Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Manila, Philippines



CIVIL CASE NO. 143-440 For: Collection of a Sum of Money

PEDRO NAGHIRAP, Appellee. x--------------------------------------------x

The appellee, PEDRO NAGHIRAP, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, in answer to the allegations raised by the defendant-appellant in his Brief, respectfully submits the following: PREFATORY STATEMENT Through this appeal, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT assails the judgment, dated 14 September 2013 rendered by Judge Zosimo Allegre of the Regional Trial Court Branch 1 of the National Capital Judicial Region of Manila, dismissing his complaint for Collection of Sum of Money. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Appellant, JUAN BIGLANGYAMAN, filed a complaint for the Collection of a Sum of Money against herein defendant-appellee, PEDRO

NAGHIRAP, based on a duly executed promissory note dated June 12, 2012. Plaintiff appellant is the owner of the BIGLANGYAMAN ENTERPRISES, a lending company. Herein Defendant Appellee, PEDRO NAGHIRAP, testified that payment was already made showing an official receipt (EXHIBIT 1) as proof of payment which was issued to him on 12 December 2012. RYZZA MAE CHACHA, the cashier of BIGLANGYAMAN ENTERPRISES, was presented to identify the receipt and the signature (Exhibit 1-A) therein. Ms. Chacha, positively identified the receipt as the official receipt of the BIGLANGYAMAN ENTERPRISES and the signature therein as her own. The defense was also able to present JOSE PANALO, a borrower of the BIGLANGYAMAN ENTERPRISES, to attest that he witness the payment made on 12 December 2012. Plaintiff-appellant likewise admitted the official receipt when it was offered as evidence. On 14 September 2013, on the strength of the defenses evidence, the Regional Trial Court promulgated its decision. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered and in view of the admission of the official receipt by the plaintiff, the Court finds that the defendant was able to prove by preponderance of evidence that payment of the loan in favor of the plaintiff was made and as such judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, ordering the latter to pay damages and the costs of litigation. SO ORDERED.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT Defendant-Appellee raises the following counter-arguments to the assignment of error raise by the Plaintiff-Appellant: 1. The official receipt

DISCUSSION A. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAD COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR THROUGH MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE, THE PRIVATE DOCUMENT EVIDENCING THE CREDIT, IS STILL HELD BY THE PLAINTIFF CREDITOR, THEREBY PROOF OF NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT 8. The appellant submits that the Regional Trial Court had committed a reversible error when it did not look into the credence of the promissory note as held by plaintiff-appellant. This promissory note was marked Exhibit A. Jurisprudence abounds that in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.1 When the creditor is in the possession of the document of credit, proof of non-payment is not needed for it is presumed.2 The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.3 PRAYER

Royal Cargo Corporation v. DFS Sports Unlimited, G.R. No. 158621, December 10, 2008. Tai Tong Chuache & Co. v. Insurance Commission, 242 Phil 104, 112, (1988). Supra note 1, at 422.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed and pleaded of this Honorable Court that the decision promulgated on 14 September 2013 dismissing the complaint be RECONSIDERED, REVERSED, and SET ASIDE. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. 21st day of September 2013, City of Manila.

GERALD CO Counsel for the Plaintiff 2134 Jose Abad Santos, Sta Mesa PTR No. 12345/09-24-13/Manila IBP No. 42956/10-10-14/Manila Roll No. 912345 MCLE No. IV-0001234


Copy Furnished: SAHLIE GONZALES Counsel for the Defendant 123 Napoles Street, Sta. Ana, Manila IBP No. 14344/02-14-88 Roll No. 12345/04-24-93 MCLE Exempt PTR Exempt Received by: _______________________ Date: _____________________________


I, JUAN BIGLANGYAMAN, of legal age, single, Filipino and a resident of 88 Mingoa St., Sta. Mesa, Manila, after having been duly sworn, depose and state that: 1. I am the appellant in the above-stated case; 2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing petition; 3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and as culled from authentic records; 4. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have not commenced any other action or filed any claim involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of September 2013 in the City of Manila, Philippines.


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21st day of September, 2013 affiant exhibiting to me his Drivers License No. N02-12345 issued on March 04, 2013 in Manila.

EDUARDO MINGOA NOTARY PUBLIC Until December 31, 2014 Roll of Attorneys No. 23456 IBP No. 333945/01-05-03 PTR No. 175456/02-07-13/Manila MCLE Compliance No. I 0007865/04-01-13 Doc. No. ;_____ Page No.;_____ Book No.;_____ Series of 2013. COPY FURNISHED:

SAHLIE GONZALES Counsel for the Defendant 123 Napoles Street, Sta. Ana, Manila IBP No. 14344/02-14-88 Roll No. 12345/04-24-93 MCLE Exempt PTR Exempt REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Manila