Doctrine: Parol evidence to
show character in which party is bound.
Facts:
The Orientalist Company is a corporation, duly organized under the laws
of the Philippine Islands, was engaged in the business of maintaining and
conducting a theatre in the city of Manila for the exhibition of
cinematographic films. The
plaintiff J. F. Ramirez was, at the same time, a resident of the city of Paris,
France, and was engaged in the business of marketing films for a manufacturer
or manufacturers, there engaged in the production or distribution of
cinematographic material. In this enterprise the plaintiff was represented in
the city of Manila by his son, Jose Ramirez.
The
written contract which was the subject of this action contained corporate name
signed at the lower right hand corner of the contract, in the manner usual with
a party signing in the character of principal obligor. The name of another
individual was signed somewhat below and to the left of the corporate signature,
after the customary manner of those who sign in a subsidiary capacity, but no
words were written to indicate clearly whether this individual signed as a
principal obligor or surety.
Issue:
Where
a name is signed ambiguously, whether or not parol evidence is admissible to
show the character in which the signature was affixed.
Ruling:
Yes.
Rule
of law which declares that oral evidence is admissible to show the character in
which the signature was affixed. This conclusion is perhaps supported by the
language of the second paragraph of article 1281 of the Civil Code, which
declares that if the words of a contract should appear contrary to the evident
intention of the parties, the intention shall prevail. But the conclusion
reached is deducible from the general principle that in case of ambiguity parol
evidence is admissible to show the intention of the contracting parties.
Therefore,
parol evidence was admissible to show that the intention of the parties was
that he should be bound as surety and not jointly with other party.
No comments:
Post a Comment