INCIONG V CA 257 SCRA 578 Romero J; June 26, 1996 FACTS: -Petitioner's liability resulted from the promissory

note in the amount of P50,000.00 which he signed with Rene C. aybe and !regorio ". Pantanosas on #ebruary $, %&'$, holding themsel(es )ointly and se(erally liable to pri(ate respondent Philippine *an+ of Communications ,P*C-, Cagayan de .ro City branch. /he promissory note was due on 0ay 5, %&'$ -"ue date came and obligation was left unfulfilled. P*C sent telegrams to 1nciong demanding payment. 1t also sent a letter to ayde. *oth obligors did not respond. /hus P*C filed a suit for the collection of 50,000. - Case was initially dismissed for failure of plaintiff to prosecute the case. 2owe(er, the lower court reconsidered the dismissal order and re3uired the sheriff to ser(e the summonses. 4ower court also dismissed the case against defendant Pantanosas as prayed for by the pri(ate respondent herein. 0eanwhile, only the summons addressed to petitioner was ser(ed as the sheriff learned that defendant aybe had gone to 5audi 6rabia. -1nciong on his part stated that: he was approached by his friend Campos who claimed that he was a partner of the branch manager of P*C, in the falcata logs operation. Campos also told him that Rene C. aybe was interested in the business and would contribute a chainsaw to the (enture. Campos then persuaded petitioner to act as a 7co-ma+er7 in the said loan. Petitioner allegedly acceded but with the understanding that he would only be a co-ma+er for the loan of P5,000.00. -Petitioner alleged further that fi(e ,5- copies of a blan+ promissory note were brought to him by Campos at his office. 2e affi8ed his signature thereto but in one copy, he indicated that he bound himself only for the amount of P5, 000.00. /hus, it was by tric er!, "r#u$ #n$ mi%re&re%ent#tion that he was made liable for the amount of P50, 000.00. -/C and C6 ordered 1nciong to pay amount. 1nciong appealed.

ISS'(: 9. 1nciong is liable for the payment of promissory note )(*+: :es ;R<41 ! . P6R.4 =>1"= C=

-1nciong claimed that since the promissory note 7is not a public deed with the formalities prescribed by law but a mere commercial paper which does not bear the signature of attesting witnesses,7 parol e(idence may 7o(ercome7 the contents of the promissory note. /he first paragraph of the parol e(idence rule states: "When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors-ininterest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement." , T-e ru.e $oe% not %&eci"! t-#t t-e /ritten #0reement 1e # &u1.ic $ocument2 9hat is re3uired is that agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded on 7long e8perience that written e(idence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only, that it would be unsafe, when parties ha(e e8pressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit wea+er e(idence to control and (ary the stronger and to show that the parties intended a different contract from that e8pressed in the writing signed by them. /hus, for the parol e(idence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or be signed by both parties. 6s a general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not sub)ect to be (aried or contradicted by parol or e8trinsic e(idence. -*y alleging fraud in his answer, petitioner was actually in the right direction towards pro(ing that he and his co-ma+ers agreed to a loan of P5,000.00 only, considering that, where a parol contemporaneous agreement was the inducing and mo(ing cause of the written contract, it may be shown by parol e(idence. 2owe(er, fraud must be established by clear and con(incing e(idence, mere preponderance of e(idence, not e(en being ade3uate. Petitioner's attempt to pro(e fraud must, therefore, fail as it was e(idenced only by his own uncorroborated and, e8pectedly, self-ser(ing testimony.

;other contentions -1nciong claimed that since the complaint was dropped against aybe, his co-debtor and Pantonasa the guarantor, he should also be released from liability citing 6rt ?0'0 of CC. howe(er contention is in(alid. -the promissory note in(ol(ed in this case e8pressly states that the three signatories therein are jointly and severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be proceeded against for the entire obligation. /he choice is left to the solidary creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. Conse3uently, the dismissal of the case against @udge Pontanosas may not be deemed as ha(ing discharged petitioner from liability as well. 6s regards aybe, suffice it to say that the court ne(er ac3uired )urisdiction o(er him. Petitioner, therefore, may only ha(e recourse against his co-ma+ers, as pro(ided by law.