G.R. No. 185590 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, VS. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPOUSES MANUEL LEY AND JANET LEY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on July 30, 1990, American Express Bank debited plaintiffs account Seven Hundred Seventy Thousand Six Hundred Ninety[-]One U.S. Dollars and Thirty Cents (USD 770,691.30) and credited Credit Suisse Zurich Account with American Express Bank, Ltd., New York for the negotiation of Letter of Credit. On August 6, 1990, plaintiff received from Credit Suisse the necessary shipping documents pertaining to Letter of Credit DC 90-303-C that were in turn delivered to the defendant. Upon receipt of the aforesaid documents, defendants executed a trust receipt. However, the cement that was to be imported through the opening of the subject Letter of Credit never arrived in the Philippines. The prompt payment of the obligation of the defendant LCDC was guaranteed by [defendant]-spouses under the Continuing Surety Agreement executed by the latter in favor of the defendant. The obligation covered by the subject Letter of Credit in the amount of USD 802,500.00 has long been overdue and unpaid, notwithstanding repeated demands for payment thereof. Plaintiff, therefore, instituted the instant complaint for recovery of the following amounts: Twenty[-]Three [M]illion Two Hundred [F]ifty[-]Nine Thousand One Hundred Twenty[-]Four Pesos and Fourteen Centavos (PHP23,259,124.14) as of June 15, 1991, inclusive of interest and penalty, plus additional interest thereon of Thirty percent (30%) per annum; attorneys fees equivalent to Twenty[-]Five percent [25%] of the total obligation; and costs of suit. In support of its cause of action against defendant, plaintiff presented the testimony of Mr. Fenelito Cabrera, Head of the Foreign Department of plaintiffs Head Office. (T.S.N. dated June 16, 1995, p. 4) There being no other witness to be presented by the plaintiff (Order dated June 27, 1997), the plaintiff filed its formal offer of exhibits dated July 18, 1997 to which defendant filed its comments/objections to formal offer of evidence dated February 23, 1998. In an order dated March 4, 1998, Exhibits A to N to N-4 including [their] sub-markings were admitted for the purposes they were respectively offered. However, on defendants motion for reconsideration dated [March 30,] 1998 that was duly opposed by the plaintiff in its opposition dated June 3, 1998, this Court partially granted defendants motion for reconsideration. Consequently, Exhibits D, E, H, I, J, K, L, and M and their sub-markings were not admitted for not being properly identified and authenticated by a competent witness. Only Exhibits A, B, C, C-1, and N, N-1 to N-4 remain admitted in evidence. (Order dated September 9, 1998) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence on the ground that plaintiffs witness Mr. Fenelito Cabrera was incompetent to testify with respect to the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the plaintiffs documentary exhibits were not properly identified and authenticated. [5] The trial court f