Case Digest (G.R. No. 251157)
Facts:
Danilo A. David v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 251157, September 29, 2021, Supreme Court, First Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Danilo A. David (petitioner) obtained a pre‑approved credit card from respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). The card’s terms provided that charges are payable within twenty calendar days from cut‑off, and unpaid amounts would incur monthly interest (3.25% per the bank’s terms) and a 6% late payment charge. By 2007 petitioner began to delay payments; by Statement of Account dated January 14, 2007 his account showed a balance of P278,649.87; an internal bank record later reflected a lower balance of P223,749.48 and testimony by a bank account specialist referred to P223,000.00 (apparently rounded). Demands were ignored and BPI filed a collection case on February 26, 2009 (Civil Case No. 97505, MeTC Makati City, Branch 67).
At trial petitioner admitted card use but denied agreement to interest and penalty terms and claimed his outstanding balance was only P30,000.00; he offered Statements of Account (Exhibits “1”–“11”) including the January 14, 2007 SOA (P278,649.87). The bank’s internal record showing P223,749.48 was identified through the testimony of its Account Specialist Michael Alvin Gianan and was marked by petitioner during cross‑examination, but the internal record was not formally offered in evidence by either party.
The MeTC (Judge Jackie Crisologo‑Saguisag) in a Decision dated October 7, 2014 used P278,649.87 as the starting reference and computed petitioner’s unpaid obligation at P194,682.99 (including interest and charges), but reduced interest/penalty to 1% per month (12% p.a.) until June 30, 2013 and 6% thereafter. By Resolution dated May 25, 2015 the MeTC partially granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, held the correct reference was the bank’s internal record of P223,749.48, deleted penalty charges for lack of proof of agreement to terms, and reduced the obligation to P97,428.51 (retaining 12% p.a. interest).
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 145, Makati (Judge Carlito B. Calpatura) affirmed the MeTC in a Judgment dated December 7, 2015, accepting the MeTC’s use of the bank’s internal record despite its not being formally offered because it had been identified through testimony and incorporated in the record. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated February 11, 2016.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 144469 modified and reversed in part by Decision dated November 29, 2018: it rejected the internal record (because it was not formally offered), used the January 14, 2007 Statement of Account (P278,649.87) as the reckoning point, and recomputed the unpaid obligation as P63,074.89 as of August 12, 2008. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 2, 2020.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari unde...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Which of the competing figures — P223,000.00, P223,749.48, or P278,649.87 — is the proper reckoning point of petitioner’s obligation?
- What is the correct unpaid obligation of petitioner as of August 12, 2008, and the appropriate interest and costs to be i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)