Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Go Tong Electrical Supply Co Vs BPI

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
    196 views2 pages
    This case involves a collection suit filed by BPI against Go Tong Electrical Supply Co. and George Go for failure to pay a loan. The Supreme Court ruled against Go Tong, finding that their denial of the loan documents was not sufficiently specific as required by law. To make a valid denial, the defendant must specifically deny signing the document or claim it is fabricated. Go Tong's general denial did not meet this requirement, implying admission of the loan. However, the defendant could still argue defenses of fraud, mistake or other issues, but failed to adequately do so in this case.

    Original Description:

    awdafv

    Original Title

    Go Tong Electrical Supply Co vs BPI

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a collection suit filed by BPI against Go Tong Electrical Supply Co. and George Go for failure to pay a loan. The Supreme Court ruled against Go Tong, finding that their denial of the loan documents was not sufficiently specific as required by law. To make a valid denial, the defendant must specifically deny signing the document or claim it is fabricated. Go Tong's general denial did not meet this requirement, implying admission of the loan. However, the defendant could still argue defenses of fraud, mistake or other issues, but failed to adequately do so in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    196 views2 pages

    Go Tong Electrical Supply Co Vs BPI

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
    This case involves a collection suit filed by BPI against Go Tong Electrical Supply Co. and George Go for failure to pay a loan. The Supreme Court ruled against Go Tong, finding that their denial of the loan documents was not sufficiently specific as required by law. To make a valid denial, the defendant must specifically deny signing the document or claim it is fabricated. Go Tong's general denial did not meet this requirement, implying admission of the loan. However, the defendant could still argue defenses of fraud, mistake or other issues, but failed to adequately do so in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Go Tong Electrical Supply Co. vs.

    BPI
    GR No. 187487

    PLAINTIFF: Go Tong Electrical Supply


    DEFENDANT: BPI
    DATE: June 29, 2015
    PONENTE: J. Perlas-Bernabe
    TOPIC:

    TYPE OF CASE:
    VENUE:
    CAUSE OF ACTION: Collection for sum of money
    RESOLUTION: Petition, denied.

    Facts:

     That on October 4, 2002 BPI filed complaint for a collection for sum of money against the defendants George Go and Go
    Tong Electrical – that they may be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of their loan obligation for 87M
     As alleged by the defendant, Go Tong applied and was granted financial assistance by then Bank of South East Asia,
    subsequently, DBS then BPI.
     Financial assistance was renewed on January 6, 1999 – approved
    o Go Tong represented by Go executed a PN for the same amount of 40M
    o Under the PNs
     Go Tong bound itself to pay a default penalty interest, etc.
     As additional security, Go executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement covering any and all
    obligations undertaken by Go Tong Electrical, including the said loan
     BPI filed for its collection suit
     Go Tong in its answer alleged the following:
    o Stated that they “specifically deny” the allegations under the complaint
     Denied the loan agreement
     PN and CSA – for being self serving and pure conclusions intended to suit respondent’s purposes
    o That the real party in interest should be DBS
    o No demand was made
    o Go cannot be held liable for the CSA since there was supposedly no solidarity of debtors
     Sunio BPI witness said there is an existence of the loan of the plaintiffs – can be seen in a Statement of Account
     Plaintiffs presented Jocelyn Lim – stating that Go Tong was able to pay the said loan but she doesn’t know the exact
    amount of payment
     RTC ruled in favor of the defendants
    o That the defendants have presented competent documentary evidence that remained undisputed
    o Plaintiffs failed to show proof that they already paid the same
     CA affirmed RTC

    Issue: W/N the plaintiff’s specific denial was valid, NO

    Ruling:

    The SC ruled in the negative.

    The mere statement in their answer that they “specifically deny” the pertinent allegations of the Complaint for “being self-serving and
    pure conclusions intended to suit plaintiff’s purposes”, does not constitute an effective and specific denial as contemplated by the
    law.

    A denial is not specific specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. Stated otherwise, a general denial does not
    become specific by the use of the word “specifically”. Neither does it become so by the simple expedient of coupling the same with a
    broad conclusion of law that the allegations contested are “self-serving” or are intended “to suit plaintiff’s purposes”

    To able the comply with the specific denial of allegations,


     Must declare under oath the he did not sign the document or that it is not otherwise false or fabricated

    Failure to comply with the “specific denial under oath” requirement under Section 8 of ROC
     The proper conclusion, as arrived at by the CA is that the petitioners had impliedly admitted the due execution and
    genuineness of the documents evidencing their loan obligation to the respondent
     Rule 132 f ROC requires that private documents be proved of their due execution and authenticity before they can be
    received in evidence
    o Presentation and examination of witnesses to testify on this fact in the present case, there is no need for proof
    of execution and authenticity with respect to the loan documents because of respondent’s implied admission
    thereof
    HOWEVER, failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing
    against it by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment statute of limitations, estoppel and want of consideration bar a party
    from raising the defense in his answer or reply and prove at the trial that there is mistake or imperfection in the writing, or that it does
    not express the true agreement of the parties, or the agreement is invalid or that there is as intrinsic ambiguity in the writing
    None of these defenses were adequately argued or proven during the proceedings of this case

    You might also like