Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > February 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2715 February 27, 1906 - BEHN v. F. ROSATZIN

005 Phil 660:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2715. February 27, 1906. ]

BEHN, MEYER & CO., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. F. ROSATZIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Hartigan, Marple, Rohde & Gutierrez, for Appellant.

Pillsbury & Sutro, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. ACCOUNTING; EVIDENCE, ADMISSION OF. — The personal account of the defendant with the plaintiff in the ledger of the latter showed a balance against the defendant; the defendant was the bookkeeper of the plaintiff, and this account was kept by him and is in his handwriting. Held, that it was an admission of his indebtedness to the plaintiff to the amount therein stated.

2. PARTNERSHIP; ESTOPPEL. — Where the defendant has contracted with a partnership as such, he is stopped in a suit by the partnership against him growing out of such contract, to claim that the partnership was not properly organized.

3. CIVIL PROCEDURE; BURDEN OF PROOF. — When the plaintiff has proved the existence of a debt the burden of showing that it has been paid is on the defendant. (Sec. 297, Code of civil Procedure.)

4. JUDGMENT; PHILIPPINE CURRENCY. — Gaspar v. Molina, No 2206, November 2, 1905, followed in that a judgment on a cause of action accruing in 1901 is properly rendered in Philippine Currency.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


The defendant and appellant was employed by the partnership of Behn, Meyer & Co. as a bookkeeper during the years 1901, 1902, and 1903. He left their employ in the last-named year, and the partnership brought this action to recover a balance of 686.24 pesos claimed to be due it from the defendant. The ledger for the partnership for the year 1901 contained a page devoted to the account-current of the defendant with the partnership. That account for that year showed a balance in favor of the partnership and against the defendant of 686.24 pesos. This account was kept by the defendant himself, and all the entries therein are in his handwriting. The defendant introduced no evidence in relation to the account or its payment, and judgment was entered against him for P571.87 in Philippine currency, the equivalent of 686.24 pesos in Mexican currency. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he has brought the case here by bill of exceptions.

Objection was made in the court below to the admission of some of the books of the partnership in evidence on the ground that they were not kept as required by the Code of Commerce. We do not find it necessary to decide this question. The ledger which contained the account above mentioned in the handwriting of the defendant was certainly properly received in evidence, being an admission by him of this indebtedness. The fact that the book was not kept in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Commerce could not detract from the force of this admission. This book alone was sufficient evidence to prove the cause of action, and the reception in evidence of the other books, if it were error, was error without prejudice.

It was proved that the defendant continued in the employ of the partnership during the years 1902 and 1903, and was paid for those years his regular monthly salary, and it is claimed by the appellant that this indicates that he must have paid the balance due from him for the year 1901. This contention can not be sustained.

The plaintiff offered no evidence to show that this balance had not been paid, and it is claimed by the appellant that the judgment must be reversed for that reason. The plaintiff having proved the existence of the obligation, the burden of proof was upon the defendant to show that it had been discharged. This was the law in force during the Spanish domination. (Art. 1214, Civil Code.) This rule has not been changed by section 297 of the present Code of Procedure, which section is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Party must prove his affirmative allegations. — Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations. Evidence need not be given in support of a negative allegation except when such negative allegation is an essential part of the statement of the right or title on which the cause of action or defense is founded, nor even in such case when the allegation is a denial of the existence of a document. the custody of which belongs to the opposite party."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is also claimed by the appellant that the existence of the plaintiff partnership was not proved — that is, that there was no proof to show that the partnership had been organized in accordance with the Code of Commerce. There was evidence presented by the defendant in the case that a partnership known as Behn, Meyer & Co. existed in 1900. The defendant contracted with that partnership in 1901 and subsequent years, and is now estopped to say that it was not a partnership.

The appellant also attempted to prove that there had been had been a change in the partners constituting the firm after 1901, and prior to the commencement of the action, and that the partnership which brought this suit was not the partnership with which the defendant contracted. He however, failed in his attempt, because the witness whom he called to make the proof testified that they new partner, Dittmar, became a member of the firm in 1900.

It is finally claimed by the defendant that the court erred in entering judgment against him for the amount of the debt payable in Philippine currency. This contention has already been decided adversely to the appellant in the case of Gaspar v. Molina, 1 No. 2206, November 2, 1905 (3 Off. Gaz., 651).

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and the case remanded to the lower court for execution thereof. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Page 197, supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2607 February 2, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO NIETO

    005 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 2243 February 8, 1906 - MATEO ALDEGUER v. GREGORIO APOSAGA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 2404 February 8, 1906 - PEDRO SISON v. CALIXTO SILVA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 2343 February 10, 1906 - ILDEFONSO TAMBUNTING v. CITY OF MANILA

    005 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 2344 February 10, 1906 - GONZALO TUASON v. DOLORES OROZCO

    005 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 2641 February 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO MACASADIA

    005 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 1524 February 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TRANQUILINO HERRERA

    005 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 2282 February 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE DIAZ TAN-BAUCO

    005 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 2357 February 13, 1906 - FREDERICK NELLE v. BAER

    005 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 2437 February 13, 1906 - MONICA CASON v. FRANCISCO WALTERIO RICKARDS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 1618 February 14, 1906 - MIGUEL SIOJO v. GERARDO DIAZ

    005 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 2650 February 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOLOSA

    005 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 1311 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GIRON

    005 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 1409 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM CROZIER

    005 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 2250 February 17, 1906 - PEDRO REGALADO v. LUCHSINGER & CO.

    005 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 2424 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. COSME GUZMAN

    005 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 2451 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LEON LINESES

    005 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 2622 February 17, 1906 - TEODORO S. BENEDICTO v. JULIAN PERIZUELO

    005 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 2647 February 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX PAQUIT

    005 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 2333 February 19, 1906 - EDWARD B. MERCHANT v. ABELARDO LAFUENTE

    005 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 1752 February 26, 1906 - NICASIO CAPULE v. EVARISTO CAPISTRANO

    005 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 2442 February 26, 1906 - GREGORIO CEDRE v. JAMES C. JENKINS

    005 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 2618 February 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN M. FLEMISTER

    005 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 2409 February 27, 1906 - IN RE: FELIPE G. CALDERON

    005 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. 2715 February 27, 1906 - BEHN v. F. ROSATZIN

    005 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 2789 February 27, 1906 - WILLIAM JOHNSON v. CIRILO DAVID

    005 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 1489 February 28, 1906 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. FRANCISCO V. ENRIQUEZ

    005 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 2702 February 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO OLIVAN ET AL.

    005 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 3120 February 28, 1906 - BRYAN, LANDON CO. v. AMERICAN BANK

    005 Phil 672