[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
190 views1 page

10 Westmont vs. Francia JR - Digest

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.

Uploaded by

Arlando G. Arlando
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
190 views1 page

10 Westmont vs. Francia JR - Digest

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.

Uploaded by

Arlando G. Arlando
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 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