1. RELEASE; WAIVER OF RIGHT TO REDEEM; CONSIDERATION. — The trial court absolved the defendant on the ground that he had waived his right to redeem the property in question in consideration of an understanding between him and an employee of the bank that the latter would not collect from the defendant the remainder of a prior judgment. Held: That even conceding that there was such agreement, it was not shown that said employee was authorized to make it, and that only the board of directors or the persons empowered by it could bind the bank.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The evidence shows that the defendant waived his right to redeem the land in question because a friend of his wished to purchase it, and the bank agreed to credit the defendant with the full amount of the sale.

3. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT; ATTORNEY AS WITNESS. — Although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they should withdraw from the active management of the case. (Malcolm: Legal Ethics, p. 148.)

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila absolving the defendant from the complaint, without a special finding as to costs.

The appellant makes the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The trial court erred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In finding that one Mr. Pecson gave a promise to appellee Uy Teng Piao to condone the balance of the judgment rendered against the said Uy Teng Piao and in favor of the Philippine National Bank in civil case No. 26328 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

"2. In finding that merely in selling the property described in certificate of title No. 11274 situated at Ronquillo Street, Manila, to Mariano Santos for P8,600 (Exhibit 2), the appellant had undoubtedly given the alleged promise of condonation to appellee Uy Teng Piao.

"3. In finding that the consideration of document Exhibit 1 is the condonation of the balance of the judgment rendered in said civil case No. 26328.

"4. In finding that said Mr. Pecson, granting that the latter has actually given such promise to condone, could bind the appellant corporation.

"5. In holding that the absence of demand for payment upon appellee Uy Teng Piao for the balance of the said judgment from February 11, 1925 up to the year 1930 is ’una señal inequivoca y una prueba evidente’ of the condonation of the balance of the said judgment.

"6. In finding that by the sale of the said property to Mariano Santos for the sum of P8,600, the said judgment in civil case No. 26328 has been more than fully paid even discounting the sum of P1,300 which appellant paid as the highest bidder for the said property.

"7. In declaring that the offer of appellee Uy Teng Piao as shown by Exhibits D and D-1, reflects only the desire of the said appellee Uy Teng Piao to avoid having a case with the appellant bank.

"8. In finally absolving appellee Uy Teng Piao and in not sentencing him to pay the amount claimed in the complaint with costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

On September 9, 1924 the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment in favor of the Philippine National Bank and against Uy Teng Piao in civil case No. 26328 for the sum of P17,232.42 with interest at 7 per cent per annum from June 1, 1924, plus 10 per cent of the sum amount for attorney’s fees and costs. The court ordered the defendant to deposit said amount with the clerk of the court within three months from the date of the judgment, and in case of his failure to do so that the mortgaged properties described in transfer certificates of title Nos. 7264 and 8274 should be sold at public auction in accordance with the law and the proceeds applied to the payment of the judgment.

Uy Teng Piao failed to comply with the order of the court, and the sheriff of the City of Manila sold the two parcels of land at public auction to the Philippine National Bank on October 14, 1924 for P300 and P1,000 respectively.

On February 11, 1925, the Philippine National Bank secured from Uy Teng Piao a waiver of his right to redeem the property described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8274, and on the same date the bank sold said property to Mariano Santos for P8,600.

Evidently the other parcel, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7264, was subsequently resold by the bank for P2,700, because the account of the defendant was credited with the sum of P11,300. In other words, the bank credited the defendant with the full amount realized by it when it resold the two parcels of land.

The bank brought the present action to revive the judgment for the balance of P11,574.38, with interest at 7 per cent per annum from August 1, 1930.

In his amended answer the defendant alleged as a special defense that he waived his right to redeem the land described in transfer certificate of title No. 8274 in consideration of an understanding between him and the bank that the bank would not collect from him the balance of the judgment. It was on this ground that the trial court absolved the defendant from the complaint.

In our opinion the defendant has failed to prove any valid agreement on the part of the bank not to collect from him the remainder of the judgment. The alleged agreement rests upon the uncorroborated testimony of the defendant, the pertinent part of whose testimony on direct examination was as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"P. En este documento aparece que usted, por consideracion de valor recibido del Banco Nacional demandante en la presente causa, renuncia a su derecho de recompra de la propiedad vendida por el Sheriff en p