Bangayan vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation

G.R. No. 149193. April 4, 2011.
RICARDO B. BANGAYAN, petitioner, vs. RIZAL

COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION AND PHILIP
SARIA, respondents.
Criminal Law Forgery Evidence Requisites before a Private
Document is Offered as Authentic As a rule, forgery cannot be
presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence Burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery Mere
allegation of forgery is not evidence.Before a private document is
offered as authentic, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved: (a) either by anyone who has seen the document executed
or written or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker. As a rule, forgery cannot be
presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence. The burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery.
Mere allegation of forgery is not evidence.
Notarial Law Notarization of a private document converts the
document into a public one, renders it admissible in court without
further proof of its authenticity, and is entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face The irregular notarizationor, for that
matter, the lack of notarizationdoes not necessarily affect the
validity of the contract reflected in the document.Notarization of
a private document converts the document into a public one,
renders it admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity, and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
However, the irregular notarizationor, for that matter, the lack
of notarizationdoes not necessarily affect the validity of the
contract reflected in the document.
Contracts Contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may
have been entered into, provided all essential requisites are present
and the notarization is not an essential requisite for the validity of
a Surety Agreement.The failure to notarize the Surety
Agreement does not invalidate petitioner Bangayans consent to
act as surety for the nine corporations obligations to respondent
RCBC. Contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have
been entered into,
_______________
*THIRD DIVISION.
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
Bangayan vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation
provided all essential requisites are present and the notarization

is not an essential requisite for the validity of a Surety
Agreement.
Civil Procedure Prior to a final judgment, trial courts have
plenary control over the proceedings including the judgment, and
in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, may take such proper
action in this regard as truth and justice may require.Prior to a
final judgment, trial courts have plenary control over the
proceedings including the judgment, and in the exercise of a
sound judicial discretion, may take such proper action in this
regard as truth and justice may require. In the instant case, the
trial court was within the exercise of its discretionary and plenary
control of the proceedings when it reconsidered motu proprio its
earlier order striking out the testimony of Mr. Lao and ordered it
reinstated. The order of the judge cannot be considered as willful,
arbitrary, capricious and uncontrolled discretion, since his action
allowed respondent bank to present its case fully, especially
considering that Mr. Lao was the sole witness for the defense.
Constitutional Law Right to CrossExamination The right of
a party to confront and crossexamine opposing witnesses in a
judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in
proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasijudicial
powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process This
right, however, has always been understood as requiring not
necessarily an actual crossexamination but merely an opportunity
to exercise the right to crossexamine if desired.Neither can
petitioner Bangayan claim any deprivation of due process when
the trial court ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Laos testimony
without any motion or prayer from respondent RCBC. The right of
a party to confront and crossexamine opposing witnesses in a
judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in
proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasijudicial
powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. This
right, however, has always been understood as requiring not
necessarily an actual crossexamination but merely an
opportunity to exercise the right to crossexamine if desired. What
is proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is the
absence of the opportunity to crossexamine.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
10
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Nelson Loyola for petitioner.
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for respondents.
SERENO, J.:
Before this Court is a Rule 45 Petition1 questioning the
Court of Appeals affirmance of a trial courts dismissal of a
complaint for damages filed by a depositor against a bank
for the dishonor of seven checks and for the wrongful
disclosure of information regarding the depositors account
contrary to the Bank Secrecy Act (Republic Act No. 1405).2
The Facts
Petitioner Ricardo Bangayan had a savings account and
a current account with one of the branches of respondent
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC).3 These
two accounts had an automatic transfer condition
wherein checks issued by the depositor may be funded by
any of the two accounts.4
On 26 June 1992, petitioner Bangayan purportedly
signed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement (the Surety
Agreement)5 with respondent RCBC in favor of nine
corporations.6 Under
_______________
1Rollo at pp. 860.
2 RTC Decision dated 17 October 1994 (Rollo at pp. 7787) and CA
Decision dated 06 August 2001 (Rollo at pp. 6276).
3 Savings Account No. 1109818050 and Current Account No. 0109
82325 at the RCBC Binondo Branch, 500 Quintin Paredes, St., Binondo,
Manila. (See Amended Answer dated 12 January 1993 RTC records, Vol.
1, at p. 127)
4 RTC Decision dated 17 October 1994, at p. 9 (Rollo at p. 85) CA
Decision dated 06 August 2001, at p. 2 (Rollo at p. 63).
5Exhibit 1 RTC records, Vol. 2, at pp. 705707.
6 The nine corporations were: (1) LBZ Commercial (2) Peaks
Manufacturing (3) Final Sales Enterprises (4) Lotec Market
11
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
11
the Surety Agreement, the funds in petitioner Bangayans

accounts with respondent RCBC would be used as security
to guarantee any existing and future loan obligations,
advances, credits/increases and other obligations, including
any and all expenses that these corporations may incur
with respondent bank.
Petitioner Bangayan contests the veracity and due
authenticity of the Surety Agreement on the ground that

his signature thereon was not genuine, and that the
agreement was not notarized.7 Respondent RCBC refutes
this claim, although it admitted that it was exceptional for
a perfected Surety Agreement of the bank to be without a
signature of the witness and to remain unnotarized. Mr. Eli
Lao, respondent banks Group Head of Account
Management, however, explained that the bank was still in
the process of completing the Surety Agreement at that
time.8
The following are the transactions of respondent RCBC
in relation to the Surety Agreement visvis the petitioner
Bangayan.
On 26 June 1992 (the same day that the Surety
Agreement was allegedly signed), two of the corporations
whose performance were guaranteed thereinLBZ
Commercial and Peaks Marketingwere issued separate
commercial letters of credit9 by respondent RCBC for the
importation of PVC resin from Korea. Three days later or
on 29 June 1992, respondent RCBC issued a third letter of
credit10 in favor of another corporation, Final Sales
Enterprise, whose obligations to respon
_______________
ing (5) Lucky M Motor Service (6) 9M Trading (7) WN Albos Trading
Center (8) KMT Import Trader and (9) Silver Machine Trading. (Exhibit
1B, id., at p. 707)
7 Petition for Review on Certiorari, para. 2527, at pp. 4445 Rollo at
pp. 5051.
8 TSN, 16 September 1994, at pp. 2223.
9 Exhibits 4 and 5, RTC records, Vol. 2, at pp. 713716.
10 Exhibit 3, id., at pp. 711712.
12
12

dent bank were likewise secured by petitioner Bangayan

under the Surety Agreement. Mr. Lao claimed that
respondent bank would not have extended the letters of
credit in favor of the three corporations without petitioner
Bangayan acting as surety.11
On 26 August 1992, a fourth letter of credit12 was
issued by respondent RCBC for the importation of
materials from Korea, this time by Lotec Marketing,
another corporation enumerated in the Surety Agreement.
The Korea Exchange Bank was designated as the advising
bank for Lotec Marketings letter of credit.13
On 15 September 1992, after the arrival of the
shipments of the first three corporations from Korea, the

Bureau of Customs (BOC) demandedvia letter of the
same datefrom respondent RCBC, which facilitated the
three letters of credit, the remittance of import duties in
the amount of thirteen million two hundred sixtyfive
thousand
two
hundred
twentyfive
pesos
14
(PhP13,265,225).
Mr. Lao of respondent RCBC allegedly called petitioner
Bangayan and informed him of the BOCs demand for
payment of import duties.15 According to Mr. Lao,
petitioner allegedly replied that he understood the
situation and assured Mr. Lao that he was doing
everything he could to solve the problem.16
Considering the BOCs demand, respondent RCBC
decided to put on hold the funds in petitioner Bangayans
accounts by virtue of the authority given to it by petitioner
under the
_______________
11 TSN, 16 September 1994, at p. 28.
12 Exhibit 10, RTC records, Vol. 2, at pp. 724725.
13 Id.
14 Exhibit 6 id., at p. 766.
15 TSN, 04 June 1993, at pp. 2829.
16 Id., at p. 29.
13
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
13
Surety Agreement.17 Respondent RCBC reasoned that as

the collecting agent, it had to earmark sufficient funds in
the account of petitioner Bangayan (the surety) to satisfy
the tax obligations of the three corporations, in the event
that they would fail to pay the same.18 Thus, respondent
bank refused payments drawn from petitioner Bangayans
deposits, unless there was an order from the BOC.19
Petitioner Bangayan, however, contests this action since
respondent bank did not present any writ of garnishment
that would authorize the freezing of his funds.20
On 18 September 1992, two of the seven checks that
were drawn against petitioner Bangayans Current Account
No. 010982325 were presented for payment to respondent
RCBC, namely:
RCBC
Check No.
9879921
Date of
Presentment
18 Sept 1992
93800022
18 Sept 1992
Paid To
Amount
United Pacific
Enterprises
United Pacific
PhP3,650,000
PhP4,500,000
TOTAL
Enterprises
PhP8,150,000
On the same day, the amounts of three million six

hundred fifty thousand pesos (PhP3,650,000) and four
million five
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 3032. See Surety Agreement (Exhibit 1) RTC records,
Vol. 2 at p. 705.
18 TSN, 16 September 1994, at p. 32.
19 CA Decision Rollo at p. 65.
20 Petitioner Bangayans Memorandum dated 22 October 2002, at p. 19
(Rollo at p. 255). See also TSN, 31 March 1993, at pp. 3031.
21 Exhibit F, RTC records, Vol. 1, at p. 184.
22 Exhibit E, id.
14
14

hundred thousand pesos (PhP4,500,000)23

were
successively debited from the said current account, as
shown in petitioner Bangayans passbook for the current
account.24 Alongside these two debit entries in the
passbook was the transaction reference code DFT, which
apparently stands for debit fund transfer.25
On 21 September 1992, the same amounts in the two
checks were credited to petitioner Bangayans current
account, under the transaction reference code CM, that
stands for credit memo.26
Moreover, petitioner
Bangayans Checks Nos. 93799 and 93800 issued in favor of
United Pacific Enterprises were also returned by
respondent RCBC with the notation REFER TO
DRAWER.27
On the same day that the checks were referred to
petitioner Bangayan by respondent RCBC, United Pacific
Enterprises, through Mr. Manuel Dantes, demanded from
petitioner Bangayan the payment of eight million one
hundred fifty thousand pesos (PhP8,150,000), which
corresponded to the amounts of the two dishonored checks
that were issued to it.28 Nothing more has been alleged by
petitioner on this particular matter.
On 24 September 1992, the Korea Exchange Bank (the
advising bank) informed respondent RCBC through a telex
that it had already negotiated the fourth letter of credit for
Lotec Marketings shipment, which amounted to seven
hundred twelve thousand eight hundred U.S. dollars
(US$712,800) and, thereafter, claimed reimbursement from
respondent RCBC.29
_______________
23 These amounts correspond to the first two checks (Check Nos.
937999 and 93800) that were presented on 18 September 1992.
24 Exhibit A1, RTC records, Vol. 1, at p. 182.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Exhibits H and I, id., at p. 186.
28 Exhibit Q, id., at p. 203.
29 Exhibit 11, id., Vol. 2, at p. 726.
15
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
15
This particular shipment by Lotec Marketing became

the subject matter of an investigation conducted by the
Customs Intelligence & Investigation Service of the BOC,
according to respondent bank.30 Both parties agreed that
the BOC likewise conducted an investigation covering the
importation of the three corporationsLBZ Commercial,
Peaks Marketing and Final Sales Enterprisethat were
opened through the letters of credit issued by respondent
RCBC.31
On 09 October 1992, respondent Philip Saria, who was
an Account Officer of respondent banks Binondo Branch,
signed and executed a Statement before the BOC, with the
assistance of Atty. Arnel Z. Dolendo of respondent RCBC,
on the banks letters of credit issued in favor of the three
corporations.32 Petitioner Bangayan cited this incident as
the basis for the allegation in the Complaint he
subsequently filed that respondent RCBC had disclosed to
a third party (the BOC) information concerning the
identity, nature, transaction and deposits including details
of transaction related to and pertaining to his deposits with
the said bank, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act.33 It
must be pointed out that the trial court found that no
evidence was introduced by (petitioner Bangayan) to
substantiate his claim that (respondent RCBC) gave any
classified information in violation of the Bank Secrecy
Law.34 Thus, the trial court considered the alleged
disclosure of confidential bank information by respondent
RCBC as a nonissue.35
_______________
30 Respondent RCBC PreTrial Brief dated 03 February 1993, at 2 id.,
Vol. 1, at p. 208.
31 Exhibit P, RTC records, Vol. 1, at pp. 198202.
32 Id.
33 Second Cause of Action, Complaint dated 05 November 1992, at pp.

78 (RTC records, Vol. 1, at pp. 78) CA Decision dated 06 August 2001, at
p. 3 (Rollo at p. 64).
34 RTC Decision dated 17 October 1994, at p. 8 Rollo at p. 84.
35 On this score, plaintiff (petitioner Bangayan) has no cause of action
for damages against defendant RCBC. (RTC Decision dated 17 October
1994, at p. 8 id.).
16
16

On the same date, when Lotec Marketings loan

obligation under the fourth letter of credit became due and
demandable,36 respondent RCBC issued an advice that it
would debit the amount of twelve million seven hundred
sixtytwo thousand six hundred pesos (PhP12,762,600)
from petitioner Bangayans current account to partially
satisfy the guaranteed corporations loan.37 At that time,
petitioner Bangayans passbook for his current account
showed that it had funds of twelve million seven hundred
sixtytwo thousand six hundred fortyfive and 64/100 pesos
(PhP12,762,645.64).38
On 12 October 1992, the amount of twelve million seven
hundred sixtytwo thousand and six hundred pesos
(PhP12,762,600) was debited from petitioner Bangayans
current account, consequently reducing the funds to forty
five and 64/100 pesos (PhP45.64).39 Respondent RCBC
claimed that the former amount was debited from
petitioners account to partially pay Lotec Marketings
outstanding obligation which stood at eighteen million
fortyseven thousand thirtythree and 60/100 pesos
(PhP18,047,033.60).40 Lotec Marketing, thereafter, paid
the balance of its obligation to respondent RCBC in the
amount of five million three hundred thirtyeight thousand
eight
hundred
nineteen
and
20/100
pesos
41
(PhP5,338,819.20) under the fourth letter of credit.
On 13 October 2010, the three corporations earlier
adverted to paid the corresponding customs duties
demanded by
_______________
36 Import Bill dated 09 October 1992 (Exhibit 18 RTC records, Vol. 2,
at p. 735).
37 Debit Advice dated 09 October 1992 (Exhibit 19 id., at p. 736).
38 Exhibit A1 id., Vol. 1, at p. 182.
39 Id.
40 Respondent RCBC PreTrial Brief dated 03 February 1993, at pp. 2
3 id., at pp. 208209.
41 RCBC Official Receipt dated 28 October 1992 (Exhibit 20 id., Vol.

2, at p. 737).
17
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
17
the BOC.42 Receipts were subsequently issued by the BOC

for the corporations payments, copies of which were
received by Atty. Nelson Loyola, counsel of petitioner
Bangayan in this case.43 The trial court considered this as
payment by petitioner of the three corporations obligations
for custom duties.44 Thereafter, respondent RCBC released
to the corporations the necessary papers for their PVC
resin shipments which were imported through the banks
letters of credit.45
On 15 October 2010, five other checks of petitioner
Bangayan were presented for payment to respondent
RCBC, namely:
RCBC
Check
No.
93801146
Date of
Presentment
Paid To
15 Oct 1992
Simplex
Merchandising
93801247 15 Oct 1992
Simplex
Merchandising
93801348 15 Oct 1992
Simplex
Merchandising
93801449 15 Oct 1992
Hinomoto Trading
Company
93801550 15 Oct 1992
Hinomoto Trading
Company
TOTAL AMOUNT
Amount
PhP1,200,000
PhP1,260,000
PhP1,180,000
PhP1,052,000
PhP982,000
PhP5,674,000
_______________
42 Exhibits 7a, 8a, and 9a, id., at pp. 718723.
43 Id.
44 It appears that these taxes were eventually funded by plaintiff
sometime on October 13, 1992. (RTC Decision dated 17 October 1994, at
p. 10 Rollo at p. 86.
45 Exhibits 7, 8, and 9, id.
46 Exhibit D id., Vol. 1, at pp. 183.
47 Exhibit C, id.
48 Exhibit B, id.
49 Exhibit I, id., at p. 187.
50 Exhibit J, id.
18
18
On 16 October 1992, these five checks were also

dishonored by respondent RCBC on the ground that they
had been drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF) and
were subsequently returned.51
On 20 October 1992, Hinomoto Trading Company, one of
the payees for two of the dishonored checks,52 demanded
that petitioner Bangayan make good on his payments.53
On 21 October 1992, the other payee of the three other
dishonored checks,54 Simplex Merchandising, likewise
made a final demand on petitioner to replace the
dishonored instruments.55
On 23 October 1992, petitioner Bangayan, through
counsel, demanded that respondent bank restore all the
funds to his account and indemnify him for damages.56
On 30 October 1992, nineteen thousand four hundred
twentyseven and 15/100 pesos (PhP19,427.15) was
credited in petitioner Bangayans current account, with the
transaction reference code INT referring to interest.57
Petitioner explains that even if the outstanding balance at
that time was reduced, this interest was earned based on
the average daily balance of the account for the quarter
and not just on the balance at that time, which was forty
five and 64/100 pesos (PhP45.64).58
_______________
51 Exhibits G and K, id., at pp. 185 and 187.
52 Check Nos. 938014 and 938015 for PhP1,052,000 and PhP982,000,
respectively.
53 Exhibit N RTC records, Vol. 1, at p. 196.
54 Check Nos. 938011, 938012 and 938013 for PhP1,200,000,
PhP1,260,000 and PhP1,180,000, respectively.
55 Exhibit O RTC records, Vol. 1, at p. 197.
56 Petitioner Bangayans letter dated 23 October 1992 (Exhibit L) id.,
at p. 24.
57 Exhibit A1, id., at p. 182.
58 TSN, 15 March 1993, at p. 16.
19
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
19
The Case in the Trial Court

On 09 November 1992, petitioner Bangayan filed a
complaint for damages against respondent RCBC.59
Subsequently, respondent RCBC filed an Answer dated 02
December 1992 with compulsory counterclaims.60 On 12
January 1993, respondent RCBC filed a Motion for Leave
to File Attached Amended Answer and Amended Answer.61

Petitioner Bangayan argues that at the time the
dishonored checks were issued, there were sufficient funds
in his accounts to cover them62 that he was informed by
personnel of respondent RCBC that his accounts were
garnished, but no notice or writ of garnishment was ever
shown to him63 and that his name and reputation were
tarnished because of the dishonor of checks that were
issued in relation to his automotive business.64
In its defense, respondent RCBC claims that petitioner
Bangayan signed a Surety Agreement in favor of several
companies that defaulted in their payment of customs
duties that resulted in the imposition of a lien over the
accounts, particularly for the payment of customs duties
assessed by the Bureau of Customs.65 Respondent bank
further claimed that it had funded the letter of credit66
availed of by Lotec Marketing to finance the latters
importation with the account of petitioner Bangayan, who
agreed to guarantee Lotec Marketings
_______________
59 Complaint dated 05 November 1992 RTC Records, Vol. 1, at pp. 1
30.
60 Id., at pp. 7986.
61 Id., at pp. 125134.
62 Complaint dated 05 November 1992 id., at pp. 36.
63 Id., at p. 6.
64 Id., at pp. 810.
65 Bureau of Customs Letter dated 19 September 1992 (Exhibit 6)
id., Vol. 2, at p. 717.
66 Commercial Letter of Credit Application and Agreement issued on
26 August 1992 (Exhibit 10) id., at pp. 724725.
20
20

obligations under the Surety Agreement and, that

respondent bank applied petitioner Bangayans deposits to
satisfy part of Lotec Marketings obligation in the amount
of twelve million seven hundred sixtytwo thousand and six
hundred pesos (PhP12,762,600), which resulted in the
depletion of the bank accounts.67
Petitioner Bangayan also alleged that respondent RCBC
disclosed to a third party (the BOC) classified information
about the identity and nature of the transactions and
deposits, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. Respondent
RCBC counters that no confidential information on
petitioners bank accounts was disclosed.
Availing himself of discovery proceedings in the lower

court, petitioner Bangayan filed a Request for Admission68
and Request for Answer to Written Interrogatories,69 to
which respondent RCBC filed the corresponding Answers
and Objections to Interrogatories70 and Response to
Request for Admission.71
During the presentation of complainants evidence,
petitioner Bangayan, Atty. Randy Rutaquio, respondent
Saria and Manuel Dantes testified in open court. Petitioner
Bangayan thereafter filed a Formal Offer of Evidence.72
On the other hand, respondent RCBC presented Mr. Lao
as its lone defense witness. Before the termination of Mr.
Laos
_______________
67 Amended Answer dated 12 January 1993 id., Vol. 1, at pp. 131132.
68 Request for Admission dated 01 December 1992 RTC records, Vol.
1, at pp. 8788.
69 Request for Answer to Written Interrogatories dated 01 December
1992, id., at pp. 96100.
70 Answers and Objections to Interrogatories dated 18 December 1992,
id., at pp. 104108.
71 Response to Request for Admission dated 16 December 1992, id., at
pp. 109111.
72 Formal Offer of Exhibits dated 01 April 1993 id., at pp. 235240.
21
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
21
direct examination, respondent RCBC filed a Motion to

Inhibit Presiding Judge Pedro Santiago,73
who
74
subsequently denied the motion. The Order denying the
Motion to Inhibit was the subject matter of petitions filed
by respondent RCBC in the Court of Appeals75 and
subsequently in this Court, which were all dismissed.
In the meantime, when respondent RCBCs witness (Mr.
Lao) failed to appear at the hearing, Judge Santiago
ordered that Mr. Laos testimony be stricken off the record
despite respondent banks motion to have the case reset.76
After the appellate proceedings for respondent RCBCs
Petition as regards the Motion to Inhibit, however, Judge
Santiago set aside his earlier Order and reinstated the
testimony of Mr. Lao, subject to crossexamination.77
Petitioner Bangayan took exception to the Order
reinstating Mr. Laos testimony, but continued to conduct
his cross examination with a reservation to raise the Order
in the appellate courts.78
Respondent RCBC thereafter filed its Formal Offer of
Exhibits.79
On 17 October 1994, the trial court rendered a Decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises above considered, plaintiff not
having proved that defendant RCBC acted wrongly,
maliciously and negligently in dishonoring his 7 checks,
nor has
_______________
73 Respondent RCBCs Motion to Inhibit dated 02 July 1993, id., at pp. 273
281.
74 RTC Order dated 30 July 1993, id., at p. 300.
75 Court of Appeals Decision dated 28 March 1994, id., at pp. 489496.
76 RTC Order dated 06 August 1993, id., at p. 304.
77 RTC Order dated 23 August 1994, id., Vol. 2, at pp. 663664.
78 Petitioner Bangayans Comment dated 07 September 1994, id., at pp. 694
695.
79 Formal Offer of Exhibits dated 28 September 1994, id., at pp. 746754.
22
22

the bank given any confidential informations against the plaintiff

in violation of R.A. 1405 and the defendant bank having
established on the contrary that plaintiff has no sufficient
funds for his said checks, the instant complaint is hereby
DISMISSED.80 (Emphasis supplied)
When his omnibus motion81 to have the Decision

reconsidered was denied,82 petitioner Bangayan filed a
notice of appeal.83
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
After petitioner Bangayan84 and respondent RCBC85
filed their respective appeal briefs, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial courts decision in toto.86 The appellate
court found that the dishonor of the checks by respondent
RCBC was not without good reason, considering that
petitioner Bangayans account had been debited owing to
his obligations as a surety in favor of several corporations.
Thus, the Court Appeals found there was no dishonest
purpose, or some moral obliquity, or conscious doing of
wrong, or breach of a known duty, or some motive or
interest, or ill will that partakes
_______________
80 RTC Decision dated 17 October 1994, at p. 11 Rollo, at p. 37.
81 Petitioner Bangayans Omnibus Motion dated 04 November 1994

RTC records, Vol. 2, at pp. 905946.
82 Order dated 14 December 1994, id., at p. 1040.
83 Petitioner Bangayans Notice of Appeal dated 28 December 1994, id.,
at p. 1041.
84 Petitioner Bangayans Brief for the PlaintiffAppellant dated 28
November 1995, CA Rollo at pp. 2270.
85 Respondent RCBCs Motion to Admit Appellees Brief and Brief for
the Appellees both dated 23 February 1996, CA Rollo at pp. 162200.
86 WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no reversible
error, the Decision dated October 17, 1994 (Records pp. 887897) in Civil
Case No. Q9213949, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No Cost against
Appellant. (CA Decision dated 06 August 2001 Rollo at pp. 6276)
23
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
23
(sic) nature of fraud that can be attributed to respondent

RCBC.87 It likewise ruled that petitioner Bangayan cannot
raise the question as to the genuineness, authenticity and
due execution of the Surety Agreement for the first time on
appeal.88
This Decision of the appellate court is the subject of the
instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner
Bangayan under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.89
Assignment of Errors
Petitioner Bangayan makes the following assignment of
errors:
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GROSS
ARBITRARINESS AND IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITITONER TO DUE
PROCESS, AND A FAIR TRIAL:
(1) WHEN IT REINSTATED THE TESTIMONY OF ELI
LAO ALREADY STRICKEN OFF THE RECORDS UPON
PRIOR ORDER OF THE RTC AFFIRMED BY THE
COURT OFAPPEALS AND CONFIRMED BY THE
SUPREME COURT
(2) WHEN IT SANCTIONED THE CAVALIER ACT OF
RESPONDENTS IN DEMEANING THE RULES ON
DISCOVERY PROCEDURE
(3) WHEN IT RENDERED A DECISION WHICH IS
CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AT THE TRIAL and
(4) WHEN IT REFUSED TO APPLY THE LAWS
SQUARELY IN POINT ON THE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY.
_______________
87 CA Decision dated 06 August 2001, at p. 10 Rollo at p. 71.
88 Id., at p. 13 Rollo at p. 74.
89 Petitioner Bangayans Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 12 September
2001, Rollo at pp. 859.
24
24

B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THIS

CASE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE APPLICABLE
DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT
C. THERE ARE SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT REASONS THAT
REQUIRE A REVIEW OF THE CA DECISION
D. THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
NEITHER JUST NOR IN ACCORD WITH THE RULES OF LAW
AND JURISPRUDENCE NOR IS IT EQUITABLE AND IT
IGNORES THE PREVIOUS RULINGS OF THE SUPREME
COURT IN EARLIER PRECEDENT CASES.90
The Issues
A. Whether respondent RCBC was justified in
dishonoring the checks, and, consequently, whether
petitioner Bangayan is entitled to damages arising from
the dishonor.
B. Whether there was reversible error on the part of
the lower court in allowing the testimony of Mr. Lao,
despite its earlier Order to strike off the testimony.
C. Whether respondent RCBC violated the Bank
Secrecy Act.
The Ruling of the Court
Preliminarily, petitioner Bangayan raises questions of
fact91 regarding the authenticity of the Surety Agreement
and the events leading up to the dishonor of the seven
checks. However, petitions for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 are
_______________
90 Id., at pp. 78 Rollo at pp. 1415.
91 The petitioner unto this Honorable Supreme Court respectfully
appeals by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court on questions of law, fact and errors of judgment of
the Honorable Court of Appeals that sustained the decision of the RTC of
Quezon City, Br. 101, in CC Q9213949, dismissing the case. (Petition at
p. 7, id., at p. 14)
25
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
25
limited only to pure questions of law92 and, generally,

questions of fact are not reviewable93 since this Court is
not a trier of facts.94 Although respondent RCBC briefly
treated this procedural matter,95 the Court finds that the
instant Petition is indeed subject to dismissal because the
determination of questions of fact is improper in a Rule 45
proceeding.96 In any case, even if procedural rules were to
be relaxed at this instance, the substantial merits of
petitioner Bangayans cause is nonetheless insufficient to
reverse the decisions of the trial and appellate courts, as
will be discussed in detail below.
A. There was no malice or bad faith on
the part of respondent RCBC in the
dishonor of the checks, since its ac
tions were justified by petitioner
Bangayans obligations under the
Surety Agreement.
The Court is unconvinced by petitioner Bangayans
arguments that respondent RCBC acted with malice or bad
faith in dishonoring the seven checks, which would entitle
him to an award of damages.
_______________
92 The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth. (Rule 45, Sec. 1)
93 As a general rule, questions of fact are not proper in a petition filed
under Rule 45. (Adriano v. Tanco, G.R. No. 168164, 05 July 2010, 623
SCRA 218)
94 The Court has held in a long line of cases that in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of
law may be raised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. (Republic
v. Mangotara, G.R. Nos. 170375, 170505, 17335556, 173401, 17356364,
178779 & 178894, 07 July 2010, 624 SCRA 360)
95 Respondent RCBCs Memorandum dated 07 November 2002, at pp.
12 Rollo at pp. 297298.
96 Hacienda Bigaa, Inc. v. Chavez, G.R. No. 174160, 20 April 2010, 618
SCRA 559.
26
26

At the heart of the controversy is the Surety Agreement
that secured the obligations of the nine corporations in

favor of respondent RCBC.
Petitioner
Bangayan
denies
the
genuineness,
authenticity and due execution of the alleged agreement on
the following grounds: (a) his signature on the document is
not genuine (b) the Surety Agreement was never
notarized and (c) the alleged accounts, being guaranteed,
appear in a separate piece of paper that does not bear his
signature or conformity.97
Both the trial and the appellate courts gave credence to
the Surety Agreement, which categorically guaranteed the
four corporations obligations to respondent RCBC under
the letters of credit. Petitioner Bangayan did not provide
sufficient reason for the Court to reverse these findings.
The evidence on record supports the conclusion arrived at
by the lower court and the Court of Appeals.
First, aside from his bare allegations, petitioner
Bangayan failed to establish how his signature in the
Surety Agreement was forged and therefore, not genuine.
Before a private document is offered as authentic, its
due execution and authenticity must be proved: (a) either
by anyone who has seen the document executed or written
or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.98 As a rule, forgery cannot be
presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence.99
_______________
97 Petition dated 12 September 2001, para. 25, at p. 44 Rollo at 50.
98 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 20 Spouses Dela Rama v. Spouses
Papa, G.R. No. 142309, 30 January 2009, 577 SCRA 233.
99 Libres v. Spouses Delos Santos, G.R. No. 176358, 17 June 2008, 554
SCRA 642.
27
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
27
The burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery.100

Mere allegation of forgery is not evidence.101
Mr. Lao, witness for respondent RCBC, identified the
Surety Agreement102 as well as the genuineness of
petitioner Bangayans signature therein using petitioners
signature cards in his bank accounts.103 The trial and the
appellate courts gave due credence to the identification and
authentication of the Surety Agreement made by Mr.
Lao.104
In DehezaInamarga v. Alano,105 the Court ruled that:
The question of forgery is one of fact. It is wellsettled

that when supported by substantial evidence or borne out by the
records, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive
and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.
It is a hornbook doctrine that the findings of fact of trial courts
are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed
except for strong and valid reasons. It is not a function of this
Court to analyze and weigh evidence by the parties all over again.
Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law that might
have been committed by the Court of Appeals. Where the
factual findings of the trial court are affirmed in toto by
the Court of Appeals as in this case, there is great reason
for not disturbing such findings and for regarding them as
not reviewable by this Court. (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, petitioner Bangayan did not adduce any

evidence to support his claim of forgery, despite the
opportunity to do so. Considering that there was evidence
on record of his genuine signature and handwriting (the
signature card and
_______________
100 Id.
101 St. Marys Farm, Inc., v. Prima Real Properties, Inc., G.R. No.
158144, 31 July 2008, 560 SCRA 704.
102 TSN, 04 June 1993, at pp. 619.
103 Exhibit 2, RTC records, Vol. 2, at pp. 708710.
104 RTC Decision dated 17 October 1994, at p. 9 (Rollo at p. 85) CA
Decision dated 06 August 2001, at p. 12 (Rollo at p. 73).
105 G.R. No. 171321, 18 December 2008, 574 SCRA 651.
28
28

the dishonored checks themselves), nothing should have

prevented petitioner Bangayan from submitting the Surety
Agreement for examination or comparison by a
handwriting expert.
Even respondent RCBC did not interpose any objection
when the possibility of forwarding the signature card and
Surety Agreement forwarded to the National Bureau of
Investigation for examination was raised during the
testimony of Mr. Lao:
ATTY. LOYOLA
Considering the delicate nature or the significance of the
signatures in the signature cards and the risk of my admitting the
authenticity of a mere xerox copies [sic] and considering further
that it is our position that the surety agreement as well as
specimen signatures on the signature cards must be

submitted to the Court and later forwarded to the NBI,
Question Document Section, for examination, I am in no
position to admit now that the machine copies in the signature
cards are faithful reproduction. Accordingly, I am hoping at this
stage that the surety agreement and the signature cards be
forwarded to the NBI later on for examination and in the
mean time, the questioned documents be entrusted to the custody
of the Honorable Court.
ATTY. POBLADOR
With respect to the manifestation of counsel that the
documents with the signatures should be submitted to the
NBI, we have no objection, but at this juncture, we are only
asking, Your Honor, if the xerox copies are faithful reproduction of
the original.106 (Emphasis supplied)
Despite his intention to have the signatures in the

Surety Agreement compared with those in the signature
cards, peti
_______________
106 TSN, 04 June 1993 at pp. 1314.
29
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
29
tioner Bangayan did not have the questioned document

examined by a handwriting expert in rebuttal and simply
relied on his bare allegations. There is no clear, positive
and convincing evidence to show that his signature in the
Surety Agreement was indeed forged. As petitioner failed
to discharge his burden of demonstrating that his signature
was forged, there is no reason to overturn the factual
findings of the lower courts with respect to the genuineness
and due execution of the Surety Agreement.
Second, the mere absence of notarization does not
necessarily render the Surety Agreement invalid.
Notarization of a private document converts the
document into a public one, renders it admissible in court
without further proof of its authenticity, and is entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face.107 However, the
irregular notarizationor, for that matter, the lack of
notarizationdoes not necessarily affect the validity of the
contract reflected in the document.108
On its face, the Surety Agreement is not notarized, even
if respondent RCBCs standard form for that agreement
makes provisions for it. The noncompletion of the
notarization form, however, does not detract from the
validity of the agreement, especially in this case where the
genuineness and due authenticity of petitioner Bangayans

signature in the contract was not successfully assailed.
The failure to notarize the Surety Agreement does not
invalidate petitioner Bangayans consent to act as surety
for the nine corporations obligations to respondent RCBC.
Contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have
been entered
_______________
107 Herbon v. Palad, G.R. No. 149542, 20 July 2006, 495 SCRA 544.
108 Camcam v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142977, 30 September 2008,
567 SCRA 151 Gelos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86186, 08 May 1992,
208 SCRA 608.
30
30

into, provided all essential requisites are present109 and

the notarization is not an essential requisite for the
validity of a Surety Agreement.110
Third, that the annex of the Surety Agreement does not
bear petitioner Bangayans signature is not a sufficient
ground to invalidate the main agreement altogether. As the
records will bear out, the Surety Agreement enumerated
the names of the corporation whose obligations petitioner
Bangayan are securing. The annex to the Surety
Agreement enumerated not only the names of the
corporations but their respective addresses as well.111 The
corporations enumerated in the annex correspond to the
nine corporations enumerated in the main body of the
Surety Agreement. Ordinarily, the name and address of the
principal borrower whose obligation is sought to be assured
by the surety is placed in the body of the agreement, but in
this case the addresses could not all fit in the body of the
document, thus, requiring that the address be written in an
annex. The Surety Agreement itself noted that the
principal places of business and postal addresses of the
nine corporations were to be found in an attached
document.
Fourth, petitioner Bangayan never contested the
existence of the Surety Agreement prior to the filing of the
Complaint. When Mr. Lao informed him of the letter from
the BOC regarding the failure of the three corporations to
pay the customs duties under the letters of credit, the
petitioner assured respondent bank that he is doing
everything he can to solve the problem.112 If petitioner
Bangayan purportedly never
_______________
109 CIVIL CODE, Art. 1356 Mallari v. Alsol, G.R. No. 150866, 06 March
2006, 484 SCRA 148.
110 [T]he lack of proper notarization does not necessarily nullify nor
render the parties transaction void ab initio. (Fernandez v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 187478, 21 December 2009,
608 SCRA 733)
111 Exhibit 1b, RTC records, Vol. 2, at p. 707.
112 TSN, 04 June 1993, at p. 29.
31
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
31
signed the Surety Agreement, he would have been

surprised or at least perplexed that respondent RCBC
would contact him regarding the three corporations letters
of credit, when, as he claims, he never agreed to act as
their surety. Instead, he acknowledged the situation and
even offered to solve the predicament of these borrower
corporations. In fact, Atty. Loyola, petitioners counsel in
this case, even obtained copies of the BOC receipts after
the three corporations paid the customs duties for their
importation under the letters of credit giving a possible
interpretation that petitioner was himself answering the
obligations of the three corporations for the unpaid customs
duties.
It must be emphasized that petitioner Bangayan did not
complain against the four corporations which had
benefitted from his bank account. He claims to have no
reasonable connection to these borrower corporations and
denies having signed the Surety Agreement. If true,
nothing should have stopped him from taking these
corporations to court and demanding compensation as well
as damages for their unauthorized use of his bank account.
Yet, these bank accounts were put on hold and/or depleted
by the letters of credit issued to the four entities. That
petitioner did not include them in the present suit
strengthens the finding that he had indeed consented to act
as surety for those entities, and that there seems to be no
arms length relationship between petitioner and the three
entities.
Whatever damage to petitioner Bangayans interest or
reputation from the dishonor of the seven checks was a
consequence of his agreement to act as surety for the
corporations and their failure to pay their loan obligations,
advances and other expenses.
With respect to the first two dishonored checks,
respondent RCBC had already put on hold petitioner
Bangayans account to answer for the customs duties being
demanded from the bank by the BOC. In fact, the trial

court considered the referral of these checks to petitioner
Bangayan as an effort by
32
32

respondent RCBC to allow its depositor an opportunity to

arrange his accounts and provide funds for his checks.113
It likewise appeared to the appellate court that the funds
in petitioners account served as the lien of the custom
duties assessed thus, the funds cannot be considered as
sufficient to cover future transactions.114
On the other hand, the five other checks were
subsequently dishonored because petitioner Bangayans
account was by that time already depleted due to the
partial payment of Lotec Marketings loan obligation.115
Although the lien earlier imposed on petitioners account
was lifted when the three corporations paid the customs
duties,116 the account was almost completely depleted
when the funds were subsequently used to partially pay
Lotec Marketings outstanding obligation under the fourth
letter of credit.117 Respondent RCBC was compelled to
fully debit the funds to satisfy the main loan obligation of
Lotec Marketing, which petitioner had guaranteed in joint
and several capacity.
What must be underscored in respondent RCBCs
immediate action of applying petitioner Bangayans
account to the Lotec Marketing is the nature of the loan
instrument used in this casea letter of credit. In a letter
of credit, the engagement of the issuing bank (respondent
RCBC in this instance) is to pay the seller or beneficiary of
the credit (or the advising bank, Korean Exchange Bank, in
this instance)
_______________
113 RTC Decision dated 17 October 1994, at pp. 1011 Rollo at pp. 86
87.
115 Respondent RCBC debited the amount of PhP12,762,600 from
petitioner Bangayans account to partially answer for the outstanding
debt of Lotec Marketing, which totaled US$712,800 or PhP18,047,033.60.
116 Official Receipt Entry Nos. 27076357, 2706332 and 27076341, all
dated 13 October 1992 (Exhibit Nos. 7a, 8a, and 9A RTC records,
Vol. 2, at pp. 768, 770 and 772).
117 When the five checks were presented on 15 October 1992, only
PhP45.64 was left in petitioner Bangayans account, which was
insufficient to finance the checks.
33
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
33
once the draft and the required documents are presented to

it.118 This independence principle in letters of credit
assures the seller or the beneficiary of prompt payment
independent of any breach of the main contract and
precludes the issuing bank from determining whether the
main contract is actually accomplished or not.119
In this case, respondent RCBC, as the issuing bank for
Lotec Marketings letter of credit had to make prompt
payment to Korea Exchange Bank (the advising bank)
when the obligation became due and demandable. Precisely
because of the independence principle in letters of credit
and the need for prompt payment,120 respondent RCBC
required a Surety Agreement from petitioner Bangayan
before issuing the letters of credit in favor of the four
corporations, including Lotec Marketing.
Under Articles 2199121 and 2200122 of the Civil Code,
actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in
satisfaction of
_______________
118 Transfield Philippines, Inc., v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, G.R. No.
146717, 22 November 2004, 443 SCRA 307.
119 Landbank of the Philippines, v. Monets Export and Manufacturing
Corporation, G.R. No. 161865, 10 March 2005, 453 SCRA 173.
120 [I]f the letter of credit is drawable only after the settlement of any
dispute on the main contract entered into by the applicant of the said
letter of credit and the beneficiary, then there would be no practical and
beneficial use for letters of credit in commercial transactions. (Landbank
of the Philippines, v. Monets Export and Manufacturing Corporation, Id.)
121 Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him
as he has duly proved. (Civil Code, Art. 2199)
122Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value
of the loss suffered but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to
obtain. (Civil Code, Art. 2200)
34
34

or in recompense for loss or injury sustained.123 They

proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to
repair the wrong that has been done.124
In all seven dishonored checks, respondent RCBC

properly exercised its right as a creditor under the Surety
Agreement to apply the petitioner Bangayans funds in his
accounts as security for the obligations of the four
corporations under the letters of credit. Thus, petitioner
Bangayan cannot attribute any wrong or misconduct to
respondent RCBC since there was no malice or bad faith on
the part of respondent in dishonoring the checks. Any
damage to petitioner arising from the dishonor of those
checks was brought about, not by the banks actions, but by
the corporations that defaulted on their obligations that
petitioner had guaranteed to pay. The trial and the
appellate courts, therefore, committed no reversible error
in disallowing the award of damages to petitioner.
B. The trial court did not commit
reversible error when it reinstated
the testimony of Mr. Lao and al
lowed petitioner Bangayan to
crossexamine him.
Petitioner Bangayan also assails the lower courts order
that reinstated the direct testimony of Mr. Lao, respondent
RCBCs lone witness. Petitioner claims that Judge
Santiago acted with partiality by reinstating Mr. Laos
testimony, because this Court in another case had already
sustained the lower courts earlier Order striking out the
testimony. Hence, petitioner says that the judges
reinstatement of Mr. Laos testimony was in violation of
petitioners right to due process.
Petitioner Bangayans arguments are unmeritorious.
_______________
123 Casio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133803, 16 September 2005,
470 SCRA 57.
124 Id.
35
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
35
Discretionary power is generally exercised by trial

judges in furtherance of the convenience of the courts and
the litigants, the expedition of business, and in the decision
of interlocutory matters on conflicting facts where one
tribunal could not easily prescribe to another the
appropriate rule of procedure.125 Thus, the Court ruled:
In its very nature, the discretionary control conferred upon
the trial judge over the proceedings had before him implies the
absence of any hardandfast rule by which it is to be exercised,
and in accordance with which it may be reviewed. But the
discretion conferred upon the courts is not a willful,

arbitrary, capricious and uncontrolled discretion. It is a
sound, judicial discretion which should always be
exercised with due regard to the rights of the parties and
the demands of equity and justice. As was said in the case of
The Styria vs. Morgan (186 U.S., 1, 9): The establishment of a
clearly defined rule of action would be the end of discretion, and
yet discretion should not be a word for arbitrary will or
inconsiderate action. So in the case of Goodwin vs. Prime (92
Me., 355), it was said that discretion implies that in the
absence of positive law or fixed rule the judge is to decide
by his view of expediency or by the demands of equity and
justice.
There being no positive law or fixed rule to guide the judge in
the court below in such cases, there is no positive law or fixed
rule to guide a court of appeals in reviewing his action in the
premises, and such courts will not therefore attempt to
control the exercise of discretion by the court below
unless it plainly appears that there was inconsiderate
action or the exercise of mere arbitrary will, or in other
words that his action in the premises amounted to an
abuse of discretion. But the right of an appellate court to
review judicial acts which lie in the discretion of inferior courts
may properly be invoked upon a showing of a strong and clear
case of abuse of power to the prejudice of the appel
_______________
125 Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc., v. Presiding Judge of RTC
Negros Occidental, G.R. No. 179878, 24 December 2008, 575 SCRA 575, citing
Luna v. Arcenas, 34 Phil. 80 (1916).
36
36

lant, or that the ruling objected to rested on an erroneous

principle of law not vested in discretion.126 (Emphasis supplied)
Prior to a final judgment, trial courts have plenary

control over the proceedings including the judgment, and in
the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, may take such
proper action in this regard as truth and justice may
require.127
In the instant case, the trial court was within the
exercise of its discretionary and plenary control of the
proceedings when it reconsidered motu proprio its earlier
order striking out the testimony of Mr. Lao128 and ordered
it reinstated.129 The order of the judge cannot be
considered as willful, arbitrary, capricious and
uncontrolled discretion, since his action allowed
respondent bank to present its case fully, especially

considering that Mr. Lao was the sole witness for the
defense.
Petitioner Bangayans reliance130 on the Decisions of
the Court of Appeals (CAG.R. SP No. 31865) and this
Court (G.R. No. 115922) with respect to respondent RCBCs
Petition is misplaced. Contrary to his claim, what
respondent RCBC
_______________
126 Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. v. Presiding Judge of
RTCNegros Occidental, id.
127 Clorox Company v. Director of Patents, G.R. No. L19531, 10
August 1967, 20 SCRA 965, citing Arnedo v. Llorente, 18 Phil. 257 (1911).
128 RTC Order dated 06 August 1993 RTC records, Vol. 1 at p. 304.
129 Moreover, in the interests of substantial justice, this Court hereby
orders the reinstatement of Mr. Eli Laos testimony which was previously
stricken off the record in view of repeated absences of said witness for
cross examination. THE DEFENDANTS
OF
THEIR WITNESS
ABSENCE
OF
FOR
ARE
ENJOINED
CROSS EXAMINATION
ON THE
TO
ENSURE
BE
DEALT
WITH
PRESENCE
SCHEDULED HEARING. THE
SAID WITNESS WHICH WILL FURTHER DELAY
THIS CASE WILL
THE
THE
PROCEEDINGS
OF
ACCORDINGLY. (RTC Order dated 23 August
1994 RTC records, Vol. 2, at pp. 663664)

130 Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 12 September 2001, at
para. 2223, p. 6 Rollo at p. 13.
37
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
37
questioned in those cases was the denial by Judge Santiago

of its Motion for Inhibition.131 As respondent pointed out,
its Petitions to the Court of Appeals and the Court simply
prayed for the reversal of the denial of the Motion for
Inhibition and did not include the Order striking out the
testimony of Mr. Lao. Even the appellate court (CAG.R.
CV No. 48479) noted that what was resolved by the High
Court was the issue of Inhibition of the Judge and not the
striking out of the testimony of Mr. Eli Lao.132
Neither can petitioner Bangayan claim any deprivation
of due process when the trial court ordered the
reinstatement of Mr. Laos testimony without any motion
or prayer from respondent RCBC. The right of a party to
confront and crossexamine opposing witnesses in a judicial
litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings
before administrative tribunals with quasijudicial powers,
is a fundamental right which is part of due process.133 This
right, however, has always been understood as requiring
not necessarily an actual crossexamination but merely an
opportunity to exercise the right to crossexamine if

desired.134 What is proscribed by statutory norm and
jurisprudential precept is the absence of the opportunity to
crossexamine.135
In this case, petitioner Bangayans right to due process
was not violated, as he was given the freedom and
opportunity to crossexamine and confront Mr. Lao on the
latters testimony. Even if respondent RCBC had not filed
any motion, it was well within the courts discretion to have
Mr. Laos testimony reinstated in the interest of
substantial justice. The proceed
_______________
131 RTC Order dated 30 July 1993 RTC records, Vol. 1, at p. 300.
133 Vertudes v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166, 16 December 2005, 478
SCRA 210.
134 People v. Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756, 04 April 2003, 400 SCRA
603.
135 People v. Escote, Jr., id.
38
38

ings in the trial court in this civil case were adversarial in

nature insofar as the parties, in the process of attaining
justice, were made to advocate their respective positions in
order to ascertain the truth.136 The truthseeking function
of the judicial system is best served by giving an
opportunity to all parties to fully present their case, subject
to procedural and evidentiary rules. Absent any blatant
neglect or willful delay, both parties should be afforded
equal latitude in presenting the evidence and the
testimonies of their witnesses in favor of their respective
positions, as well as in testing the credibility and the
veracity of the opposing partys claims through cross
examination.
The Court finds no reversible error on the part of the
trial court in allowing the full presentation of the
reinstated testimony of respondent RCBCs lone witness,
especially since the other party was afforded the occasion
to crossexamine the witness and in fact availed himself of
the opportunity. Although he expressly reserved his right
to question the courts reinstatement of the testimony of
the witness, petitioner Bangayan did not satisfactorily offer
convincing arguments to overturn the trial courts order.
That the court gave petitioner the opportunity to cross
examine Mr. Laoa remedy that petitioner even fully
availed himself ofnegates the allegation of bias against

the Judge.
The timing of petitioner Bangayans allegations of
prejudice on the part of Judge Santiago is suspect, since
the latter had already rendered a Decision unfavorable to
petitioners cause.
A motion to inhibit shall be denied if filed after a
member of the court has already given an opinion on the
merits of the case, the rationale being that a litigant
cannot be permitted
_______________
136 While our litigation is adversarial in nature, its purpose is always
to ascertain the truth for justice is not justice unless predicated on truth.
(People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117624, 04 December 1997, 282 SCRA 387)
39
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
39
to speculate on the action of the court . . . (only to) raise an

objection of this sort after the decision has been
rendered.137
When respondent RCBC moved for Judge Santiagos
inhibition, petitioner even interposed an objection and
characterized as unfounded respondent banks charge of
partiality.1381 It is now too late in the day to suddenly
accuse Judge Santiago of prejudice in the proceedings
below, after he has already rendered an unfavorable
judgment against petitioner. If at all, the latters claim that
Judge Santiago was biased in favoring respondent RCBC is
a mere afterthought that fails to support a reversal by the
Court.
C. Respondent RCBC did not
violate the Bank Secrecy
Act.
The Court affirms the trial courts findings which were
likewise concurred with by the Court of Appeals that the
alleged violation of the Bank Secrecy Act was not
substantiated:
The Customss investigation with a subpoena/duces tecum
sent to witness Mr. Lao on the three companies, Final Sales
Enterprises, Peak Marketing and LBZ Commercial, guaranteed
by plaintiff naturally raised an alarm. Mr. Lao was asked to bring
documents on the questioned importations. The witness denied
having given any statement in connection therewith. No evidence
was introduced by plaintiff to substantiate his claim that
defendant bank gave any classified information in violation of
Republic Act No. 1405. On this score, plaintiff has no cause of
action for damages against said defendant RCBC.139

_______________
137 Pasricha v. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 136409, 14
March 2008, 548 SCRA 273.
138 Opposition to the Motion for Inhibition dated 13 July 1993 RTC
records, Vol. 1, at pp. 287292.
139 RTC Decision dated 17 October 1994, at p. 8 (Rollo at p. 84) see
also CA Decision dated 06 August 2001, at p. 14 (Rollo at p. 75).
40
40

In his Memorandum, petitioner Bangayan argues that

there was a wrongful disclosure by respondents RCBC and
Philip Saria of confidential information regarding his bank
accounts in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act.140 However,
petitioner failed to identify which confidential information
respondents divulged before the BOC that would make
them liable under the said law.
Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Act provides:
All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds
issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of
an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau
or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in
cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases
of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases
where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
litigation.
Petitioner Bangayan claims that respondent Saria

divulged confidential information through the Affidavit he
submitted to the BOC.141 However, nothing in respondent
Sarias Affidavit before the BOC showed that details of
petitioner Bangayans bank accounts with respondent bank
was disclosed. If at all, respondent Saria merely discussed
his functions as an account officer in respondent bank and
identified petitioner as the one who had guaranteed the
payment or obligations of the importers under the Surety
Agreement.
According to petitioner Bangayan, the responses of
respondent RCBCs officers in relation to the BOCs actions
led to unsavory news reports that disparaged petitioners
good character and reputation and exposed him to public
ridicule
_______________
140 Petitioner Bangayans Memorandum dated 22 October 2002 at
para. 913, 4546 Rollo at pp. 281282.
141 Exhibit P, RTC records, Vol. 1, at pp. 198202.
41
VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011
41
and contempt.142 However, as the appellate court correctly

found, the humiliation and embarrassment that petitioner
Bangayan suffered in the business community was not
brought about by the alleged violation of the Bank Secrecy
Act it was due to the smuggling charges filed by the
Bureau of Customs which found their way in the headlines
of newspapers.143
Both the trial and appellate courts correctly found that
petitioner Bangayan did not satisfactorily introduce
evidence to substantiate his claim that defendant bank
gave any classified information in violation of the Bank
Secrecy Act. Failing to adduce further evidence in the
instant Petition with respect to the banks purported
disclosure of confidential information as regards his
accounts, petitioner cannot be awarded any damages
arising from an unsubstantiated and unproved violation of
the Bank Secrecy Act.
Rules of Discovery
The Court finds that petitioner Bangayans argument as
regards the banks purported failure to comply with the
rules of discovery is not substantive enough to warrant
further discussion by this Court. Petitioner has not alleged
any different outcome that would be generated if we were
to agree with him on this point. If petitioner is unsatisfied
with respondent RCBCs responses, then his remedy is to
expose the falsity (if any) of the banks responses in the
various modes of discovery during the trial proper. He
could have confronted respondent with contradictory
statements, testimonies or other countervailing evidence.
The Court affirms the findings
_______________
142 Petitioner Bangayans Memorandum dated 22 October 2002, at p.
47 Rollo at p. 283.
42
42
of the appellate court that the rules of discovery were not

treated lightly by respondent RCBC.144
In summary, petitioner Bangayan failed to establish
that the dishonor of the seven checks by respondent RCBC
entitled him to damages, since the dishonor arose from his
own voluntary agreement to act as surety for the four
corporations letters of credit. There was no bad faith or
malice on the part of respondent bank, as it merely acted
within its rights as a creditor under the Surety Agreement.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition
for Review on Certiorari filed by Ricardo B. Bangayan is
DENIED. The Decisions of the trial court and appellate
court dismissing the Complaint for damages filed by
Bangayan against respondents Rizal Commercial Banking
Corporation and Philip Saria are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio,** CarpioMorales (Chairperson), Bersamin and
Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Note.The right to crossexamine is not an
indispensable aspect of due process. (Erece vs. Macalingay,
552 SCRA 320 [2008])
o0o
_______________
144 The filing of the two pleadings by DefendantsAppellants surely
belies any accusations [sic] that they took lightly the Request for
Admission and Request for Answer to Interrogatories. Absent any
showing that DefendantsAppellees did not file any pleadings, we see no
reason why we should entertain said assigned error. (CA Decision dated
06 August 2001, at p. 14 Rollo at p. 75)
** As per Division Raffle dated 13 September 2010.
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

Bangayan vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bangayan vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bangayan vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 149193. April 4, 2011.

RICARDO B. BANGAYAN, petitioner, vs. RIZAL

VOL. 647, APRIL 4, 2011