Facts:

• The case involves the Central Bank of the Philippines (petitioner) and Aurora P. Castro (respondent).
• On February 24, 1987, Castro, Chief of the Tellers Division, received a cash transfer from Elisa M. de Vera, an accountable officer.
• De Vera prepared 442 bundles of 100-peso notes totaling P44,200,000.00 and 108 bundles of 50-peso notes totaling P5,400,000.00.
• An extra improperly tied bundle of 100-peso notes worth P100,000.00 was included but not recorded.
• During the transfer, De Vera and currency laborer Antonio Dagot delivered the bundles to Castro.
• Dagot attempted to tie the improperly bundled cash but was stopped by De Vera.
• After the transfer, De Vera reported a cash shortage of P100,000.00.
• It was later discovered that Dagot delivered the improperly tied bundle to Castro's laborer, Librado Flores, without De Vera's knowledge.
• The trial court ruled in favor of Castro, stating insufficient evidence of over-transfer.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting the Central Bank to file a petition for review.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts' decisions.
• It ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove an over-transfer occurred, t...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court noted that the appeal raised a question of fact, not law, which is not permissible under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
• A genuine question of law arises when there is doubt about the law's application to facts, while a question of fact pertains to the truth or falsity of the facts.
• The petitioner failed to provide preponderant evidence to support th...continue reading