Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Regional Trial Court: Defendant

    Uploaded by

    Jp Coquia
    This case involves a civil collection case filed by plaintiff Aldrin B. Camiso against defendant Nina C. Apostol for the alleged non-payment of a P450,000 loan. The defendant borrowed the money from the plaintiff for improvements to her coffee shop. The defendant claims payment as a defense but only provided a photocopy of the receipt as evidence, which the court ruled inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule since the original is required when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiff's complaint and ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding debt plus interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Regional Trial Court: Defendant

    Uploaded by

    Jp Coquia
    16 views3 pages
    This case involves a civil collection case filed by plaintiff Aldrin B. Camiso against defendant Nina C. Apostol for the alleged non-payment of a P450,000 loan. The defendant borrowed the money from the plaintiff for improvements to her coffee shop. The defendant claims payment as a defense but only provided a photocopy of the receipt as evidence, which the court ruled inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule since the original is required when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiff's complaint and ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding debt plus interest.

    Original Description:

    annex

    Original Title

    annex-ni

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a civil collection case filed by plaintiff Aldrin B. Camiso against defendant Nina C. Apostol for the alleged non-payment of a P450,000 loan. The defendant borrowed the money from the plaintiff for improvements to her coffee shop. The defendant claims payment as a defense but only provided a photocopy of the receipt as evidence, which the court ruled inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule since the original is required when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiff's complaint and ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding debt plus interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    16 views3 pages

    Regional Trial Court: Defendant

    Uploaded by

    Jp Coquia
    This case involves a civil collection case filed by plaintiff Aldrin B. Camiso against defendant Nina C. Apostol for the alleged non-payment of a P450,000 loan. The defendant borrowed the money from the plaintiff for improvements to her coffee shop. The defendant claims payment as a defense but only provided a photocopy of the receipt as evidence, which the court ruled inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule since the original is required when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiff's complaint and ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding debt plus interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


    7th Judicial Region
    Branch 7, Cebu City
    ALDRIN B. CAMISO,
    Plaintiffs,
    CIVIL CASE No. CEB7230
    FOR: Collection

    - versus 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.
    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

    You might also like