Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Philippine National Bank vs. Uy Teng Piao Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS

    Uploaded by

    Coleen
    514 views1 page
    The Philippine National Bank won a civil case against Uy Teng Piao and was awarded over P17,000, plus interest. When Uy Teng Piao failed to pay, his properties were auctioned off and purchased by PNB. PNB then sued to recover the balance of over P11,000 still owed. Uy Teng Piao claimed he waived his right to the properties in exchange for PNB not collecting the remaining debt, but he failed to substantiate this claim. The court allowed testimony from PNB's lawyer and ultimately ruled in PNB's favor, finding that Uy Teng Piao only waived his rights because a friend would pay for the land.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Philippine National Bank won a civil case against Uy Teng Piao and was awarded over P17,000, plus interest. When Uy Teng Piao failed to pay, his properties were auctioned off and purchased by PNB. PNB then sued to recover the balance of over P11,000 still owed. Uy Teng Piao claimed he waived his right to the properties in exchange for PNB not collecting the remaining debt, but he failed to substantiate this claim. The court allowed testimony from PNB's lawyer and ultimately ruled in PNB's favor, finding that Uy Teng Piao only waived his rights because a friend would pay for the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    514 views1 page

    Philippine National Bank vs. Uy Teng Piao Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS

    Uploaded by

    Coleen
    The Philippine National Bank won a civil case against Uy Teng Piao and was awarded over P17,000, plus interest. When Uy Teng Piao failed to pay, his properties were auctioned off and purchased by PNB. PNB then sued to recover the balance of over P11,000 still owed. Uy Teng Piao claimed he waived his right to the properties in exchange for PNB not collecting the remaining debt, but he failed to substantiate this claim. The court allowed testimony from PNB's lawyer and ultimately ruled in PNB's favor, finding that Uy Teng Piao only waived his rights because a friend would pay for the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Philippine National Bank vs.

    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.

    You might also like