Gabaldon Co v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jesus Go, doing business as GOJESCO CONSTRUCTION, entered into a Construction Agreement with Carmen Soco for a commercial building. Go was required to post a performance bond. GOJESCO CONSTRUCTION, with Oriental Assurance Corporation (ORASCO) as surety, executed a Performance Bond for P400,000.00. A Deed of Indemnity was executed by Jesus Go, petitioner Alfonso Gabaldon Co, and Ang Chu in favor of ORASCO, undertaking to indemnify ORASCO for any losses incurred due to the bond. Jesus Go failed to complete the construction and comply with specifications. Carmen Soco filed a claim against the Performance Bond, which ORASCO initially refused. Soco then filed a collection case against Go and ORASCO. ORASCO filed a Third-Party Complaint against Go, Ang Chu, and Alfonso Gabaldon Co based on the Deed of Indemnity. Procedural History: Go and Ang Chu were declared in default. Alfonso Gabaldon Co was the sole defendant in the Third-Party Complaint. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Soco in the main complaint and found Alfonso Gabaldon Co liable under the Deed of Indemnity in the Third-Party Complaint. However, the RTC later amended its decision, dismissing the Third-Party Complaint, finding that Alfonso Gabaldon Co could not have signed the Deed of Indemnity on February 15, 1979, as he was out of the country. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC decision, holding Jesus Go and ORASCO jointly and severally liable to Soco, and importantly, declaring Alfonso Gabaldon Co liable under the Deed of Indemnity. The Petition: Alfonso Gabaldon Co filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, seeking to be absolved from liability under the Deed of Indemnity.
Issue(s)
Whether Alfonso Gabaldon Co is liable under the Deed of Indemnity. Whether the date of execution of the Deed of Indemnity is conclusive as stated therein.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Alfonso Gabaldon Co is liable under the Deed of Indemnity.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Alfonso Gabaldon Co is liable under the Deed of Indemnity: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that Alfonso Gabaldon Co is liable under the Deed of Indemnity. The core of the dispute revolved around the date of execution of the Deed of Indemnity. The RTC dismissed the third-party complaint, finding that petitioner was out of the country on February 15, 1979, the date indicated on the Deed. However, the CA gave credence to the testimony of Atty. Alejandro Ruiz, Jr., the notary public, who explained that the Deed was actually signed on February 13, 1979, and the February 15, 1979 date was affixed due to an oversight in its notarization and entry into the notarial register. The Court found this explanation credible and corroborated by other evidence. On whether the date of execution of the Deed of Indemnity is conclusive: The Supreme Court held that the date appearing on a notarized document is not necessarily conclusive if there is sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. In this case, the Court found that the evidence indubitably showed that the Deed of Indemnity was executed on February 13, 1979, prior to the issuance of the Performance Bond on February 14, 1979. The testimony of Mrs. Norma Saclolo, officer-in-charge of ORASCO's Bonding Department, established that petitioner was present at the ORASCO office and signed the Deed as a co-signor before the Performance Bond was issued. Furthermore, the Deed of Indemnity itself, by its tenor, was an application for the performance bond, necessitating its prior execution. The reference on the Performance Bond to the Deed of Indemnity further supported the conclusion that the Deed was already in existence on February 14, 1979. The Court also found petitioner's signature on the Deed to be identical to his specimen signatures, leaving no doubt that he signed the document.
Main Doctrine
The date appearing on a notarized document as the date of execution is not conclusive when evidence clearly shows the document was executed on a different date, especially when the discrepancy is explained by the notary public.