This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-01-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A statement in a written instrument regarding the payment of consideration is merely in the nature of a receipt and may be contradicted.[6] Respondent Sarmiento denied having received the proceeds of the loan and in fact presented evidence showing that on the day petitioner claimed to have credited the subject amount, it was again debited or withdrawn by petitioner, admittedly upon the instruction of the officials from petitioner's head office. Petitioner attempted to controvert this fact by claiming that the proceeds of the loan were applied to respondent's previous obligations to the bank. But we find nothing in the records showing that respondent had other obligations to which the proceeds of the loan could or should have been applied. Moreover, petitioner failed to explain just exactly what said obligations were or to what extent the purported proceeds were applied in satisfaction thereof. What appeared clearly was that the proceeds of the loan were deposited then withdrawn the same day by petitioner itself, thus negating its claim that respondent actually received it. Petitioner therefore failed to establish its case against respondent Sarmiento. | |||||