G.R. No. 88602 - Vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals

Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) filed a Complaint for Sum of Money with Application for Writ of Attachment against respondents Amado M. Mendoza and Maria Marcos vda. de Mendoza before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Civil Case No. 1913.
Complaint alleged that on April 8, 1997 respondents opened a US dollar savings account (Account No. 0584-0007-08) and deposited US$16,264.00 (US$100.00 cash and a US Treasury Check No. 3149-09693369 payable to "Ma. Marcos Vda. de Mendoza") and placed US$2,000.00 in a time deposit account.

After the 30-day clearing period on May 9 and 13, 1997, respondents withdrew US$16,244.00 from the US savings account, leaving US$20.00 for bank charges.
On June 26, 1997 BPI received notice from correspondent Bankers Trust Company New York that the subject check was dishonored due to "amount altered," evidenced by (a) an e-mail advice printout from Bankers Trust and (b) a photocopy of the subject check stamped "endorsement cancelled," with BPI alleging the original was confiscated by the US government.
BPI informed respondents of the dishonor and demanded reimbursement.

BPI claimed respondents allowed application of US$2,015.00 (or US$2,000.00 per a July 18, 1997 letter) from their time deposit to their outstanding obligation on July 18, 1997.
After the time deposit was exhausted, Amado executed a promissory note dated September 8, 1997 promising monthly payments of P1,000.00 to BPI-Gapan Branch.
BPI sent a final demand letter on November 27, 1997 after alleged nonpayment.

Respondents admitted the withdrawals and conversion to pesos at P26.159 per dollar but denied receiving P582,140.00 claimed by BPI.
Amado contended his signature on the July 18, 1997 letter only acknowledged receipt and did not consent to application of the time deposit proceeds to any obligation; he asserted willingness to pay only if BPI presented proper authenticated proof of dishonor.
Respondents denied BPI's proof of the check's dishonor and confiscation.

BPI offered as evidence: (a) photocopy of the subject check with "ENDORSEMENT CANCELLED" stamp by Bankers Trust; (b) printout of the e-mail advice from Bankers Trust; (c) BPI letters dated June 27, 1997 and July 18, 1997 addressed to respondents; and (d) promissory note dated September 8, 1997.
Respondents did not file comment or opposition to BPI's formal offer of evidence; the court record shows no objections to these exhibits.

RTC rendered Decision dated May 9, 2007 in favor of BPI, ordering respondents to pay P369,600.51 (peso equivalent of amounts withdrawn less amounts recovered), plus 12% legal interest per annum from time of withdrawal, and 10% attorney's fees.
RTC based its ruling on findings that: (a) BPI notified respondents of dishonor; (b...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed BPI's Complaint for Sum of Money for failure to prove dishonor of the subject check.

Whether the RTC's factual findings regarding respondents' acknowledgment and obligation are entitled to greater weight than the CA's contrary findings.
Whether the photocopy of the subject check is admissible under the exception to the Best Evidence Rule (Section 3, Rule 130).
Whether the e-mail printout from Bankers Trust required formal authentication and whether its alleged inadmissibility undermines BPI's proof....(Subscriber-Only)