Case Digest (G.R. No. 198799)
Facts:
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Amado M. Mendoza and Maria Marcos Vda. de Mendoza, G.R. No. 198799, March 20, 2017, First Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) sued respondents Amado M. Mendoza and his mother Maria Marcos vda. de Mendoza in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija (Civil Case No. 1913) by a Complaint for Sum of Money with Application for Writ of Attachment filed January 20, 1998. BPI alleged that on April 8, 1997 respondents opened a U.S. dollar savings account and placed a US Treasury check (No. 3149‑09693369) worth US$16,164.00 plus US$100 cash, and a separate time deposit (US$2,000). After a normal clearing period respondents withdrew US$16,244.00 but BPI later received advice from its correspondent, Bankers Trust, that the Treasury check had been dishonored for an altered amount and that the original had been confiscated by the U.S. government. BPI informed respondents of the dishonor, applied the time deposit proceeds against the obligation with respondents’ apparent acquiescence, obtained a promissory note from Amado dated September 8, 1997, and served a final demand November 27, 1997; respondents denied liability and claimed they had not received P582,140.00 allegedly computed as the peso equivalent.
The RTC rendered a Decision dated May 9, 2007 finding for BPI, holding that respondents were notified of the dishonor and had, by withdrawals and subsequent writings including the promissory note, acknowledged an obligation; the RTC ordered respondents to pay P369,600.51 (peso equivalent of amounts withdrawn less recoveries), legal interest of 12% per annum from withdrawal, and 10% attorney’s fees. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision dated February 4, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC ruling and dismissed BPI’s complaint for lack of merit, concluding that BPI failed to prove the dishonor: the CA held that (a) presenting only a photocopy of the check violated the Best Evidence Rule; and (b) the e‑mail advice from Bankers Trust lacked proper authentication under the Rules on Electronic Evidence. BPI’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied by Resolution dated August 26, 2011.
B...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss BPI’s complaint for failure to prove the dishonor of the subject U.S. Treasury check?
- Were the photocopy of the check and the printout of the e‑mail from Bankers Trust inadmissible such that they could not support BPI’s case under the Best Evidence Rule and the Rules on Electronic Evidence?
- If respondents are liable, what is the proper legal basis of their obligation and the c...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)