Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    10 Westmont vs. Francia JR - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Arlando G. Arlando
    Wincorp invested the Francias' money for 11% interest over 43 days, but failed to pay it back upon maturity. The investment was rolled over for another 34 days, with confirmation advices indicating Pearlbank as the actual borrower of funds. When still not paid back, the Francias sued Wincorp and Pearlbank. Wincorp did not object to evidence from the Francias and filed a late motion to postpone the hearing, which was denied. The court considered Wincorp to have waived its right to present evidence and ruled Wincorp solely liable. The CA and Supreme Court affirmed, holding that documents attached to Wincorp's pleadings could not be considered as evidence since they were not formally offered in trial court.

    Copyright:

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

    10 Westmont vs. Francia JR - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Arlando G. Arlando
    123 views1 page
    Wincorp invested the Francias' money for 11% interest over 43 days, but failed to pay it back upon maturity. The investment was rolled over for another 34 days, with confirmation advices indicating Pearlbank as the actual borrower of funds. When still not paid back, the Francias sued Wincorp and Pearlbank. Wincorp did not object to evidence from the Francias and filed a late motion to postpone the hearing, which was denied. The court considered Wincorp to have waived its right to present evidence and ruled Wincorp solely liable. The CA and Supreme Court affirmed, holding that documents attached to Wincorp's pleadings could not be considered as evidence since they were not formally offered in trial court.

    Original Description:

    Rules on Evidence Case Digest

    Original Title

    10 Westmont vs. Francia Jr - Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Wincorp invested the Francias' money for 11% interest over 43 days, but failed to pay it back upon maturity. The investment was rolled over for another 34 days, with confirmation advices indicating Pearlbank as the actual borrower of funds. When still not paid back, the Francias sued Wincorp and Pearlbank. Wincorp did not object to evidence from the Francias and filed a late motion to postpone the hearing, which was denied. The court considered Wincorp to have waived its right to present evidence and ruled Wincorp solely liable. The CA and Supreme Court affirmed, holding that documents attached to Wincorp's pleadings could not be considered as evidence since they were not formally offered in trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views1 page

    10 Westmont vs. Francia JR - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Arlando G. Arlando
    Wincorp invested the Francias' money for 11% interest over 43 days, but failed to pay it back upon maturity. The investment was rolled over for another 34 days, with confirmation advices indicating Pearlbank as the actual borrower of funds. When still not paid back, the Francias sued Wincorp and Pearlbank. Wincorp did not object to evidence from the Francias and filed a late motion to postpone the hearing, which was denied. The court considered Wincorp to have waived its right to present evidence and ruled Wincorp solely liable. The CA and Supreme Court affirmed, holding that documents attached to Wincorp's pleadings could not be considered as evidence since they were not formally offered in trial court.

    Copyright:

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

    Case 10: WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION (WINCORP) vs. AMOS P.

    FRANCIA, JR. et al. (G.R. No. 194128, December 7, 2011)


    Facts:
    The Francias invested their money in Wincorp for 11% interest for 43
    days. They failed to collect upon maturity and their investment were rolled over for
    another 34 days for which Confirmation Advices were issued by Wincorp indicating
    Pearlbank as the actual borrower of the funds invested. Failing again to collect, the
    Francias filed a collection suit against Wincorp and respondent Pearlbank before the
    RTC. Wincorp did not object or comment to the evidence offered by the Francias and
    filed a motion to postpone hearing 3 days before the scheduled hearing for
    presentation of Wincorps defense evidence which was denied. RTC considered
    Wincorp to have waive its right to present evidence. It held Wincorp solely liable to
    the Francias and dismissed the case against Pearlbank. CA affirmed. Hence, this
    petition.
    Issue: Was the CA correct in not admitting the documents attached to Wincorps
    pleadings?
    Held: Yes. It appears that Wincorp was given ample opportunity to file its
    Comment/Objection to the formal offer of evidence of the Francias but it chose not
    to file any. All the documents attached by Wincorp to its pleadings before the CA
    cannot be given any weight or evidentiary value for the sole reason that, as
    correctly observed by the CA, these documents were not formally offered as
    evidence in the trial court. To consider them now would deny the other parties the
    right to examine and rebut them. This is in accordance with Section 34, Rule 132 of
    the Rules of Court

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy