Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Rosatzin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, F. Rosatzin, was employed as a bookkeeper by the partnership Behn, Meyer & Co. during the years 1901, 1902, and 1903. The partnership initiated an action to recover a balance of 686.24 pesos claimed to be due from the defendant. A ledger entry for the year 1901, kept by the defendant himself and entirely in his handwriting, showed a balance of 686.24 pesos in favor of the partnership and against the defendant. Procedural History: The defendant presented no evidence regarding the account or its payment. The trial court entered judgment against the defendant for P571.87, the equivalent of 686.24 Mexican pesos in Philippine currency. The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment, raising several issues regarding the admissibility of evidence, the sufficiency of proof of payment, the existence of the partnership, and the currency in which the judgment was rendered.
Issue(s)
Whether the ledger entry, kept by the defendant, constitutes a sufficient admission of indebtedness. Whether the plaintiff was required to prove that the balance had not been paid. Whether the existence and proper organization of the plaintiff partnership were sufficiently proven. Whether a change in the partnership's composition after 1901 affected the action. Whether the judgment in Philippine currency was erroneous.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that the ledger entry was a proper admission of indebtedness, the burden of proof for payment rested on the defendant, the defendant was estopped from questioning the partnership's existence, and the judgment in Philippine currency was in accordance with established jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the ledger entry: The Court held that the ledger containing the account-current in the defendant's own handwriting was properly admitted in evidence as it constituted an admission of indebtedness. The fact that the book might not have been kept in strict accordance with the Code of Commerce did not diminish the force of this admission, as this book alone was sufficient to prove the cause of action. On the burden of proof for payment: The Court ruled that once the plaintiff proved the existence of the obligation, the burden of proof shifted to the defendant to demonstrate that the obligation had been discharged. This principle was in accordance with Article 1214 of the Civil Code, which was the law in force during the Spanish domination and whose rule had not been altered by Section 297 of the Code of Procedure. On the proof of partnership existence: The Court found that the defendant was estopped from questioning the existence of the plaintiff partnership. Evidence presented by the defendant himself indicated that a partnership known as Behn, Meyer & Co. existed in 1900, and the defendant subsequently contracted with this partnership in 1901 and thereafter, thereby acknowledging its existence. On changes in partnership composition: The defendant's attempt to prove a change in the partnership's composition after 1901 failed because the witness he called testified that the new partner became a member in 1900, prior to the period in question and the commencement of the action. On the currency of the judgment: The Court stated that the contention regarding the judgment being entered in Philippine currency had already been decided adversely to the appellant in the case of Gaspar vs. Molina, indicating that such a judgment was permissible.
Main Doctrine
In an action to recover a debt, where the plaintiff proves the existence of the obligation, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the obligation has been discharged, consistent with the principles of evidence and the Civil Code.