CANON 12

PNB V UY TENG PIAO VICKERS; 1932 (romy ramirez) NATURE APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila FACTS - Defendant-appellant, Uy Teng Piao, was sued by PNB for non payment of obligations at the CFI of Manila and said court rendered judgment in favor of PNB on September 9, 1934 for the sum of P17,232.42 with interest of seven percent per annum from June 1, 1924. The court ordered the defendant appellant to deposit the money due with the clerk of the court within three months from the date of judgment. In case of failure to pay, the mortgage properties should be sold at auction in accordance with law and the proceeds to be applied to the payment of the judgment. - The defendant failed to comply with the payment order and the properties were auctioned by the sheriff of Manila for a total of P1,300 with PNB as the buyer. - On February 11, 1925, PNB secured from defendant a waiver of the latters right to redeem one of the proper ties described as TCT no. 8274 and thereafter sold the same to one Mariano Santos for P8,600. - The other property, TCT No. 7264 was likewise resold and the proceeds was credited to the account of Uy. The total amount generated with the resale of the lots amonted to P 11, 300. - On August 1, 1930, PNB instituted another court action for the recover of the balance of the judgment amounting to P11,574.38 with interest at seven percent per annum. - The defendant claimed that in exchange for his waiver of his right to redeem the first property resold by PNB, the bank would not collect from him the balance of the judgment. - The CFI ruled that there was in fact a condonation made by the bank through one of its officer, a certain Mr. Pecson. - Hence this appeal ISSUES 1. WON PNB condoned the balance of the judgment 2. WON a lawyer can appear as both counsel and witness in the same case HELD 1. No. There was no evidence presented except the uncertain testimony of the defendant, that the bank did in fact agree to the condonation. Even if the SC grants that Mr. Pecson did agree to the condonation, there is not evidence presented that Mr. Pecson was authorized by the bank through its board of directors or persons authorized by the said board to bind the bank to the agreement. 2. Yes (No). The SC held that the appearance of a lawyer as both counsel and witness in a trial is not strictly prohibited. The SC however stated that it would be preferable if the lawyer in this case can appear only as one or the other. In other words, if they are to testify as required by the case, they should withdraw from the active management of the case. This is embodied in Canon 19 of the Code of Legal Ethics. Disposition The decision of the CFI is reversed and the defendant is ordered to pay PNB the sum of P11,574.38 with interest thereon at the rate of seven percent per annum to be reckoned from August 1, 1930. Costs for the defendant.