Case Summary (G.R. No. 180235)
Petitioner and Respondent — Roles and Claims
Bankard sued Alarte for P67,944.82 as the unpaid balance shown in a July 9, 2006 statement of account, inclusive of unbilled installments, charges and penalties; it sought interest, attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the sum due, and costs. Alarte did not file an answer or otherwise participate in the proceedings below.
Key Dates
Statement of Account dated July 9, 2006. Complaint filed in 2007 (Civil Case No. 13956, MeTC Pasig). MeTC decision dismissing complaint: July 15, 2009. RTC decision affirming MeTC: May 6, 2010. CA decision affirming RTC: September 28, 2011; CA resolution denying reconsideration: July 4, 2012. Supreme Court decision: April 19, 2017.
Procedural History
Bankard filed a collection case in the MeTC. Respondent defaulted by not filing an answer; petitioner moved to render judgment but the MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of preponderance of evidence. The RTC and subsequently the CA affirmed that dismissal. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari; the Supreme Court partially granted the petition, reversed the CA decisions, reinstated the MeTC case, and remanded for further proceedings permitting amendment of the complaint and presentation of additional evidence.
Core Facts Alleged by Petitioner
Petitioner alleged that respondent applied for and received a credit card and used it to avail credit accommodations for purchases. The July 9, 2006 statement of account reflected a previous statement balance of P64,615.64 and late and interest charges totaling P3,329.18, yielding a balance end of P67,944.82. Petitioner served a demand letter and, upon nonpayment and respondent’s failure to answer, filed suit seeking recovery.
MeTC Ruling — Reasoning and Outcome
In the MeTC’s summary-procedure decision, the court emphasized the standard of proof in civil cases—preponderance of evidence—and found petitioner’s singular statement of account insufficient because it did not indicate or itemize the alleged purchases or otherwise clearly show that respondent incurred the claimed indebtedness. Consequently, the MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of preponderant evidence.
RTC Ruling — Reasoning and Outcome
On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MeTC. The RTC observed that while a disputable presumption might establish that statements of account were regularly sent, the evidence did not disclose the transactional details showing that respondent had used petitioner’s credit facilities up to the amount claimed, nor did it justify the penalties and interest asserted. The RTC also rejected petitioner’s request for a clarificatory hearing under Section 10 of the Rules on Summary Procedure for purposes of proof appreciation, holding that the lower court’s prior order had afforded petitioner an opportunity to submit supporting details.
Court of Appeals Ruling — Reasoning and Outcome
The CA likewise affirmed the RTC, reiterating that the burden of proof in civil cases rests with the party asserting the affirmative (petitioner) and must be satisfied by preponderance of evidence (citing Section 1, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court). The CA found the July 9, 2006 statement of account deficient because it displayed only late and interest charges and did not enumerate the underlying purchases or transactions; therefore, petitioner failed to prove its claim and dismissal was proper.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioner contended that the statement of account was sufficient to prove the indebtedness; that respondent was estopped from challenging it because of a waiver provision requiring objections within 20 days; that respondent’s failure to answer and to participate in appellate proceedings amounted to admissions of the allegations; and that failure to render judgment would unjustly enrich respondent.
Supreme Court Disposition
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It reversed and set aside the CA’s decision and resolution, reinstated Civil Case No. 13956, and remanded the case to the MeTC (Branch 72, Pasig City) for further proceedings. The remand directed that petitioner be allowed to amend its complaint and/or present additional evidence to establish the indebtedness and the transactional basis of the claimed balance.
Supreme Court Reasoning — Evidence, Statements of Account, and Pleading Deficiencies
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the July 9, 2006 statement of account did not itemize individual purchases but observed that its wording indicated a running or accumulated balance: a previous statement balance of P64,615.64 followed by late and interest charges totaling P3,329.18, culminating in the P67,944.82 balance. The Court construed this as consistent with an outstanding, continuing obligation that had accrued from prior transactions which may be multiple or cumbersome to enumerate in a single statement. Nonetheless, the Court faulted petitioner for not presenting clearer pleadings and documentary proof earlier in the proceedings; it concluded that the existing record was insufficient to warrant judgment in petitioner’s favor but that the claim could be well-founded if properly pleaded and supported. Given petitioner’s role and presumed familiarity with credit card records, the Court held that petitioner should have better pleaded and produced transactional details or a summary of the account in its appellate submissions. To afford the parties a full and fair opportunity to prove the claim, the Court remanded the case for amendment and supplementation of evidence rather than affirm dismissal.
L
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 180235)
Case Caption, Docket and Court
- G.R. No. 202573; First Division; Decision promulgated April 19, 2017.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Bankard, Inc. (now RCBC Bankard Services Corporation) assailing the Court of Appeals' September 28, 2011 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 114345 and its July 4, 2012 Resolution denying motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Del Castillo; concurring: Chief Justice Sereno (Chairperson), Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa.
- Lower-court judges and opinions referenced: Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Presiding Judge Joy N. Casihan-Dumlao (MeTC Decision dated July 15, 2009); Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Rolando G. Mislang (RTC Decision dated May 6, 2010); Court of Appeals Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz (September 28, 2011) with Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Antonio L. Villamor concurring.
Factual Antecedents
- Petitioner: Bankard, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in providing credit card accommodations to member-cardholders (now RCBC Bankard Services Corporation).
- Respondent: Luz P. Alarte (referred also as Luz Tatel Alarte on the statement).
- In 2007, petitioner filed a collection suit against respondent before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, docketed as Civil Case No. 13956, ultimately assigned to Branch 72.
- Petitioner's Complaint alleged:
- Respondent applied for and was granted a Bankard myDream JCB Card No. 3562-8688-5155-1006.
- Respondent used the credit card to avail credit accommodations by "purchasing various products."
- Per a Statement of Account dated July 9, 2006, respondent’s credits and charges totalled P67,944.82, inclusive of unbilled monthly installments, charges and penalties, or at least the minimum amount due.
- Respondent received a written demand but failed and refused to pay.
- Prayer: respondent be ordered to pay P67,944.82 with interest, attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the sum due, and costs of suit.
- Despite service of summons, respondent did not file an answer at the MeTC and did not participate in subsequent proceedings (no answer in MeTC, no comments in RTC appeal or CA petition).
Evidence Offered by Petitioner
- Primary documentary evidence: single Statement of Account dated July 9, 2006 (recorded also as July 7, 2006 in some passages).
- Content of the July 9, 2006 Statement of Account as reproduced in the record:
- PREVIOUS STATEMENT BALANCE [P]64,615.64
- 3562-8688-5155-1006 LUZ TATEL ALARTE 07/04/06 07/04/07/
- LATE CHARGES 1,484.84 07/07/06 07/07/06
- INTEREST CHARGES 1,844.34
- SUB TOTAL 3,329.18
- BALANCE END [P]67,944.82
- * END OF STATEMENT - PAGE 1 *
- Petitioner relied on the statement and asserted a contractual waiver contained in the statement: if not questioned within 20 days from receipt, Bankard will deem the statement true and correct.
Procedural History and Lower Courts' Rulings
- Motion to Render Judgment:
- Despite service and respondent's failure to answer, petitioner filed a Motion to Render Judgment which was granted (reference in record).
- Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) — July 15, 2009 Decision:
- The MeTC ruled the case fell under the Rule on Summary Procedure; in civil cases the plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence.
- Citing the Amoroso v. Alegre standard on preponderance, the MeTC scrutinized petitioner’s evidence and concluded the single statement of account showed only late and interest charges and did not indicate purchases.
- MeTC found absence of evidence that respondent used petitioner’s credit facilities to incur the P67,944.82 balance and dismissed the complaint for lack of preponderance of evidence.
- Regional Trial Court (RTC) — May 6, 2010 Decision (Branch 167):
- RTC affirmed the MeTC in toto.
- RTC analyzed petitioner’s contention that the disputable presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(q) showed regular sending of statements but held that the presumption did not substitute for detailed purchase transactions.
- RTC found no clear proof how the amount was incurred; the single statement did not show the details of purchases or the basis for the imposition of penalties and interest.
- RTC rejected appellant’s argument for a clarificatory hearing under Section 10 of the Rules on Summary Procedure as inapplicable to evidence appreciation; the lower court’s order had been sufficient