Inciong, Jr. vs.

Court of Appeals P5k became P50k; Parol Evidence; Solidary Liability

1. As a general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be
varied or contradicted by parol or extrinsic evidence.
2. Where the PN expressly states that the three signatories therein are jointly and severally liable,
any one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation.
Facts:
Petitioners (Inciongs) liability came from a PN worth P50,000 which he signed on Feb. 3, 1983
along with Rene Naybe and Gregorio Pantanosas holding themselves jointly and severally liable
to respondent Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC). The PN was due on May 5, 1983.
Due date passed without payments thus PBC sent petitioner telegrams and a letter demanding
payment but these were all not responded to. PBC filed a complaint for collection of sum of
P50k against the 3 obligors.
Case was dismissed then reconsidered again and required the sheriff to serve summons to the
obligors. Case against Pantanosas was dismissed; Naybe went to Saudi Arabia so he couldnt be
summoned; Inciong was the only one who was served the summons.
Petitioner alleged in his answer that:
o he was approached by his friend Campos who was the partner of Pio Tio, the branch
manager of PBC in CDO, in the falcata logs operation business. Campos told Inciong that
Naybe was also interested in the business and that Naybe would contribute a chainsaw
for the venture. Naybe didnt have money but Tio assured him that he will get a loan
from PBC. With that, Campos convinced Inciong to be a co-maker in the loan with the
understanding that he be co-maker for the loan of P5,000 only.
o He was given 5 blank PNs by Campos. He signed them but in one copy, he indicated that
he bound himself only to P5,000. Therefore, Inciong claims that he was made liable for
P50,000 through fraud, misrepresentation and trickery.
RTC and CA rule against the Petitioner.
Additional facts:
o P50,000 was clearly written on the PN;
o Inciong claims that he was only a guarantor therefore may be released from liability
since the other 2 obligors were dismissed from the case.
o PN expressly states that the 3 signatories thereto are jointly and severally liable
Issue/s:
1. In alleging fraud, can Parol Evidence overcome the written contents of a PN?
2. Whether or not Inciong is released from liability because the other 2 obligors were dismissed
from the case.
Held:
1. Parol Evidence cannot overcome written evidence (contents of PN).
o Parol Evidence is weaker than written evidence. As a general rule, bills, notes and other
instruments of a similar nature (nego instruments) are not subject to be varied or
contradicted by parol or extrinsic evidence because these are written evidence.
o Fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioners claims for fraud
must fail because it was evidenced only by his own uncorroborated testimony.
2. No, Inciong is still solidarily liable for the P50,000 PN.
o The PN in this case expressly states that the 3 are jointly and severally liable, any
one, some, or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. (the PN
stated xxx I/we, JOINTLY and SEVERALLY promise to pay xxx) Therefore, Inciong is still
liable for the P50,000.
Relevant Terms:
1. Parol Evidence not specifically defined in the case but seems to be oral evidence like
testimonies. Said to be weaker than written evidence since parol evidence rests in fleeting
memory only