G.R. No. 143805 - People vs. Gonzales y Maristanes

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (formerly Philippine Banking Corporation) as plaintiff filed an action for recovery of money and damages against Ley Construction and Development Corporation (LCDC) and Spouses Manuel and Janet Ley as defendants.
Defendant LCDC is a general contracting firm; Spouses Ley are its major stockholders and sureties under a Continuing Surety Agreement dated July 25, 1989.

On April 26, 1990, the Bank issued Letter of Credit (LC) No. DC 90-303-C for USD 802,500 in favor of Global Enterprises Limited to cover importation of 15,000 metric tons of Iraqi cement.
Two amendment applications were filed on May 3 and May 11, 1990. Global Enterprises negotiated the LC through Credit Suisse, which on July 25, 1990 sent a reimbursement claim to American Express Bank Ltd., New York, certifying compliance with the LC terms.
On July 30, 1990, American Express Bank debited the Bank’s account USD 770,691.30 and credited Credit Suisse’s account. On August 6, 1990, Credit Suisse forwarded shipping documents to the Bank, which delivered them to LCDC on August 16, 1990, and obtained a Trust Receipt (No. TRI432/90).
The cement never arrived. The Bank’s demand for payment of PHP 23,259,124.14 (inclusive of interest, penalties, attorney’s fees, and costs) was unmet.

At trial, the Bank presented one witness (Mr. Fenelito Cabrera) and offered multiple documentary exhibits. The RTC admitted only Exhibits A, B, C, C-1, Na, and N-1 to N-4; it excluded several exhibits for lack of proper identification/authentication.
Defendants moved for demurrer to evidence, asserting the Bank failed to establish its cause of action. The RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the complaint (July 3, 2001).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals admitted additional Exhibits F and G, but still found the Bank’s evidence insufficient to prove LCDC’s liability for improper negotiation of the LC. It affirmed the RTC decision (September 4, 2008) and denied reconsideration (December 5, 2008).
The Bank filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the factual findings and the characterization of its cause of action.

Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may raise questions of fact regarding the sufficiency of evidence presented below.
Whether the findings of fact by the RTC and the Court of Appeals on preponderance of evidence and exhibit admissibility are reviewable by this Court.
Whether the trial and appellate courts misapprehended facts by treating the Letter of Credit as the primary actionable document instead of the Trust Receipt.
Whether the Bank’s cause of action is based on breach of the Trust Receipt terms or on the LC obligation and related surety agreement.