Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

2. TRANS-PACIFIC v CA W/N petitioner has indeed paid in full its obligation to respondent bank.

PETITIONER: Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. HELD: (See main held/issue)


RESPONDENT: CA and Associated Bank
PONENTE: Bidin DUPLICATE ORIGINALS ADMISSIBLE (not the topic)

DOCTRINE: Offer of Compromise


CA’s decision was groundless. Documents presented by petitioner were
duplicate originals (ADMISSIBLE). Bank itself did not question authenticity of
FACTS:
the duplicate copies submitted by petitioner.
1. Petitioner was granted several financial accommodations amounting to
1.3M by Associated Bank. The loans were evidenced and secured by 4
promissory notes (PNs), a real estate mortgage (REM) and a chattel The use of carbon sheets, produces a facsimile upon the sheets
mortgage over petitioner's stock and inventories. beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke
2. Unable to settle its obligation in full, petitioner was granted by the bank a of pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the
restructuring of its remaining debts (prior payments were applied to sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either
penalties) of them may be introduced in evidence as such without
3. To secure the re-structured loan 3 new PNs were executed by Trans- accounting for the nonproduction of the others.
Pacific (for working capital and restructured interests)
4. The 3 mortgaged parcels of land were substituted by another mortgage A duplicate copy of the original may be admitted in evidence when the
covering 2 other parcels of land and a chattel mortgage on petitioner's original is in the possession of the party against whom the evidence is
stock inventory. offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice (R130,
a. Released parcels of land were then sold and the proceeds, Sec. 2b)
were turned over to the bank and applied to Trans-Pacific's
restructured loan. CA committed no error in disposing the appeal. Judgment was rendered in
b. Bank returned the duplicate original copies of the 3 promissory favor of petitioner on the basis of presumptions:
notes to Trans-Pacific with the word "PAID" stamped
thereon. The surrender and return to plaintiffs of the promissory notes
5. Despite the return of the notes, Bank demanded from Trans-Pacific evidencing the consolidated obligation as restructured,
payment for the accrued interest. According to the bank, the promissory produces a legal presumption that Associated had thereby
notes were erroneously released. renounced its actionable claim against plaintiffs (Art. 1271).
6. Trans-Pacific was willing to pay the amount but instead initiated an action
for specific performance and damages.
The presumption is fortified by a showing that said promissory notes
a. Prayed that mortgage over the land be released and its stock
all bear the stamp "PAID", and has not been otherwise overcome.
inventory be lifted and that its obligation to the bank be
CA is satisfied that plaintiffs must be found to have settled their
declared as having been FULLY PAID.
obligations in full.
7. TC judged in favor of Trans-Pacific declaring that its obligations are
FULLY PAID because of the possession of documents stamped with
“PAID” (presumption in Art 1271). Records show that Associated's Mesina is on record as having
Art. 1271. The delivery of a private document evidencing a credit, testified that all 3PNs had been fully. It is, moreover, admitted that
made voluntarily by the creditor to the debtor, implies the said promissory notes were accordingly returned to Romeo Javier.
renunciation of the action which the former had against the latter (Ibid.)
8. CA: reversed. Stating that the documents were mere duplicates and
cannot be the basis of petitioner’s claim presumption cannot be applied. Presumption in Art. 1271: not conclusive but merely prima facie. If there
be no evidence to the contrary, the presumption stands.
ISSUE:
In this case, presumption is overthrown because of the delivery of the MAIN HELD/ ISSUE
documents evidencing petitioners indebtedness.
Petitioner claims that the offer of settlement or compromise is not an
Article 1271 raises a presumption, not of payment, but of the admission that anything is due and is inadmissible against the party
renunciation of the credit. Presumption of renunciation in the delivery of making the offer (R130 Sec 24). Unfortunately, this is not an iron-clad rule.
a private instrument is that, unlike that of a public instrument, there could be
just one copy of the evidence of credit. Where several originals are made out Admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer to compromise.
of a private document, the intendment of the law would thus be to refer to the
delivery only of the original original rather than to the original duplicate of
Must consider the (1) circumstances and (2) intent of the parties
which the debtor would normally retain a copy- absurd if Article 1271 were to
making the offer.
be applied differently.
If a party DENIES the existence of a debt but offers to pay the same for the
Petitioner has not fully liquidated its financial obligation to the Associated purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is
Bank. In letters addressed to respondent bank, viz.:
INADMISSIBLE.

“. . . business is unable to generate sufficient resources for debt servicing… we BUT, like in the present case, if party making the offer ADMITS the existence
propose that you permit us to fully liquidate the remaining obligations …
through a payment in kind (dacion en pago) arrangement by way of the of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the claim
equipments and spare parts under chattel mortgage to you to the extent of their amicably, then, the admission is ADMISSIBLE to prove such
latest appraised values." indebtedness.

“We have had a series of communications with your bank regarding our proposal
for the eventual settlement of our remaining obligations . . . we have always been
Presumption under Art. 1271 is not conclusive and was successfully
conscious of our obligation to you which had not been faithfully serviced on rebutted by respondent.
account of unfortunate business reverses. Notwithstanding these however, total
payments thus far remitted to you already exceede (sic) the original principal amount
of our obligation. But because of interest and other charges, we find ourselves still
1. CIRCUMSTANCE: outright and honest letters of
obligated to you by P492,100.00. . . . admission vis-a-vis counsel-induced recalcitrance, there
could hardly be honest belief.
. . .. Principally for this reason, we had proposed to settle our remaining 2. EVIDENCE: against the claim of full payment emanated from
obligations to you by way of dacion en pago of the equipments (sic) and spare Transpacific itself. It cannot profess ignorance of the
parts mortgaged to you to (the) extent of their applicable loan values. existence of the 2 letters. There was thus an
ill-advised attempt on the part of Transpacific to capitalize
on the delivery of the duplicates of the promissory
notes, in complete disregard of what its own records
show.