Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
619
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
620
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
621
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court seeks the reversal of the
Court of Appeals’ Decision1 dated September 4,
2008 in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 75590 dismissing the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
_______________
622
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
623
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
624
The trial court found that the Bank’s only
witness, Fenelito Cabrera, was incompetent to
testify on the documents presented by the Bank
during the trial. Cabrera was with the Bank’s
Dasmariñas Branch and not with the Head Office
from March 1990 to June 1991, the period the
transaction covered by the documents took place.
Thus, he could not have properly identified and
authenticated the Bank’s documentary exhibits. His
lack of competence was even admitted by the
Bank’s counsel who did not even ask Cabrera to
identify the documents. As the documents were not
identified and duly authenticated, the Bank’s
evidence was not preponderant enough to establish
its right to recover from LCDC and the spouses
Ley.6
The trial court further ruled that only the
following documents remained admitted in
evidence:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
For the trial court, these were insufficient to
show that LCDC and the spouses Ley were
responsible for the improper negotiation of the
letter of credit. Thus, the trial court concluded in its
Decision dated July 3, 2001 that the Bank failed to
establish its cause of action and to make a sufficient
or preponderant case.7 The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:
_______________
625
The Bank appealed to the Court of Appeals. It
claimed that the trial court erred in granting the
demurrer to evidence of LCDC and the spouses Ley
on the ground that the Bank failed to establish its
cause of action. The Bank insisted that, even
without considering the exhibits excluded in
evidence by the trial court, the Bank was able to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
The Bank asserted that the consideration of
Exhibits “F,” “G” and “G1” to “G-2” would have
established the following:
(a) On August 16, 1990, LCDC and the spouses
Ley received from the Bank the necessary shipping
documents relative to the Letter of Credit
evidencing title to the goods subject matter of the
importation which the Bank had previously
received from Credit Suisse;
(b) Upon receipt of the shipping documents,
LCDC and the spouses Ley executed a trust receipt,
Trust Receipt
_______________
8 Id., at p. 124.
9 Id., at pp. 137-139.
626
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
10 Id., at p. 139.
11 Id., at p. 144.
627
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
_______________
628
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
_______________
14 Id., at p. 40.
15 Id., at p. 41.
16 Id., at pp. 241-255.
629
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
630
The issue of whether or not the Bank was able to
establish its cause of action by preponderant
evidence is essentially a question of fact. Stated in
another way, the issue which the Bank raises in
this petition is whether the evidence it presented
during the trial was preponderant enough to hold
LCDC and the spouses Ley liable.
The required burden of proof, or that amount of
evidence necessary and sufficient to establish one’s
claim or defense, in civil cases is preponderance of
evidence.22 Preponderance of evidence is defined as
follows:
_______________
631
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
_______________
632
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
633
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
634
635
636
That the Bank’s cause of action was hinged on
the Letter of Credit is unmistakable. Taken as a
whole, the Bank’s allegations make a cause of
action based on the Letter of Credit. The Trust
Receipt was mentioned incidentally and appears
only in paragraph 2.8 of the Complaint.32 In stark
contrast, the Letter of Credit figures prominently in
the Complaint as it is mentioned in almost all of the
paragraphs of Part 2 (Statement of Cause of Action
Against Defendant LCDC and Spouses Manuel and
Janet Ley). More tellingly, in paragraph 2.15, the
Bank speaks of “the obligation covered by the
aforesaid Letter of Credit.”33
Moreover, under paragraphs 1.2(b) and 2.16 of
the Complaint, the spouses Ley have been
impleaded as codefendants of LCDC on account of
their execution of a Continuing Surety Agreement
in the Bank’s favor to guarantee the “prompt
payment of the obligations contracted by defendant
LCDC from the plaintiff inclusive of the subject
Letter of Credit.”34 In short, the Bank seeks to hold
liable (1) LCDC for its obligations under the Letter
of Credit, and (2) the spouses Ley for their
obligations under the Continuing Surety Agreement
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
_______________
637
An “actionable document” is a written
instrument or document on which an action or
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
_______________
638
_______________
36 Records, p. 4.
37 Id., at p. 2.
38 349 Phil. 925, 939; 286 SCRA 257, 269 (1998).
639
The above stipulation actually appears on the
Application and Agreement for Commercial Letter
of Credit, the Bank’s Exhibit “B.” It is the contract
which contains the provisions and conditions
governing the legal relationship of the Bank and
LCDC, particularly their respective rights and
obligations, in connection with the Bank’s issuance
of Letter of Credit No. DC 90-303-C. The
importance of the provisions and conditions
supposed to be stipulated on the reverse side of the
Application and Agreement for Commercial Letter
of Credit is underscored by the following note
appearing below the space for the signature of
Janet Ley:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
_______________
640
_______________
42 Id.
43 Id., at p. 12.
44 Rules of Court, Rule 2, Section 2.
45 Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 157479,
November 24, 2010, 636 SCRA 13, 30.
46 Id.
641
Petition denied.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/32
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 743
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016832fb8c0d873eb45a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/32