Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. v.

CA and International Corporate Bank (1990) Facts: On August 18, 1990, Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. (Imperial) executed a promissory note in favor of International Corporate Bank (ICB) for the amount of Php12 million and with interest. Obviously, Imperial failed to pay. ICB then filed an action for the collection of the sum of money in the RTC. Alleged in the complaint, among others, was the fact that Imperial executed a promissory note for such amount, a copy of the said note also being attached thereto as Annex A. An answer to the complaint was filed by Imperial which denied liability and also alleged that one Julio Tan had no authority to negotiate and obtain a loan on Imperials behalf. Now, while Imperial was able to specifically deny the said promissory note alleged in the complaint, the answer was not verified. (Ok. So apparently, Julio Tan was the one who issued the PN. Imperial was able to specifically deny the validity of the PN. BUT it failed to VERIFY THE ANSWER. Ito yung naging butas.) RTC ruled in favor of ICB. CA affirmed. Issues: 1. W/N Imperial was able to validly contest the genuineness of the attached promissory note. Held: 1. NO. Under Section 7, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, there are two ways of pleading an actionable document:

(a) By alleging the substance of such written instrument in the pleading and attaching a copy thereto (b) By copying the instrument in the pleading

The complaint was able to comply with the first instance. It was able to allege the substance of the promissory note and a copy was also attached thereto. Now, Section 8 of the same rule states:
Sec. 8. How to contest genuineness of such documents. When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but this provision does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.

Imperial failed to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the PN. By such omission, petitioner in effect admitted to the genuineness and due execution of the document and that the party who signed had authority to do so.