View full case

WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. AMOS P. FRANCIA

FACTS:

Respondents Amos P. Francia, Jr., Cecilia Zamora, and Benjamin Francia filed a complaint against petitioner Westmont Investment Corporation (Wincorp) and respondent Pearlbank Securities Inc. (Pearlbank) for collection of sum of money and damages arising from their investments. Wincorp and Pearlbank separately filed motions to dismiss, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the motions for lack of merit. Wincorp filed an answer, while Pearlbank filed an answer with counterclaim and crossclaim against Wincorp. The case proceeded to pre-trial, where the parties agreed on certain stipulations of fact. Before the pre-trial conference could be held, Wincorp filed a motion to dismiss Pearlbank's crossclaim, which the RTC denied. Trial on the merits then took place, with Amos Francia, Jr. testifying regarding their investments and unsuccessful attempts to retrieve their principal amounts with interest. The Francias filed their formal offer of evidence, and Pearlbank filed its comment/objection. Wincorp did not file any comment or objection. The RTC denied Wincorp's motion to postpone the hearing and considered it to have waived its right to present evidence. Wincorp's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Pearlbank filed a demurrer to evidence, which the RTC granted, leading to the dismissal of the complaint against Pearlbank. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the Francias, holding Wincorp solely liable to them. Wincorp filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Wincorp then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUES:

  1. The core issue in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) is correct in holding Wincorp solely liable to pay the amount of the plaintiffs-appellees' investment, without considering the evidence proffered by Wincorp.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) was correct in finding Wincorp solely liable to pay the Francias.

  3. Whether there was a contract of agency between Wincorp and the Francias, and if so, whether Pearlbank authorized Wincorp to borrow money on its behalf.

  4. Whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in rendering the assailed decision and issuing the challenged resolution.

  5. Whether or not the RTC erred in admitting the Francias' evidence without formal offer.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the CA that Wincorp is solely liable to pay the amount of the plaintiffs-appellees' investment. The Court found that the plaintiffs-appellees were able to establish their cause of action against Wincorp, while Wincorp failed to establish its cause of action against defendant-appellee PearlBank. The Court also held that the evidence and documents proffered by Wincorp cannot be given any probative weight or credit since they were not formally offered as evidence in the trial court. Thus, the Court found Wincorp solely liable to pay the plaintiffs-appellees' investment plus interest.

  2. The Court of Appeals’ finding that Wincorp is solely liable to pay the Francias is upheld. The documents presented by the Francias, specifically the Confirmation Advices, were not properly offered as evidence and therefore cannot be given any weight or evidentiary value. The principal-agent relationship between the Francias and Wincorp was not duly established, and there is no evidence to support Wincorp's claim that it merely brokered the loan transactions between the Francias and Pearlbank.

  3. There was no contract of agency between Wincorp and the Francias. The documents presented by the Francias do not establish that Pearlbank authorized Wincorp to borrow money on its behalf. There is also no evidence of ratification by Pearlbank regarding the loan transactions. Furthermore, Pearlbank initiated legal actions against Wincorp, disputing its naming as the borrower of funds from investors.

  4. The Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's decision and resolution. The Court held that the CA did not commit any reversible error in its decision and resolution.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered.

  • Documentary evidence must be offered after all witnesses have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered.

  • Objection to oral evidence must be raised at the earliest possible time.

  • The failure to present evidence will result in the inability to prove a cause of action or claim.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded as actual damages suffered by a party when they were constrained to engage the services of counsel to protect their rights.

  • Distinction between questions of law and questions of fact.

  • When findings of fact by the CA are final and conclusive and will not be reviewed on appeal.

  • Exceptions to the general rule that only questions of law can be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.

  • Elements of a contract of agency.

  • The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

  • Objection to evidence must be made after evidence is formally offered.