Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 692 views

    Advance Paper Corp. vs. Arma Traders Corp.

    Uploaded by

    Mitchi Barranco
    This document summarizes a court case between Advance Paper Corporation and Arma Traders Corporation regarding unpaid debts. Arma Traders purchased paper products and obtained loans from Advance Paper totaling over $7 million pesos, making payments with postdated checks that later bounced due to insufficient funds. Advance Paper sued for collection. The court ruled that Arma Traders was estopped from denying the authority of its officers, Tan and Uy, to conduct business transactions based on the corporation allowing them apparent authority for 14 years. Furthermore, the evidence presented was deemed admissible since the defense did not object to it in a timely manner.

    Copyright:

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

    Advance Paper Corp. vs. Arma Traders Corp.

    Uploaded by

    Mitchi Barranco
    692 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between Advance Paper Corporation and Arma Traders Corporation regarding unpaid debts. Arma Traders purchased paper products and obtained loans from Advance Paper totaling over $7 million pesos, making payments with postdated checks that later bounced due to insufficient funds. Advance Paper sued for collection. The court ruled that Arma Traders was estopped from denying the authority of its officers, Tan and Uy, to conduct business transactions based on the corporation allowing them apparent authority for 14 years. Furthermore, the evidence presented was deemed admissible since the defense did not object to it in a timely manner.

    Original Description:

    Evidence

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between Advance Paper Corporation and Arma Traders Corporation regarding unpaid debts. Arma Traders purchased paper products and obtained loans from Advance Paper totaling over $7 million pesos, making payments with postdated checks that later bounced due to insufficient funds. Advance Paper sued for collection. The court ruled that Arma Traders was estopped from denying the authority of its officers, Tan and Uy, to conduct business transactions based on the corporation allowing them apparent authority for 14 years. Furthermore, the evidence presented was deemed admissible since the defense did not object to it in a timely manner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    692 views2 pages

    Advance Paper Corp. vs. Arma Traders Corp.

    Uploaded by

    Mitchi Barranco
    This document summarizes a court case between Advance Paper Corporation and Arma Traders Corporation regarding unpaid debts. Arma Traders purchased paper products and obtained loans from Advance Paper totaling over $7 million pesos, making payments with postdated checks that later bounced due to insufficient funds. Advance Paper sued for collection. The court ruled that Arma Traders was estopped from denying the authority of its officers, Tan and Uy, to conduct business transactions based on the corporation allowing them apparent authority for 14 years. Furthermore, the evidence presented was deemed admissible since the defense did not object to it in a timely manner.

    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 2

    G.R. No.

    176897 December 11, 2013

    ADVANCE PAPER CORPORATION and GEORGE HAW, in his capacity as President of Advance Paper
    Corporation, Petitioners, vs. ARMA TRADERS CORPORATION, MANUEL TING, CHENG GUI and BENJAMIN
    NG, Respondents.

    DOCTRINE:

    1.) Evidence; Admissibility of Evidence; The rule is that failure to object to the offered evidence
    renders it admissible, and the court cannot, on its own, disregard such evidence.

    2.) The issue of credibility of witnesses is to be resolved primarily by the trial court because it is
    in the better position to assess the credibility of witnesses as it heard the testimonies and
    observed the deportment and manner of testifying of the witnesses

    FACTS: Advance Paper is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of producing, printing,
    manufacturing, distributing and selling of various paper products where George Haw is President and his
    wife, Connie Haw is the General Manager. Arma Traders is also a domestic corporation engaged in the
    wholesale and distribution of school and office supplies, and novelty products where Antonio Tan (Tan)
    was formerly the President while respondent Uy Seng Kee Willy (Uy) is the Treasurer of Arma Traders.
    They represented Arma Traders when dealing with its supplier, Advance Paper, for about 14 years. Manuel
    Ting, Cheng Gui and Benjamin Ng worked for Arma Traders as Vice-President, General Manager and
    Corporate Secretary, respectively. From September to December 1994, Arma traders purchased, on
    credit, notebooks and other paper products amounting to 7.5 million from Advance Paper. Because of
    Arma Trader’s good relations with Advanced Paper, Uy and Tan were able to obtain loans from Advanced
    Paper amounting to 7.7 million in order to pay their obligation to other suppliers. Tan and Uy issued 82
    postdated checks payable to cash or to Advance Paper with an aggregate amount of 15. 1 million pesos.
    Advance Paper presented the checks to drawee bank but were dishonoured either because "insufficiency
    of funds" or "account closed”. Arma Traders failed to settle its account with Advance Paper. On December
    29, 1994, the petitioners filed a complaint for collection of sum of money with application for preliminary
    attachment against Arma Traders, Tan, Uy, Ting, Gui, and Ng. Claims of the Petitioner: The petitioners
    claimed that the respondents fraudulently issued the postdated checks as payment for the purchases and
    loan transactions knowing that they did not have sufficient funds with the drawee banks. Arma Traders
    led the petitioners to believe that Tan and Uy had the authority to obtain loans since the respondents left
    the active and sole management of the company to Tan and Uy since 1984. In fact, Ng testified that Arma
    Traders’ stockholders and board of directors never conducted a meeting from 1984 to 1995. Therefore, if
    the respondents’ position will be sustained, they will have the absurd power to question all the business
    transactions of Arma Traders. Citing Lipat v. Pacific Banking Corporation, the petitioners said that if a
    corporation knowingly permits one of its officers or any other agent to act within the scope of an apparent
    authority, it holds him out to the public as possessing the power to do those acts; thus, the corporation
    will, as against anyone who has in good faith dealt with it through such agent, be estopped from denying
    the agent’s authority.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the evidence is admissible


    RULING: The rule is that failure to object to the offered evidence renders it admissible, and the court
    cannot, on its own, disregard such evidence. When a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered,
    it must so state in the form of a timely objection and it cannot raise the objection to the evidence for the
    first time on appeal. Because of a party’s failure to timely object, the evidence becomes part of the
    evidence in the case. Thereafter, all the parties are considered bound by any outcome arising from the
    offer of evidence properly presented

    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