Exhibit E. under oath the due execution and genuineness of a document copied
in a complaint, the plaintiff need not prove that fact as it is considered
The trial court initially admitted into evidence Exhibit E. Del Monte
admitted by the defendant.
filed a manifestation and motion for reconsideration of the trial courts
order admitting into evidence Exhibit E, claiming that it was
The defendant must declare under oath that he did not sign the
document or that it is otherwise false or fabricated. Neither does the
statement of the answer to the effect that the instrument was
procured by fraudulent representation raise any issue as to its
genuineness or due execution. On the contrary such a plea is an
admission both of the genuineness and due execution thereof, since it
seeks to avoid the instrument upon a ground not affecting either.