Alvin T. Orteza Jr.

2016-1-002138
Communication Skills for Lawyers 1B

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila, Philippines

JUAN BIGLANGYAMAN,

Appellant,

CIVIL CASE NO. 143-440

-versus- For: Collection of a Sum of
Money

PEDRO NAGHIRAP,

Appellee.

x--------------------------------------------x

APPEALLANT’S BRIEF
The appellant, JUAN BIGLANGYAMAN, through the undersigned
counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully submits the following:

NATURE OF THE APPEAL1

1. This is an appeal by way of an Ordinary Appeal in accordance with
Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, on the Decision promulgated by the
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, Branch 1.

2. On September 14, 2013, the said Honorable Court rendered its

judgment DISMISSING the complaint and ordering the plaintiff-appellant to
pay defendant-appellee the cost of attorney’s fees.

MATERIAL DATES AND TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL2

1
1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 44 Section 13

2
1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 44 Section 13©
 3. The DECISION, as promulgated by the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
MANILA Branch 1 on September 14, 2013 was received on September 16,
2013.
5. In accordance with Section 2(a) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the
appellant has fifteen (15) days to appeal. Hence, this appeal was timely filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT3

6. Plaintiff - Appellant complained for the collection of a sum of money
against the Defendant appellee based on a duly executed promissory note
dated June 12, 2012.

ISSUE4
A.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAD COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR
THROUGH MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE
THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE, THE PRIVATE DOCUMENT EVIDENCING THE
CREDIT, IS STILL HELD BY THE PLAINTIFF – CREDITOR, THEREBY
EVIDENCING NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENT5

A. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAD COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR

THROUGH MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE
THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE, THE PRIVATE DOCUMENT EVIDENCING THE
CREDIT, IS STILL HELD BY THE PLAINTIFF – CREDITOR, THEREBY PROOF
OF NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT

8. The appellant submits that the Regional Trial Court had committed a
reversible error when it did not look into the credence of the promissory note as
held by plaintiff-appellant. This promissory note was marked “Exhibit A.”
Jurisprudence abounds that in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the

3
1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 44 Section 13(d)

4
1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 44 Section 13(b)

5
1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 44 Section 13(f)
burden of proving it.6 When the creditor is in the possession of the document of
credit, proof of non-payment is not needed for it is presumed. 7 The debtor has
the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been
discharged by payment.8

PRAYER9
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed and pleaded of this Honorable
Court that the decision promulgated on 14 September 2013 dismissing the
complaint be RECONSIDERED, REVERSED, and SET ASIDE.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

21st day of September 2013, City of Manila.

GERALD CO
Counsel for the Plaintiff
2134 Jose Abad Santos, Sta Mesa
PTR No. 12345/09-24-13/Manila
IBP No. 42956/10-10-14/Manila
Roll No. 912345
MCLE No. IV-0001234

COPY FURNISHED

Copy Furnished:

SAHLIE GONZALES
Counsel for the Defendant
123 Napoles Street,
Sta. Ana, Manila
IBP No. 14344/02-14-88
Roll No. 12345/04-24-93
MCLE Exempt
PTR Exempt

6
Royal Cargo Corporation v. DFS Sports Unlimited, G.R. No. 158621, December 10, 2008.

7
Tai Tong Chuache & Co. v. Insurance Commission, 242 Phil 104, 112, (1988).

8
Supra note 1, at 422.

9
1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 44 Section 13(g)
Received by: _______________________

Date: _____________________________

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, JUAN BIGLANGYAMAN, of legal age, single, Filipino and a resident of 88

Mingoa St., Sta. Mesa, Manila, after having been duly sworn, depose and state
that:

1. I am the appellant in the above-stated case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true
and correct of my personal knowledge and as culled from authentic records;

4. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have not commenced any

other action or filed any claim involving the same issues in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

5. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has

been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20 th day of

September 2013 in the City of Manila, Philippines.

JUAN BIGLANGYAMAN
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21 st day of September, 2013

affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. N02-12345 issued on March
04, 2013 in Manila.
 EDUARDO MINGOA
NOTARY PUBLIC
Until December 31, 2014
Roll of Attorneys No. 23456
IBP No. 333945/01-05-03
PTR No. 175456/02-07-13/Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I 0007865/04-01-13

Doc. No. ;_____

Page No.;_____
Book No.;_____
Series of 2013.

COPY FURNISHED:

SAHLIE GONZALES
Counsel for the Defendant
123 Napoles Street,
Sta. Ana, Manila
IBP No. 14344/02-14-88
Roll No. 12345/04-24-93
MCLE Exempt
PTR Exempt

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Manila