Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine National Bank vs. Uy Teng Piao Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS
Philippine National Bank vs. Uy Teng Piao Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS
Uy Teng Piao
G.R. No. 35252
October 21, 1932
Facts: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment in favor of Philippine
National Bank (PNB) and against defendant Uy Teng Piao in a civil case for the sum of
P17,232.42, with interest. The court ordered the defendant to deposit said amount and in
case of his failure to do so that the mortgaged properties should be sold at public auction
in accordance with the law and the proceeds applied to the payment of the judgment.
Defendant failed to comply with the order of the court, and the sheriff of the City of Manila
sold the two parcels of land at public auction to PNB. Thereafter, PNB secured from
defendant a waiver of his right to redeem the property and sold said property to Mariano
Santos. The other parcel was subsequently resold by the bank because the bank credited
the defendant with the full amount realized by it when it resold the two parcels of land.
The bank brought the present action to revive the judgment for the balance of P11,574.38,
with interest. Defendant alleged that he waived his right to redeem the land in
consideration of an understanding between him and the bank that the bank would not
collect from him the balance of the judgment. Thus, the trial court absolved the defendant
from the complaint. Hence, this appeal.
Issue: Whether or not the testimony made by the lawyer of the PNB is admissible.
Held: Yes, but the Court reminded that although the law does not forbid an attorney to be
a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that counsel
should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary. Further, Rule 12.08 provides that a
lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except on formal or on substantial
matters.
In reversing its previous decision, the Court held that Uy Teng Piao failed to substantiate
his claim of an agreement. Plus, one of the attorneys of PNB testified that Uy Teng Piao
only waived his right because a friend of his was willing to pay the land. The court believed
this testimony but still reminded lawyers that they should withdraw from handling the case
when they choose to testify.