Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
*
G.R. No. 156132. October 16, 2006.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
379
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
380
appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set
forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the
findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence
and contradicted by the evidence on record.
Judges; That the trial court judge who decided a case is not
the same judge who heard the case and received the evidence is of
little consequence when the records and transcripts of stenographic
notes (TSNs) are complete and available for consideration by the
former.—What deserves stressing is that, in this jurisdiction,
there exists a disputable presumption that the RTC Decision was
rendered by the judge in the regular performance of his official
duties. While the said presumption is only disputable, it is
satisfactory unless contradicted or overcame by other evidence.
Encompassed in this presumption of regularity is the
presumption that the RTC judge, in resolving the case and
drafting his Decision, reviewed, evaluated, and weighed all the
evidence on record. That the said RTC judge is not the same judge
who heard the case and received the evidence is of little
consequence when the records and transcripts of stenographic
notes (TSNs) are complete and available for consideration by the
former.
381
382
PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are uncontested, respondent was able
to establish prima facie that petitioner Citibank is liable to her for
the amounts stated therein. The assertion of petitioner Citibank
of payment of the said PNs is an affirmative allegation of a new
matter, the burden of proof as to such resting on petitioner
Citibank. Respondent having proved the existence of the
obligation, the burden of proof was upon petitioner Citibank to
show that it had been discharged. It has already been established
by this Court that—As a general rule, one who pleads payment
has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege
non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the
defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove
non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal
certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.
When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence
contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been
extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers
such defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the debtor
introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going forward
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
383
384
385
and regular, and that the ordinary course of business has been
followed. There is no question that the loan transaction between
petitioner Citibank and the respondent is a private transaction.
The transactions revolving around the crossed MCs—from their
issuance by petitioner Citibank to respondent as payment of the
proceeds of her loans; to its deposit in respondent’s accounts with
several different banks; to the clearing of the MCs by an
independent clearing house; and finally, to the payment of the
MCs by petitioner Citibank as the drawee bank of the said checks
—are all private transactions which shall be presumed to have
been fair and regular to all the parties concerned. In addition, the
banks involved in the foregoing transactions are also presumed to
have followed the ordinary course of business in the acceptance of
the crossed MCs for deposit in respondent’s accounts, submitting
them for clearing, and their eventual payment and cancellation.
386
have involved not only petitioner Citibank, but also BPI, which
accepted the checks for deposit, and the Central Bank of the
Philippines, which cleared the checks. It falls upon the
respondent to overcome or dispute the presumption that the
crossed checks were issued, accepted for deposit, cleared, and paid
for by the banks involved following the ordinary course of their
business. The mere fact that MCs No. 220701 and 226467 do not
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
387
388
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
389
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
390
391
392
393
394
395
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
1
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,
under Rule
2
45 of the Revised Rules of Court, of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV3 No. 51930,
dated 26 March 2002, and the Resolution, dated 20
November 2002, of the same court which, although
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
modifying its earlier Decision, still denied for the most part
the Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioners.
Petitioner Citibank, N.A. (formerly known as the First
National City Bank) is a banking corporation duly
authorized and existing under the laws of the United
States of America and licensed to do commercial banking
activities and perform trust functions in the Philippines.
Petitioner Investor’s Finance Corporation, which did
business under the name and style of FNCB Finance, was
an affiliate company of petitioner Citibank, specifically
handling money market placements for its clients. It is
now, by virtue
_______________
396
_______________
397
_______________
398
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
RTC), the case was transferred to Makati RTC, Branch 57, presided by
Judge Francisco X. Velez, for reasons not disclosed in the Records. Judge
Velez was able to try and hear the case until the presentation of the
evidence by herein petitioners (defendants before the RTC). Respondent
again took the stand to present rebuttal evidence, but even before she
could finish her testimony, Judge Velez inhibited himself upon petitioners’
motion (Order, dated 10 April 1992, penned by Judge Francisco X. Velez,
Records, Vol. 11, p. 1085). The case was transferred to Makati RTC,
Branch 141, presided by Judge Marcelino F. Bautista, Jr. For reasons not
disclosed in the Records, Judge Manuel D. Victorio took over Makati RTC,
Branch 141. After the parties submitted their respective Memoranda,
Judge Victorio declared the case submitted for decision (Order, dated 9
December 1994, penned by Judge Manuel D. Victorio, Records, Vol. III, p.
1602). Judge Victorio rendered his Decision in Civil Case No. 11336 on 24
August 1995 (Records, Vol. III, pp. 1607-1621).
399
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
MODIFICATION, as follows:
1. Declaring as illegal, null and void the set-off effected by the
defendant-appellant Bank of the plaintiff-appellant’s dollar
deposit with Citibank, Switzerland, in the amount of
US$149,632.99, and ordering defendant-appellant Citibank to
refund the said amount to the plaintiff-appellant with legal
interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum,
compounded yearly, from 31 October 1979 until fully paid, or its
peso equivalent at the time of payment;
2. As defendant-appellant Citibank failed to establish by
competent evidence the alleged indebtedness of plaintiff-
appellant, the set-off of P1,069,847.40 in the account of Ms.
Sabeniano is hereby declared as without legal and factual basis;
3. As defendants-appellants failed to account the following
plaintiff-appellant’s money market placements, savings account
and current accounts, the former is hereby ordered to return the
same, in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon
by the con-
_______________
400
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
401
13
Petition for Review, which, after payment of the docket
and other lawful fees, was assigned the docket number
G.R. No. 152985. In the said Motion, respondent alleged
that she received a copy of the assailed Court of Appeals
Decision on 18 April 2002 and, thus, had 15 days therefrom
or until 3 May 2002 within which to file her Petition for
Review. Since she informed her counsel of her desire to
pursue an appeal of the Court of Appeals Decision only on
29 April 2002, her counsel neither had enough time to file a
motion for reconsideration of the said Decision with the
Court of Appeals, nor a Petition for Certiorari with this
Court. Yet, the Motion failed to state the exact extension
period respondent was requesting for.
Since this Court did not act upon respondent’s Motion
for Extension of Time to file her Petition for Review, then
the period for
14
appeal continued to run and still expired on 3
May 2002. Respondent failed to file any Petition for
Review within the prescribed period for appeal and, hence,
15
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
15
this Court issued a Resolution, dated 13 November 2002,
in which it pronounced that—
_______________
402
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
16 Rollo, p. 374.
17 Resolution, dated 29 January 2003; Rollo, pp. 980-A-B.
18 Resolution, dated 23 June 2003; Id., at pp. 1311-1312.
403
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
the Court, and not to Citibank and FNCB Finance whose Petition
for Review was duly reinstated and is now submitted for decision.
Accordingly, the instant Urgent Motion is hereby DENIED.
(Emphasis supplied.)
_______________
405
21
party, then not actually filing the intended Petition. The
party who fails to file its intended Petition within the
reglementary or extended period should solely bear the
consequences of such failure.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
21 See the case of Borromeo v. Court of Appeals (162 Phil. 430, 438; 70
SCRA 329 [1976]) wherein this Court pronounced that a party’s right to
appeal shall not be affected by the perfection of another appeal from the
same decision; otherwise, it would lead to the absurd proposition that one
party may be deprived of the right to appeal from the portion of a decision
against him just because the other party who had been notified of the
decision ahead had already perfected his appeal in so far as the said
decision adversely affects him. If the perfection of an appeal by one party
would not bar the right of the other party to appeal from the same
decision, then an unperfected appeal, as in the case at bar, would have far
less effect.
406
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be
curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after
hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance
with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal
_______________
22 The Executive Secretary v. Gordon, 359 Phil. 266, 271; 298 SCRA 736,
740 (1998).
23 Young v. John Keng Seng, 446 Phil. 823, 833; 398 SCRA 629, 638
(2003).
407
II
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
24 Sps. Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 275, 282-283; 285
SCRA 351, 357-358 (1998).
25 The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s findings and
conclusions, as follows: (1) By declaring the P1,069,847.40 alleged
indebtedness of Ms. Sabeniano as non-existing for failure of Citibank
410
The fact that the trial judge who rendered the RTC Decision
in Civil Case No. 11336, dated 24 August 1995, was not the
same judge who heard and tried the case, does not, by itself,
render the said Decision erroneous.
The Decision in Civil Case No. 11336 was rendered more
than 10 years from the institution of the said case. In the
course of its trial, the26 case was presided over by four (4)
different RTC judges. It was Judge Victorio, the fourth
judge assigned to the case, who wrote the 27
RTC Decision,
dated 24 August 1995. In his Decision, Judge Victorio
made the following findings—
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
411
_______________
412
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
413
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
Deposit/Placement Amount
Dollar deposit with Citibank-Geneva $
149,632.99
Money market placement with Citibank,
evidenced
by Promissory Note (PN) No. 23356 (which
cancels
and supersedes PN No. 22526), earning 14.5% P
interest per annum (p.a.) 318,897.34
Money market placement with Citibank,
evidenced by
PN No. 23357 (which cancels and supersedes
PN No. 22528), P
earning 14.5% interest p.a. 203,150.00
Money market placement with FNCB
Finance, evidenced
by PN No. 5757 (which cancels and
supersedes PN No. 4952), P
earning 17% interest p.a. 500,000.00
Money market placement with FNCB
Finance, evidenced
by PN No. 5758 (which cancels and
supersedes PN No. 2962), P
earning 17% interest p.a. 500,000.00
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
417
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
“As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of
proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the
general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove
payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The
debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the
obligation has been discharged by payment.
When the existence of a debt is fully established by the
evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has
been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who
offers such defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the debtor
introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going forward
with the evidence—as distinct from the general burden of proof—
shifts to the creditor, who is then
34
under the duty of producing
some evidence of non-payment.”
_______________
419
36
place; and (2) that of Mr. Francisco Tan, the former
Assistant Vice-President of Citibank, who directly dealt
with respondent with regard
37
to her deposits and loans.
The relevant portion of Mr. Pujeda’s testimony as to
PNs No. 23356 and 23357 (referred to therein as Exhibits
No. “47” and “48,” respectively) is reproduced below—
Atty. Mabasa:
Okey [sic]. Now Mr. Witness, you were asked to testify
in this case and this case is [sic] consist [sic] of several
documents involving transactions between the plaintiff
and the defendant. Now, were you able to make your
own memorandum regarding all these transactions?
A Yes, based on my recollection of these facts, I did come
up of [sic] the outline of the chronological sequence of
events.
Court:
Are you trying to say that you have personal knowledge
or participation to these transactions?
A Yes, your Honor, I was the officer-in charge of the unit
that was processing these transactions. Some of the
documents bear my signature.
Court:
And this resume or summary that you have prepared is
based on purely your recollection or documents?
A Based on documents, your Honor.
Court:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
36 Mr. Francisco Tan, at the time of his deposition in 1990, was already
working as Assistant General Manager for Dai-Chi Kangyo Bank in Hong
Kong.
37 TSN, 12 March 1990, pp. 6-10.
420
Atty. Mabasa:
Q Now, basing on the notes that you prepared, Mr. Witness, and
according to you basing also on your personal recollection
about all the transactions involved between Modesta
Sabeniano and defendant City Bank [sic] in this case. Now,
would you tell us what happened to the money market
placements of Modesta Sabeniano that you have earlier
identified in Exhs. “47” and “48”?
A The transactions which I said earlier were terminated and
booked to time deposits.
Q And you are saying time deposits with what bank?
A With First National Citibank.
Q Is it the same bank as Citibank, N.A.?
A Yes, sir.
Q And how much was the amount booked as time deposit with
defendant Citibank?
A In the amount of P500,000.00.
Q And outside this P500,000.00 which you said was booked out of
the proceeds of Exhs. “47” and “48,” were there other time
deposits opened by Mrs. Modesta Sabeniano at that time.
A Yes, she also opened another time deposit for P600,000.00.
Q So all in all Mr. Witness, sometime in April of 1978 Mrs.
Modesta Sabeneano [sic] had time deposit placements with
Citibank in the amount of P500,000.00 which is the proceeds
of Exhs. “47” and “48” and another P600,000.00, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
Q And would you know where did the other P600,000 placed by
Mrs. Sabeneano [sic] in a time deposit with Citibank, N.A.
came [sic] from?
A She funded it directly.
Q What are you saying Mr. Witness is that the P600,000 is a [sic]
fresh money coming from Mrs. Modesta Sabeneano [sic]?
A That is right.
421
Atty. Mabasa: Now from the Exhibits that you have identified Mr.
Tan from Exhibits “A” to “F,” which are Exhibits of the
plaintiff. Now, do I understand from you that the original
amount is Five Hundred Thousand and thereafter renewed in
the succeeding exhibits?
Mr. Tan: Yes, Sir.
Atty. Mabasa: Alright, after these Exhibits “E” and “F” matured,
what happened thereafter?
Mr. Tan: Split into two time deposits.
Atty. Mabasa: Exhibits “E” and “F”?
_______________
38 Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 84 Phil. 330, 346 (1949).
422
from among all the clients they had dealt with and all the
transactions they had processed as officers of petitioner
Citibank, they specially remembered respondent and her
PNs No. 23356 and 23357. Their testimonies likewise
lacked details on the circumstances surrounding the
payment of the two PNs and the opening of the time
deposit accounts by respondent, such as the date of
payment of the two PNs, mode of payment, and the manner
and context by which respondent relayed her instructions
to the officers of petitioner Citibank to use the proceeds of
her two PNs in opening the TD accounts.
Moreover, while there are documentary evidences to
support and trace respondent’s money market placements
with petitioner Citibank, from the original PN No. 20773,
rolled-over several times to, finally, PNs No. 23356 and
23357, there is an evident absence of any documentary
evidence on the payment of these last two PNs and the use
of the proceeds thereof by respondent for opening TD
accounts. The paper trail seems to have ended with the
copies of PNs No. 23356 and 23357. Although both Mr.
Pujeda and Mr. Tan said that they based their testimonies,
not just on their memories but also on the documents on
file, the supposed documents on which they based those
portions of their testimony on the payment of PNs No.
23356 and 23357 and the opening of the TD accounts from
the proceeds thereof, were never presented before the
courts nor made part of the records of the case.
Respondent’s money market placements were of
substantial amounts—consisting of the principal amount of
P500,000.00, plus the interest it should have earned during
the years of placement—and it is difficult for this Court to
believe that petitioner Citibank would not have had
documented the payment thereof.
When
39
Mr. Pujeda testified before the RTC on 6 February
1990, petitioners’ counsel attempted to present in
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
423
_______________
425
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
426
_______________
427
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
428
_______________
429
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 52/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
III
Description Amount
Principal and interests of PNs No. 20138 and
20139
(money market placements with petitioner P
FNCB Finance) 1,022,916.66
Savings account with petitioner Citibank 31,079.14
Dollar remittance from Citibank-Geneva
431
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
(peso equivalent
Of US$149,632.99) 1,102,944.78
Total P 2,156,940.58
_______________
432
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 55/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
All the PNs stated that the purpose of the loans covered
thereby is “To liquidate existing obligation,” except for PN
No. 34534, which stated for its purpose “personal
investment.” Respondent secured her foregoing loans with
petitioner Citibank by executing Deeds of Assignment of
her money market placements with petitioner FNCB
Finance. On 2 March 1978, respondent executed
57
in favor of
petitioner Citibank a Deed of Assignment of PN No. 8169,
which was issued by petitioner FNCB Finance, to secure
payment of the credit and banking facilities extended to
her by petitioner Citibank, in the aggregate principal
amount of P500,000.00. On 9 March 1978, respondent
executed in favor of petitioner
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 56/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
433
58
Citibank another Deed of Assignment, this time, of PN
No. 8167, also issued by petitioner FNCB Finance, to
secure payment of the credit and banking facilities
extended to her by petitioner Citibank, in the aggregate
amount of P500,000.00. When PNs No. 8167 and 8169,
representing respondent’s money market placements with
petitioner FNCB Finance, matured and were rolled-over to
PNs No. 20138 59and 20139, respondent executed new Deeds
of Assignment, in favor of petitioner Citibank, on 25
August 1978. According to the more recent Deeds,
respondent assigned PNs No. 20138 and 20139,
representing her rolled-over money market placements
with petitioner FNCB Finance, to petitioner Citibank as
security for the banking and credit facilities it extended to
her, in the aggregate principal amount of P500,000.00 per
Deed.
In addition to the Deeds of Assignment of her money
market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance, 60
respondent also executed a Declaration of Pledge, in
which she supposedly pledged “[a]ll present and future
fiduciary placements held in my personal and/or joint name
with Citibank, Switzerland,” to secure all claims the
petitioner Citibank may have or, in the future, acquire
against respondent. The petitioners’ copy of the Declaration
of Pledge is undated, while that of the respondent, a copy
certified by a Citibank-Geneva
61
officer, bore the date 24
September 1979.
When respondent failed to pay the second set of PNs
upon their maturity, an exchange of letters ensued between
respondent and/or her representatives, on one hand, and
the representatives of petitioners, on the other.
_______________
434
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
62
The first letter was dated 5 April 1979, addressed to
respondent and signed by Mr. Tan, as the manager of
petitioner Citibank, which stated, in part, that—
Despite our repeated requests and follow-up, we regret
you have not granted us with any response or payment.
We, therefore, have no alternative but to call your loan of
P1,920,000.00 plus interests and other charges due and
demandable. If you still fail to settle this obligation by
4/27/79, we shall have no other alternative but to refer your
account to our lawyers for legal action to protect the
interest of the bank. 63
Respondent sent a reply letter dated 26 April 1979,
printed on paper bearing the letterhead of respondent’s
company, MC Adore International Palace, the body of
which reads—
_______________
435
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
436
_______________
437
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
438
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
439
_______________
440
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 63/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
441
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 64/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
77 TSN, 7 May 1986, Vol. II, pp. 42-52; TSN, 19 May 1986, Vol. II, pp. 3-
28.
78 Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 364 Phil. 613, 621; 305 SCRA 138, 146
(1999).
442
_______________
443
_______________
444
receiving all the rest, but not as proceeds of her loans, but
as return on the principal amounts and interests from her
money market placements.
Respondent admitted receiving MC No. 228270
representing the proceeds of her loan covered by PN No.
34534. Although the principal amount of the loan is
P150,000.00, respondent only received P146,312.50,
because the interest and handling fee 86 on the loan
transaction were already deducted therefrom. Stamps and
notations at the back of MC No. 228270 reveal that it was
deposited at the Bank of the Philippine Islands 87
(BPI),
Cubao Branch, in Account No. 0123-0572-28. The88 check
also bore the signature of respondent at the back. And,
although respondent would later admit that she did sign
PN No. 34534 and received MC No. 228270 as proceeds of
the loan extended to her by petitioner Citibank, she
contradicted herself when, in an earlier testimony, she
claimed that PN No. 34534 was among the PNs 89
she
executed as simulated loans with petitioner Citibank.
Respondent denied ever receiving MCs No. 220701 and
226467. However, considering that the said checks were
crossed for payee’s account only, and that they were
actually deposited, cleared, and paid, then the presumption
would be that the said checks were properly deposited to
the account of respondent, who was clearly named the
payee in the checks. Respondent’s bare allegations that she
did not receive the two checks fail to convince this Court,
for to sustain her, would be for this Court to conclude that
an irregularity had occurred somewhere from the time of
the issuance of the said checks, to
_______________
445
_______________
446
92
and subsisting. So even if the MCs deposited by BPI’s
client, whether it be by respondent herself or some other
person, lacked the necessary indorsement, BPI, as the
collecting bank, is bound by its warranties as an indorser
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 69/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
447
94
ment from one of these placements. Because of her
Exhibit “HHH,” respondent effectively admitted receipt of
MC No. 226467, although for reasons other than as
proceeds of a loan.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 70/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
448
_______________
95 Exhibits “GGG” and “JJJ,” plaintiff’s folder of exhibits, pp. 109, 113.
96 Plaintiff’s folder of exhibits, p. 110.
97 See the initials on Exhibit “III-1,” plaintiff’s folder of exhibits, p. 112.
449
_______________
450
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 73/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 74/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
452
prove that
102
she already paid her loan covered by PN No.
34534. In her testimony before the RTC three years later,
on 28 November 1991, she changed her story. This time she
narrated that the loan covered by PN No. 34534 was
secured by her money market placement with petitioner
FNCB Finance, and when she failed to pay the said PN
when it became due, the security was applied 103
to the loan,
therefore, the loan was considered paid. Given the
foregoing, respondent’s assertion of payment of PN No.
34534 is extremely dubious.
According to petitioner Citibank, the PNs in the second
set, except for PN No. 34534, were mere renewals of the
unpaid PNs in the first set, which was why the PNs stated
that they were for the purpose of liquidating existing
obligations. PN No. 34534, however, which was part of the
first set, was still valid and subsisting and so it was
included in the second set without need for its renewal, and
it still being the original PN for that particular
104
loan, its
stated purpose was for personal investment. Respondent
essentially admitted executing the second set of PNs, but
they were only meant to cover simu-
_______________
453
_______________
105 TSN, deposition of Mr. Francisco A. Tan, 3 September 1990, pp. 13-
16.
106 TSN, 22 May 1990, Vol. V, pp. 31-61.
107 TSN, 7 March 1991, Vol. IX, pp. 15-19; TSN, 13 March 1991, Vol. X,
pp. 7-9.
455
_______________
108 TSN, 19 March 1991, Vol. X, pp. 17-21; TSN, 8 April 1991, Vol. X,
pp. 31-34.
456
_______________
457
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 80/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
of witnesses.
112
(Wilcox vs. Hines, 100 Tenn. 524, 66 Am. St. Rep.,
761.)”
_______________
458
The best evidence rule has been made part of the revised
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 3, which reads—
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 81/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
459
“It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only
copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily
Inquirer on February 4-6, 2001. In doing so, the Court, did not,
however, violate the best evidence rule. Wigmore, in his book on
evidence, states that:
“Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial
court’s discretion, whenever in the case in hand the opponent does
not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other
useful purpose will be served by requiring production.24
“x x x x
“In several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavailability
has been abandoned, for certain documents in which ordinarily no
real dispute arised. This measure is a sensible and progressive
one and deserves universal adoption (post, sec. 1233). Its essential
feature is that a copy may be used unconditionally, if the opponent
has been given an opportunity to inspect it.” (Emphasis supplied.)
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 82/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
This Court did not violate the best evidence rule when it
considered and weighed in evidence the photocopies and
microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters submitted by
the petitioners to establish the existence of respondent’s
loans. The terms or contents of these documents were
never the point of contention in the Petition at bar. It was
respondent’s position that the PNs in the first set (with the
exception of PN No. 34534) never existed, while the PNs in
the second set (again, excluding PN No. 34534) were
merely executed to cover simulated loan transactions. As
for the MCs representing the proceeds of the loans, the
respondent either denied receipt of certain MCs or
admitted receipt of the other MCs
_______________
115 F.D. Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. II, 571 (8th
ed., 2000).
116 G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 3 April 2001, 356 SCRA 108, 137-138.
460
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 83/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
461
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 84/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
462
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 85/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
463
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 87/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
465
IV
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 88/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
122 CIVIL CODE, Article 1980; Guingona, Jr. v. City Fiscal of Manila,
213 Phil. 516, 523-524; 128 SCRA 577, 584 (1984).
123 CIVIL CODE, Article 1286.
467
defense, that the loans for which the said Deeds were
executed as security, were already paid. She denied ever
executing both Deeds of Assignment, dated 25 August
1978, covering PNs No. 20138 and 20139. These are again
issues collateral to the contents of the documents involved,
which could be proven by evidence other than the original
copies of the said documents.
Moreover, the Deeds of Assignment of the money market
placements with petitioner FNCB Finance were notarized
documents, thus, admissible in evidence. Rule 132, Section
30 of the Rules of Court provides that—
468
_______________
124 G.R. No. 57092, 21 January 1993, 217 SCRA 307, 313-314.
125 Anachuelo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-71391, 29
January 1987, 147 SCRA 434, 441-442.
126 Antillon v. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148, 150-151 (1917).
469
129
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 92/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
129
with in good faith. Standard clauses in all of the Deeds
provide that—
_______________
470
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 93/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
471
_______________
131 Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 396 Phil. 383,
396; 342 SCRA 213, 223 (2000).
472
_______________
473
134
dated. Since it is undeniable that respondent was out of
the country on 24 September 1979, then she could not have
executed the pledge on the said date.
Third, the Declaration of Pledge was irregularly filled-
out. The pledge was in a standard printed form. It was
constituted in favor of Citibank, N.A., otherwise referred to
therein as the Bank. It should be noted, however, that in
the space which should have named the pledgor, the name
of petitioner Citibank was typewritten, to wit—
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 96/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
474
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 97/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
135 Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 753, 763;
300 SCRA 565, 574 (1998).
136 Order, dated 12 November 1985, penned by Judge Ansberto P.
Paredes, Records, Vol. I, p. 310; Order, dated 2 September 1988, Id. and
penned by Judge Francisco X. Velez, Records, Vol. I, p. 449; Order, dated
24 November 1988, penned by Judge Francisco X. Velez, Records, Vol. I, p.
458; Order, dated 25 April 1989, penned by Judge Francisco X. Velez,
Records, Vol. I, pp. 476-477.
475
_______________
137 Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Triumph Lumber and Construction
Corporation, 361 Phil. 463, 477; 301 SCRA 537, 550 (1999).
138 REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, Section 3(e).
476
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 99/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
139 The stipulated interest shall apply as indemnity for the damages
incurred in the delay of payment as provided in Article 2209 of the CIVIL
CODE which reads—
ART. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the
debtor incurs delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of a
stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per annum. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Note, however, that the legal interest has been increased from six
percent to twelve percent per annum by virtue of Central Bank Circulars
No. 416, dated 29 July 1974, and No. 905, dated 10 December 1982.
477
VI
_______________
478
_______________
479
Q By the way Mrs. Witness will you kindly tell us again, you said
before that you are a businesswoman, will you tell us again
what are the businesses you are engaged into [sic]?
A I am engaged in real estate. I am the owner of the Modesta
Village 1 and 2 in San Mateo, Rizal. I am also the President
and Chairman of the Board of Macador [sic] Co. and Business
Inc. which operates the Macador [sic] International Palace
Hotel. I am also the President of the Macador [sic]
International Palace Hotel, and also the Treasures Home
Industries, Inc. which I am the Chairm an and president of the
Board and also operating affiliated company in the name of
Treasures Motor Sales engaged in car dealers [sic] like Delta
Motors, we are the dealers of the whole Northern Luzon and I
am the president of the Disto Company, Ltd., based in
Hongkong licensed in Honkong [sic] and now operating in Los
Angeles, California.
Q What is the business of that Disto Company Ltd.?
A Disto Company, Ltd., is engaged in real estate and
construction.
Q Aside from those businesses are you a member of any national
or community organization for social and civil activities?
A Yes sir.
Q What are those?
A I am the Vice-President of thes [sic] Subdivision Association of
the Philippines in 1976, I am also an officer of the . . .
Chamber of Real Estate Business Association; I am also an
officer of the Chatholic [sic] Women’s League and I am also a
member of the CMLI, I forgot the definition.
Q How about any political affiliation or government position held
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 102/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
if any?
A I was also a candidate for Mayor last January 30, 1980.
Q Where?
A In Dagupan City, Pangasinan.
Q What else?
480
the 145
actual injury suffered by the respondent, not to enrich
her.
Having failed to exercise more care and prudence than a
private individual in its dealings with respondent,
petitioner Citibank should be liable for exemplary
damages, in 146
the amount147of P250,000.00, in accordance with
Article 2229 and 2234 of the Civil Code.
With the award of exemplary damages, then respondent 148
shall also be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.
Additionally, attorney's fees may be awarded when a party
is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his149
interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party.
In this case, an award of P200,000.00 attorney’s fees shall
be satisfactory.
In contrast, this Court finds no sufficient basis to award
damages to petitioners. Respondent was compelled to
institute the present case in the exercise of her rights and
in the protection of her interests. In fact, although her
Complaint before the RTC was not sustained in its
entirety, it did raise meritorious points and on which this
Court rules in her favor. Any injury resulting 150 from the
exercise of one’s rights is damnum absque injuria.
_______________
145 Tiongco v. Atty. Deguma, 375 Phil. 978, 994-995; 317 SCRA 527, 541
(1999); Zenith Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85296,
14 May 1990, 185 SCRA 398, 402-403.
146 Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.
147 While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, the
plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of
whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. x x x
148 CIVIL CODE, Article 2208(1).
149 Ching Sen Ben vs. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 544, 555; 314 SCRA
762, 772-773 (1999).
150 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil.
498, 531-532; 301 SCRA 572, 604 (1999); Tierra International
Construction Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
482
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 104/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 105/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
No. 88912, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 73, 81; Saba v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 77950, 24 August 1990, 189 SCRA 50, 55.
483
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
484
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 106/107
10/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669621371a5892fb41003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 107/107