3
Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 7th Judicial Region Branch 7, Cebu City ALDRIN B. CAMISO, Plaintiffs, CIVIL CASE No. CEB- 7230 - versus - FOR: Collection NINA C. APOSTOL, Defendant. x--------------------------------------------x ORDER This is a civil case for Collection of Sum of Money filed by Plaintiff against Defendant for the alleged non-payment of a loan. The case arose from a loan contracted by Nina C. Apostol, herein Defendant with Aldrin B. Camiso, herein Plaintiff for an amount of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00), which the former borrowed for the improvements she intended to put on for her coffee shop. The parties executed a promissory note to evidence their agreement. There, it was stipulated that the loan would mature one year from January 30, 2013. In this case, Defendant does not contest the existence of the loan; in fact, she admits that she obtained the said amount from Plaintiff. However, the former raises the defense of payment. Under Articles 1231, payment is one of the modes of extinguishment of an obligation.

annex-ni

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

annex

Citation preview

Republic of the Philippines

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th Judicial Region

Branch 7, Cebu City

ALDRIN B. CAMISO,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL CASE No. CEB-7230

- versus -

FOR: Collection

NINA C. APOSTOL,

Defendant.

x--------------------------------------------x

ORDERThis is a civil case for Collection of Sum of Money filed by Plaintiff against Defendant for the alleged non-payment of a loan.The case arose from a loan contracted by Nina C. Apostol, herein Defendant with Aldrin B. Camiso, herein Plaintiff for an amount of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00), which the former borrowed for the improvements she intended to put on for her coffee shop. The parties executed a promissory note to evidence their agreement. There, it was stipulated that the loan would mature one year from January 30, 2013.In this case, Defendant does not contest the existence of the loan; in fact, she admits that she obtained the said amount from Plaintiff. However, the former raises the defense of payment. Under Articles 1231, payment is one of the modes of extinguishment of an obligation.The Defendant, in proving her defense, presented a photocopy of the receipt issued to her by Plaintiff after she handed to him the entire amount of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00) for payment. Plaintiff objected on the ground of inadmissibility of the photocopy of the receipt under the Best Evidence Rule. Defendant argued that such exclusionary rule under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court does not apply for the reason that the contents of the photocopied receipt were not the subject of inquiry of the case.

This court is of the opinion that the evidence presented by the Defendant, being merely a photocopy of the receipt, is at best only secondary evidence. Under the Best Evidence Rule, when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, there can be no other evidence admissible except the original of such document.

The subject of inquiry in this case was the contents of the document considering that it is only thru the contents where we can verify if indeed payment was made by the defendant so as to extinguish her obligation.

WHEREFORE, for reasons afore-stated, the complaint is hereby GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ordered to immediately pay her outstanding debt amounting to Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos(P450,000.00) plus legal interest from date of judgment. With costs against the defendant.SO ORDERED.Given in open court this 19th day of January 2015 in Cebu City, Philippines.

TEOFISTA HERNANDEZ

Judge