HIBBERD V. ROHDE DOCTRINE: • Rhiano: Meaning of admission, waived defenses & not waived o By the admission of the genuineness and due execution of an instrument, is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleadings of the party relying upon it; that the documents was delivered; and that any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, a n acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him o !hen a party is deemed to ha ve admitted the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, defenses that are implied from said admission are necessarily waived like the defenses of forgery of the document, lack of authority to execute the document, that the party charged signed the document in some other capacity than that alleged in the pleading, or that the was no delivery delivery "#$% waived: defense of want&illegality of consideration, exact time of de livery, livery, payment&nonpayment, usury, and fraud' • Basically, the the genineness and e!e"tion of a w#itten inst#ment o# do"ment set in a $%eading with the o#igina% atta"hed is deemed admitted N'E(( the adve#se $a#t) nde# oath denies them. *ai%#e to den) wo%d +e a -IVER on the $a#t of the adve#se $a#t) on "e#tain defenses, those that "on"e#n the genineness o# the e!e"tion. • HOEVER, it is not a waive# to int#od"e an) othe# DE*EN(E ON THE MERIT( whi"h does not "ont#adi"t the e!e"tiongenineness of the inst#ment int#od"ed in eviden"e. • (n case: though there was no verified denial of the written instrument, the defense of illegality of consideration was still allowed to be raised )owever, plaintiff ")ibberd' ")ibberd' still won because there was no illegality of consideration EMERGENCY RECIT:
*c*illian secured merchandise from Brand and )ibberd and sold it Brand and )ibberd claimed it was only a deposit and therefore filed an estafa case Rohde is the defense counsel of *cmillian Rhode was able to strike an agreement for Brand and )ibberd to withdraw the case, in turn he will execute a promissory note together with *cmillian to pay the sum owed to them for the value of the merchandise Rhode only gave a partial payment of + of the -+, which prompted )ibberd to file suit on the .romissory #ote $nly Rhode appeared and answered B/% did #$% enter a denial on the genuineness and the execution of the note and Raises only the 0pecial 1efense of (llegality of 2onsideration )ibberd, on his part claims that Rohde3s special defense of illegality of consideration is cut off by section -4 of the 2ode of 2ivil .rocedure "0ec 5 Rule 5 now' %he 02 ruled that Rohde may still interpose the defense despite the failure to enter a verified denial of the genuineness and due execution of the note set out in the complaint because Rule -4 cannot preclude a defendant from introducing any defense on the merits which does not contradict the execution of the instrument introduced in evidence )owever )ibberd still wins because there was no illegality of consideration *-CT(: • *c*illian was in the retail liquor business and secured a stock of merchandise valued at .-,+ from Brand 6 )ibberd and sold it • Brand and )ibberd argue a rgue it was only given as a 17.$0(% and filed a case of 7stafa agains *cmillian • *cmillian got an attorney, named Rhode for his defense in the estafa case • 8ccording to the 02, it appears that Rhode strongly insisted that *c*illian was not guilty of the crime charged, and no doubt his ability as a lawyer tended to convince the complainants that the criminal charge was un9ustified • %he parties made an ag#eement: ag#eement: /0 ( Brand 6 )ibberd would withdraw the estaf complaint 10 Rohde agreed to be a 9ointly and severally liable with *cmillian to pay tothe firm of Brand and )ibberd, of the city of Baguio, -,+ pesos in monthly installments of - • Rhode paid + • #ot stated in case but it appears there were no further payments, hence this case, a suit on the .romissory #ote
• $nly Rhode appeared and answered B/% did #$% enter a denial on the genuineness and the execution of the note o Raises only the 0pecial 1efense of (llegality of 2onsideration • )ibberd argues that his s$e"ia% defense of i%%ega%it) of "onside#ation "onside#ation is "t off +) se"tion /23 of the Code of Civi% 4#o"ed#e, which reads as follows: Actions and defenses and defenses based upon a written instruments. < !hen an action is brought upon a written instrument and the complaint contains or has annexed a copy of such instrument, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted, unless specifically denied under oath in the answer; and when the defense to an action, or a counterclaim stated in an answer, is founded upon a written instrument and the copy thereof is contained in or annexed to the answer, the genuineness and due execution of such instrument shall be deemed admitted, unless specifically denied under oath by the plaintiff in his pleadings 5Identical to Rule 8 Section 8 Section 8 of 1997 Rules/Current Rules0 • %rial 2ourt o (n=favor of Rohde, since the consideration of the promissory note was the compromise of a public offense • 0ubmitted for review with the 02 I((E /. ON the defense of i%%ega%it) of "onside#ation ma) sti%% +e #aised des$ite the fai%#e to ente# a denia% on the genineness of the note. + "#ot related but substantive part ' !$# there was an illegal consideration HE'DR-TIO: - >70, it may still be raised • the special defense interposed by the defendant of illegality of consideration is not barred by h is failure to enter a verified denial of the genuineness and due execution of the note set out in the complaint • Rule -4 "annot $#e"%de a defendant f#om int#od"ing an) defense on the me#its which does not contradict the execution of the instrument introduced in evidence o (ECTION /23 5of the o%d #%es0 DOE( NOT 4ROHIBIT (CH - DE*EN(E -( I''E6-'IT7 O* CONTR-CT. %o interpret section -4 as to prohibit such a defense as illegality of consideration, which is clearly a defense of ne w matter, would pro would pro tanto repeal the second paragraph of section of section ?@, which permits a defendant to answer by 8 statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counterclaim Aikewise, section +5 provides that the terms of a writing may be impeached by reason of its illegality or fraud • %he 2ourt has held before that 0ec -4 is not applicable to an indorser in a promissory note in a suit against the maker (t has been held that the admission of the genuineness and due execution of the instrument does not bar the defense of want of consideration %he only ob9ect of the rule was to enable a plaintiff to make out a prima facie, not a conclusive case + #o, there was no illegal consideration • %here is no charge that Brand 6 )ibberd file the criminal complaint with a view of extorting a settlement of their claim against *c*illian %here can be no doubt that the agreement which resulted in the execution of the note and withdrawal of the case was entered into by Brand 6 )ibberd with an eye to the satisfaction of their pecuniary claim against *c*illian • (t is not shown that Brand 6 )ibberd agreed not to testify in any further criminal proceedings against *c*illian, or that they would suppress any evidence in their possession, or that they would solicit the 0tateCs prosecutor or any other Dovernment official whose authority extend to the criminal case, to not hold the defendant for trial !hat they actually did was to move in open court for a dismissal of the complaint %his is all they did so far as the record shows, and that it was satisfactory to the defendant Rohde is apparent from the fact that he subsequently made partial payments on the note • %here having been no agreement to interfere with the due administration of the criminal law, we we are constrained to hold that no part of the consideration of the note declared upon his illegal or against public policy %he %he plaintiff is therefore entitled to 9udgment %he 9udgment appealed from is reversed and 9udgment is decreed decreed against the defendant Rohde for the sum sum of one thousand pesos, the amount remaining unpaid on the note, together with legal interest from the date of the institution of this action !ithout costs 0o ordered
