8/19/2017 G.R. No.

198660

Today is Saturday, August 19, 2017

Custom Search

Republic of the Philippines

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 198660 October 23, 2013

TING TING PUA, Petitioner,

RESOLUTION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

Under consideration is the Motion for Reconsideration interposed by petitioner Ting Ting Pua Pua) of our Resolution
dated April 18, 2012 effectively affirming the Decision1 and Resolution2 dated March 31, 2011 and September 26,
2011, respectively, of the Court of Appeals CA) In CA- G.R. CV No. 93755, which, in turn, reversed the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court RTC) of the City of Manila, Branch 29 in Civil Case No. 97-83027.

As culled from the adverted R TC Decision, as adopted for the most part by the CA, the antecedent facts may be
summarized as follows:

The controversy arose from a Complaint for a Sum of Money3 filed by petitioner Pua against respondent-spouses
Benito Lo Bun Tiong Benito) and Caroline Siok Ching Teng Caroline). In the complaint, Pua prayed that, among
other things, respondents, or then defendants, pay Pua the amount eight million five hundred thousand pesos (PhP
8,500,000), covered by a check. (Exhibit "A," for plaintiff)

During trial, petitioner Pua clarified that the PhP 8,500,000 check was given by respondents to pay the loans they
obtained from her under a compounded interest agreement on various dates in 1988.4 As Pua narrated, her sister,
Lilian Balboa (Lilian), vouched for respondents ability to pay so that when respondents approached her, she
immediately acceded and lent money to respondents without requiring any collateral except post-dated checks
bearing the borrowed amounts.5 In all, respondents issued 176 checks for a total amount of one million nine
hundred seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP 1,975,000). These checks were dishonored upon presentment to the
drawee bank.7

As a result of the dishonor, petitioner demanded payment. Respondents, however, pleaded for more time because
of their financial difficulties.8 Petitioner Pua obliged and simply reminded the respondents of their indebtedness from
time to time.9

Sometime in September 1996, when their financial situation turned better, respondents allegedly called and asked
petitioner Pua for the computation of their loan obligations.10 Hence, petitioner handed them a computation dated
October 2, 199611 which showed that, at the agreed 2% compounded interest rate per month, the amount of the
loan payable to petitioner rose to thirteen million two hundred eighteen thousand five hundred forty-four pesos and
20/100 (PhP 13,218,544.20).12 On receiving the computation, the respondents asked petitioner to reduce their
indebtedness to PhP 8,500,000.13 Wanting to get paid the soonest possible time, petitioner Pua agreed to the
lowered amount.14

Respondents then delivered to petitioner Asiatrust Check No. BND057750 bearing the reduced amount of PhP
8,500,000 dated March 30, 1997 with the assurance that the check was good.15 In turn, respondents demanded the
return of the 17 previously dishonored checks. Petitioner, however, refused to return the bad checks and advised
respondents that she will do so only after the encashment of Asiatrust Check No. BND057750.16

Like the 17 checks, however, Check No. BND057750 was also dishonored when it was presented by petitioner to
the drawee bank. Hence, as claimed by petitioner, she decided to file a complaint to collect the money owed her by
respondents.

For the defense, both respondents Caroline and Benito testified along with Rosa Dela Cruz Tuazon (Tuazon), who
was the OIC-Manager of Asiatrust-Binondo Branch in 1997. Respondents categorically denied obtaining a loan from
petitioner.17 Respondent Caroline, in particular, narrated that, in August 1995, she and petitioners sister, Lilian,
forged a partnership that operated a mahjong business. Their agreement was for Lilian to serve as the capitalist
while respondent Caroline was to act as the cashier. Caroline also agreed to use her personal checks to pay for the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198660_2013.html 1/9
8/19/2017 G.R. No. 198660

operational expenses including the payment of the winners of the games.18 As the partners anticipated that Caroline
will not always be in town to prepare these checks, she left with Lilian five (5) pre-signed and consecutively
numbered checks19 on the condition that these checks will only be used to cover the costs of the business
operations and in no circumstance will the amount of the checks exceed PhP 5,000.20

In March 1996, however, respondent Caroline and Lilian had a serious disagreement that resulted in the dissolution
of their partnership and the cessation of their business. In the haste of the dissolution and as a result of their bitter
separation, respondent Caroline alleged that she forgot about the five (5) pre-signed checks she left with Lilian.21 It
was only when Lilians husband, Vicente Balboa (Vicente), filed a complaint for sum of money in February 1997
against respondents to recover five million one hundred seventy-five thousand two hundred fifty pesos (PhP
5,175,250), covering three of the five post-dated and pre-signed checks.22

Respondent Caroline categorically denied having completed Check No. BND057750 by using a check writer or
typewriter as she had no check writer and she had always completed checks in her own handwriting.23 She insisted
that petitioner and her sister completed the check after its delivery.24 Furthermore, she could not have gone to see
petitioner Pua with her husband as they had been separated in fact for nearly 10 years.25 As for the 17 checks
issued by her in 1988, Caroline alleged that they were not intended for Pua but were issued for the benefit of other
persons.26 Caroline postulated that the complaint is designed to allow Puas sister, Lilian, to recover her losses in
the foreign exchange business she had with Caroline in the 1980s. Respondent Benito corroborated Carolines
testimony respecting their almost a decade separation.27 As such, he could not have had accompanied his wife to
see petitioner to persuade the latter to lower down any alleged indebtedness.28 In fact, Benito declared, before the
filing of the Complaint, he had never met petitioner Pua, let alone approached her with his wife to borrow money.29
He claimed that he was impleaded in the case to attach his property and force him to enter into an amicable
settlement with petitioner.30 Benito pointed out that Check No. BND057750 was issued under Asiatrust Account No.
5513-0054-9, which is solely under the name of his wife.31

The witness for the respondents, Ms. Tuazon, testified that respondent Caroline opened Asiatrust Account No.
5513-0054-9 in September 1994.32 She claimed that the average maintaining balance of respondent Caroline was
PhP 2,000 and the highest amount issued by Caroline from her account was PhP 435,000.33 She maintained that
respondent Caroline had always completed her checks with her own handwriting and not with a check writer. On
October 15, 1996, Carolines checking account was closed at the instance of the bank due to 69 instances of check
issuance against insufficient balance.34

After trial, the RTC issued its Decision dated January 31, 2006 in favor of petitioner. In holding thus, the RTC stated
that the possession by petitioner of the checks signed by Caroline, under the Negotiable Instruments Law, raises the
presumption that they were issued and delivered for a valuable consideration. On the other hand, the court a quo
discounted the testimony for the defense completely denying respondents loan obligation to Pua.35

The trial court, however, refused to order respondents to pay petitioner the amount of PhP 8,500,000 considering
that the agreement to pay interest on the loan was not expressly stipulated in writing by the parties. The RTC,
instead, ordered respondents to pay the principal amount of the loan as represented by the 17 checks plus legal
interest from the date of demand. As rectified,36 the dispositive portion of RTCs Decision reads:

Defendant-spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng, are hereby ordered jointly and solidarily:

1. To pay plaintiff 1,975,000.00 plus 12% interest per annum from September 30, 1998, until fully paid;

2. To pay plaintiff attorneys fees of 200,000.00; and

3. To pay the costs of the suit.

Aggrieved, respondents went to the CA arguing that the court a quo erred in finding that they obtained and are liable
for a loan from petitioner. To respondents, petitioner has not sufficiently proved the existence of the loan that they
supposedly acquired from her way back in the late 1980s by any written agreement or memorandum.

By Decision of March 31, 2011, as reiterated in a Resolution dated September 26, 2011, the appellate court set
aside the RTC Decision holding that Asiatrust Bank Check No. BND057550 was an incomplete delivered instrument
and that petitioner has failed to prove the existence of respondents indebtedness to her. Hence, the CA added,
petitioner does not have a cause of action against respondents.37

Hence, petitioner came to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari38 alleging grievous reversible error on
the part of the CA in reversing the findings of the court a quo.

As adverted to at the outset, the Court, in a Minute Resolution dated April 18, 2012, resolved to deny the petition.39

In this Motion for Reconsideration,40 petitioner pleads that this Court take a second hard look on the facts and
issues of the present case and affirm the RTCs case disposition. Petitioner argues, in the main, that the finding of
the appellate court that petitioner has not established respondents indebtedness to her is not supported by the
evidence on record and is based solely on respondents general denial of liability.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198660_2013.html 2/9
8/19/2017 G.R. No. 198660
Respondents, on the other hand, argued in their Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration dated October 6, 2012
that the CA correctly ruled that Asiatrust Check No. BND057550 is an incomplete instrument which found its way
into petitioners hands and that the petitioner failed to prove respondents indebtedness to her. Petitioner, so
respondents contend, failed to show to whom the 17 1988 checks were delivered, for what consideration or
purpose, and under whose account said checks were deposited or negotiated.

Clearly, the issue in the present case is factual in nature as it involves an inquiry into the very existence of the debt
supposedly owed by respondents to petitioner.

The general rule is that this Court in petitions for review on certiorari only concerns itself with questions of law, not of
fact,41 the resolution of factual issues being the primary function of lower courts.42 However, several exceptions
have been laid down by jurisprudence to allow the scrutiny of the factual arguments advanced by the contending
parties, viz: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible ; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting ; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which
the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on
record ; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court ; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain
relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion ; (10) the findings of
the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.43 At
the very least, therefore, the inconsonance of the findings of the RTC and the CA regarding the existence of the loan
sanctions the recalibration of the evidence presented by the parties before the trial court.

In the main, petitioner asserts that respondents owed her a sum of money way back in 1988 for which the latter
gave her several checks. These checks, however, had all been dishonored and petitioner has not been paid the
amount of the loan plus the agreed interest. In 1996, respondents approached her to get the computation of their
liability including the 2% compounded interest. After bargaining to lower the amount of their liability, respondents
supposedly gave her a postdated check bearing the discounted amount of the money they owed to petitioner. Like
the 1988 checks, the drawee bank likewise dishonored this check. To prove her allegations, petitioner submitted the
original copies of the 17 checks issued by respondent Caroline in 1988 and the check issued in 1996, Asiatrust
Check No. BND057750. In ruling in her favor, the RTC sustained the version of the facts presented by petitioner.

Respondents, on the other hand, completely deny the existence of the debt asserting that they had never
approached petitioner to borrow money in 1988 or in 1996. They hypothesize, instead, that petitioner Pua is simply
acting at the instance of her sister, Lilian, to file a false charge against them using a check left to fund a gambling
business previously operated by Lilian and respondent Caroline. While not saying so in express terms, the appellate
court considered respondents denial as worthy of belief.

After another circumspect review of the records of the present case, however, this Court is inclined to depart from
the findings of the CA.

Certainly, in a suit for a recovery of sum of money, as here, the plaintiff-creditor has the burden of proof to show that
defendant had not paid her the amount of the contracted loan. However, it has also been long established that
where the plaintiff-creditor possesses and submits in evidence an instrument showing the indebtedness, a
presumption that the credit has not been satisfied arises in her favor. Thus, the defendant is, in appropriate
instances, required to overcome the said presumption and present evidence to prove the fact of payment so that no
judgment will be entered against him.44

In overruling the trial court, however, the CA opined that petitioner "failed to establish [the] alleged indebtedness in
writing."45 Consequently, so the CA held, respondents were under no obligation to prove their defense. Clearly, the
CA had discounted the value of the only hard pieces of evidence extant in the present casethe checks issued by
respondent Caroline in 1988 and 1996 that were in the possession of, and presented in court by, petitioner.

In Pacheco v. Court of Appeals,46 this Court has expressly recognized that a check "constitutes an evidence of
indebtedness"47 and is a veritable "proof of an obligation."48 Hence, it can be used "in lieu of and for the same
purpose as a promissory note."49 In fact, in the seminal case of Lozano v. Martinez,50 We pointed out that a check
functions more than a promissory note since it not only contains an undertaking to pay an amount of money but is
an "order addressed to a bank and partakes of a representation that the drawer has funds on deposit against which
the check is drawn, sufficient to ensure payment upon its presentation to the bank."51 This Court reiterated this rule
in the relatively recent Lim v. Mindanao Wines and Liquour Galleria stating that "a check, the entries of which are in
writing, could prove a loan transaction."52 This very same principle underpins Section 24 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law (NIL):

Section 24. Presumption of consideration. Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued
for a valuable consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party for value.

Consequently, the 17 original checks, completed and delivered to petitioner, are sufficient by themselves to prove
the existence of the loan obligation of the respondents to petitioner. Note that respondent Caroline had not denied
the genuineness of these checks.53 Instead, respondents argue that they were given to various other persons and
petitioner had simply collected all these 17 checks from them in order to damage respondents reputation.54 This
account is not only incredible; it runs counter to human experience, as enshrined in Sec. 16 of the NIL which
provides that when an instrument is no longer in the possession of the person who signed it and it is complete in its
terms "a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved."
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198660_2013.html 3/9
8/19/2017 G.R. No. 198660
The appellate courts justification in giving credit to respondents contention that the respondents had delivered the
17 checks to persons other than petitioner lies on the supposed failure of petitioner "to establish for whose accounts
[the checks] were deposited and subsequently dishonored."55 This is clearly contrary to the evidence on record. It
seems that the appellate court overlooked the original copies of the bank return slips offered by petitioner in
evidence. These return slips show that the 1988 checks issued by respondent Caroline were dishonored by the
drawee banks because they were "drawn against insufficient funds."56 Further, a close scrutiny of these return slips
will reveal that the checks were deposited either in petitioners account57 or in the account of her brother, Ricardo
Yuloa fact she had previously testified to explaining that petitioner indorsed some checks to her brother to pay for
a part of the capital she used in her financing business.58

As for the Asiatrust check issued by respondent Caroline in 1996 to substitute the compounded value of the 1988
checks, the appellate court likewise sympathized with respondents version of the story holding that it is buttressed
by respondents allegations describing the same defense made in the two related cases filed against them by
petitioners brother-in-law, Vicente Balboa. These related cases consisted of a criminal case for violation of BP 2259
and a civil case for collection of sum of money60 involving three (3) of the five (5) consecutively numbered checks
she allegedly left with Lilian.61 It should be noted, however, that while respondents were exculpated from their
criminal liability,62 in Sps. Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng v. Vicente Balboa,63 this Court
sustained the factual findings of the appellate court in the civil case finding respondents civilly liable to pay the
amount of the checks.

It bears to note that the Decision of the appellate court categorically debunked the same defense advanced by
respondents in the present case primarily because of Carolines admission to the contrary. The Decision of the
appellate court found without any reversible error by this Court reads, thus:

The claim of Caroline Siok Ching Teng that the three (3) checks were part of the blank checks she issued and
delivered to Lilian Balboa, wife of plaintiff-appellee, and intended solely for the operational expenses of their
mahjong business is belied by her admission that she issued three (3) checks (Exhs. "A", "B" "C") because Vicente
showed the listing of their account totaling 5,175,250.00 (TSN, November 17, 1997, p. 10).64 x x x

Clearly, respondents defense that Caroline left blank checks with petitioners sister who, it is said, is now
determined to recoup her past losses and bring financial ruin to respondents by falsifying the same blank checks,
had already been thoroughly passed upon and rejected by this Court. It cannot, therefore, be used to support
respondents denial of their liability.

Respondents other defenses are equally unconvincing. They assert that petitioner could not have accepted a check
worth PhP 8.5 million considering that she should have known that respondent Caroline had issued several checks
for PhP 25,000 each in favor of Lilian and all of them had bounced.65 Needless to state, an act done contrary to law
cannot be sustained to defeat a legal obligation; repeated failure to honor obligations covered by several negotiable
instruments cannot serve to defeat yet another obligation covered by another instrument.

Indeed, it seems that respondent Caroline had displayed a cavalier attitude towards the value, and the obligation
concomitant with the issuance, of a check. As attested to by respondents very own witness, respondent Caroline
has a documented history of issuing insufficiently funded checks for 69 times, at the very least.66 This fact alone
bolsters petitioners allegation that the checks delivered to her by respondent Caroline were similarly not funded.

In Magdiwang Realty Corp. v. Manila Banking Corp., We stressed that the quantum of evidence required in civil
casespreponderance of evidence"is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability to truth. It is
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto."67 Based on the evidence submitted by the parties and the legal presumptions arising therefrom,
petitioners evidence outweighs that of respondents. This preponderance of evidence in favor of Pua requires that a
judgment ordering respondents to pay their obligation be entered.

As aptly held by the court a quo, however, respondents cannot be obliged to pay the interest of the loan on the
ground that the supposed agreement to pay such interest was not reduced to writing. Article 1956 of the Civil Code,
which refers to monetary interest, specifically mandates that no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly
stipulated in writing.68 Thus, the collection of interest in loans or forbearance of money is allowed only when these
two conditions concur: (1) there was an express stipulation for the payment of interest; (2) the agreement for the
payment of the interest was reduced in writing.69 Absent any of these two conditions, the money debtor cannot be
made liable for interest. Thus, petitioner is entitled only to the principal amount of the loan plus the allowable legal
interest from the time of the demand,70 at the rate of 6% per annum.71

Respondent Benito cannot escape the joint and solidary liability to pay the loan on the ground that the obligation
arose from checks solely issued by his wife. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the proceeds
of the loan redounded to the benefit of their family. Hence, the conjugal partnership is liable therefor.72 The
unsupported allegation that respondents were separated in fact, standing alone, does not persuade this Court to
solely bind respondent Caroline and exempt Benito. As the head of the family, there is more reason that respondent
Benito should answer for the liability incurred by his wife presumably in support of their family.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Resolution of this Court dated April 18, 2012 is
set aside and a new one entered REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the Decision dated March 31, 2011 and the
Resolution dated September 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93755. The Decision in Civil Case
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198660_2013.html 4/9
8/19/2017 G.R. No. 198660
No. 97-83027 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the City of Manila, Branch 29 is REINSTATED with
MODIFICATION.

Accordingly, respondents Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng are ordered jointly and solidarily to pay
petitioner PhP 1,975,000 plus 6% interest per annum from April 18, 1997, until fully paid, and 200,000.00 as
attorneys fees.

SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

WE CONCUR:

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 47-65. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso and concurred in by Associate Justices
Francisco P. Acosta and Ramon A. Cruz.
2 Id. at 67-68.

3 Records, pp. 1-4, dated April 11, 1997.

4 TSN, February 5, 1998, pp. 5, 8-9, 11-13.

5 Id. at 16.

6 Exhibits "C" to "C-16"; TSN, February 5, 1998, pp. 12-14, 19.

7 Exhibits "E" to "E-11."

8 TSN, February 5, 1998, p. 20; TSN, October 9, 2002, p. 20; TSN, April 23, 2003, p. 15.

9 Id. at 22; TSN, October 9, 2002, p. 22.

10 TSN, February 5, 1998, p. 22; TSN, March 18, 1998, p. 12.

11 Exhibit "D"; TSN, March 18, 1998, p. 12.

12 Id.; TSN, October 9, 2002, p. 18.

13 TSN, April 16, 1998, p. 5.

14 Id. at 6-7.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198660_2013.html 5/9
8/19/2017 G.R. No. 198660
15 TSN, June 18, 2003, pp. 4, 7.

16 TSN, February 5, 1998, p. 25; TSN, March 18, 1998, pp. 12-13.

17 TSN, August 13, 2003, p. 6.

18 TSN, July 16, 1998, pp. 5-6.

19 TSN, July 16, 1998, p. 5; Exhibits "6" to "10."

20 TSN, July 16, 1998, p. 7.

21 Id. at 9.

22 See Spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng v. Vicente Balboa, G.R. No. 158177,
January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 504.
23 TSN, July 16, 1998, p. 11; TSN, September 10, 2003, pp. 10, 14.

24 TSN, September 10, 2003, pp. 9-11.

25 TSN, July 16, 1998, p. 12.

26 TSN, July 15, 1999, p. 11.

27 TSN, June 22, 2000, pp. 12-14; TSN, February 4, 2002, p. 20.

28 TSN, August 23, 2000, p. 3.

29 TSN, June 22, 2000, pp. 5-6; TSN, August 23, 2000, p. 3; TSN, February 4, 2002, pp. 8, 14, 16.

30 TSN, June 22, 2000, p. 6.

31 TSN, June 22, 2000, p. 11; TSN, August 23, 2000, pp. 3,5-6; TSN, February 4, 2002, pp. 15-16.

32 TSN, May 29, 2002, p. 18.

33 Id. at 15.

34 TSN, May 29, 2002, pp. 20, 24-28, 31.

35 The trial court held: In the present case, the Tiongs dispute Puas allegation that they contracted several
loans with the latter. They try to persuade this Court that the claim holds no water largely because the
existence of said loan has not in the first place been established. Anent such assertion, the evidence
presented before this Court belie such contention.

xxxx

Thus, in a case of an incomplete but delivered negotiable instrument, the law creates a disputable
presumption of valid and regular delivery in favor of the holder. Furthermore, once issued, the law
likewise gives the holder the benefit of the presumption that said instrument was issued for a sufficient
consideration and that the signatory thereof has been a party thereto for value. The law therefore
dispenses the party in possession of the duty of proving rightful delivery as well the fact that it has been
issued for a valuable consideration and participation of the signatory thereof. x x x

In the course of the trial, several checks were presented by Pua. Seventeen (17) checks were offered
as representing the principal amount of the loan of 1,975,000.00. And the check subject of the herein
controversy was likewise presented as replacement of the 17 dishonored checks and covering the
agreed compounded interest that accrued since the time of borrowing. Caroline, however, tried to
discredit said testimony through its concocted mahjong business story.

xxxx

[Carolines] testimony deserves scant consideration if not, unworthy of belief. x x x Moreover, defendant
Caroline admitted the genuineness and the due execution of the checks (Exhibit C to C-16) offered by
Pua as those which make up the 1,975,000 accumulated loan of Caroline Teng. However, despite
such admission she denies that the same were issued in favor of Pua. According to her these were
issued in favor of other people and not the herein plaintiff. Such denial does not have a leg to stand on.
How could all seventeen (17) checks find their way to Ting Ting Puas hands if they were not indeed
personally handed to her? It is highly unlikely for a busy person like the plaintiff to spend her time
appropriating or much less trouble herself in getting checks which might even place her in serious

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198660_2013.html 6/9
8/19/2017 G.R. No. 198660
trouble and put her business operations in jeopardy. A likely impossibility is always preferable to an
unconvincing possibility. Rollo, pp. 77-82. (Emphasis supplied.)
36 By Order dated April 10, 2007 to reflect the exact date from which to reckon the computation of the
interest. Records, pp. 621-622.
37 The Court of Appeals held: For one, Ting Ting has not established defendants-appellants indebtedness to
her. She failed to establish this alleged indebtedness in writing. No proof of any sort, not even a memorandum
or a jotting in a notebook that she released money in favor defendants-appellants sometime in 1988 was
presented. Thus, the RTC erred when it failed to consider this fact in giving credence to Ting Tings testimony.

Moreover, the seventeen (17) checks, though they may prove to have been issued for valuable
considerations, do not sufficiently prove [respondents] indebtedness to Ting Ting. While now in her
possession, Ting Ting failed to establish for whose accounts they were deposited and subsequently
dishonored. If at all, they bolster [respondents] position that the seventeen (17) checks were issued
and delivered to different people and not [petitioner]. Especially so that some of these checks were not
even deposited nor dishonored, but remained stale under circumstances that are not attributable to the
fault of [respondents].

Ting Tings handicaps her having no contract that proves indebtedness; her lack of memorandum,
journal, or evidence proving that money was actually released to [respondents] with a needed note on
the amount involved more than sufficiently prove the absence of consideration to support the check.
And in so failing to dispense with her burden of proving [respondent] indebtedness, Ting Ting
consequently has no cause of action to pursue here. Necessarily therefore, her Complaint filed on April
18, 1997 must be dismissed. Rollo, pp. 63-64 (Emphasis supplied.)
38 Dated November 17, 2011; rollo, pp. 8-42.

39 Rollo, p. 112.

40 Id. at 113-140.

41 Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec 1. Filing of Petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by
certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of
Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari.

The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies
and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the
same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during
its pendency. (Emphasis supplied.)
42 Express Investments III Private Ltd. v. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc., G.R. Nos. 175418-20, December
5, 2012, 687 SCRA 50; citing Dela Rosa v. Michaelmar Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 182262, April 13, 2011, 648
SCRA 721, 729 and Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Catubig, G.R. No. 175512, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 281, 293-
294.
43 Cereno v. CA, G.R. No. 167366, September 26, 2012, 682 SCRA 18, citing International Container
Terminal Services, Inc. v. FGU Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 161539, June 28, 2008, 556 SCRA 194, 199;
Abalos and Sps. Salazar v. Heirs of Vicente Torio, G.R. No. 175444, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 450,
456-457, citing Spouses Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 156448, February 23, 2011, 644
SCRA 1, 10.
44 Francisco, Ricardo J., EVIDENCE: R ULES OF COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES, RULES 128-134 (3rd ed.,
1996), pp. 386-387; citations omitted.
45 Rollo , p. 63.

46 377 Phil. 627 (1999).

47 Id. at 637.

48 Id.

49 Id.

50 No. L-63419, December 18, 1986, 146 SCRA 323.

51 Id., emphasis supplied.

52 G.R. No. 175851, July 4, 2012, 675 SCRA 628, citing Gaw v. Chua, 574 Phil. 640, 654 (2008).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198660_2013.html 7/9
8/19/2017 G.R. No. 198660
53 TSN, July 15, 1999, pp. 10-11. Atty. Abdul: I am showing to you, Madam Witness, several checks which
were previously marked as Exhibit C, C-1, C-2, C-3 and up to Exhibit C-16 inclusive, signed by Caroline Lo,
can you please tell the Honorable Court whose checks are those? [Caroline]: Me sir. Atty. Abdul: And the
signatures Caroline Lo are your signatures? [Caroline]: Yes sir. Atty. Abdul: And that you issued these checks
in favor of the plaintiffs in payment of your obligation to the said plaintiff? [Caroline]: I issued these checks not
for [her] but for other persons, for different depositors.
54 Id.

55 Rollo, p. 64.

56 See Exhibits "E" to "E-11."

57 Under the name Ting Ting Yulo, as acknowledged by respondents.

58 TSN, October 9, 2002, pp. 19-20; TSN, August 13, 2003, pp. 9-10.

59 These cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 277576 to 78 in the MTC of Manila. On appeal, the
RTC docketed the case as Criminal Case Nos. 02-204544-46.
60 Docketed as Civil Case No. 97-82225 in the RTC of Manila. On appeal, it was docketed as CA-G.R. CV
No. 61457. See Exhibit "G."
61 The CA held:

Second, defendants-appellants insists that the subject check bearing the amount of Eight Million Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (8,500,000.00) was never issued in favor of plaintiff-appellee, but was
actually one of the five (5) blank checks which Caroline pre-signed and left with Lilian sometime in
January 1996, but because of a squabble between the two, both decided to fold up their mahjong
business without Caroline retrieving the five (5) blank checks left in Lilians possession. Caroline even
claimed that the payee "CASH," the amount of "Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand Only," its
numerical expression "8,500,000.00," and the date "March 30, 1997" were all typewritten insertions of
the subject check, and are thus contrary to her usual manner of issuing checks.

Third, a separate civil case was filed against defendants-appellants involving three (3) of the five (5)
checks referred to by Caroline as those which she pre-signed and left with Lilian on account of their
mahjong business.

Fourth, Carolines allegation that she pre-signed five (5) blank checks and left with Lilian was further
bolstered in her Counter-Affidavit she filed relative to a preliminary investigation on a case filed by
Vicente Balboa, Lilians husband. Indicated therein were the Asia Trust Bank blank checks bearing the
numbers BNDO57546, BNDO57547, BNDO57548, BNDO57549, and BNDO57550, the last check
being the same check offered in evidence in this case. Rollo, pp. 61-62.
62 The MTC acquitted Caroline of the offenses charged for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The MTC, however, found Caroline civilly liable in favor of respondent for the amounts
covered by these checks. On appeal to the RTC, the civil liability was deleted on the ground that a civil case
for collection of money involving the same checks were filed prior to the filing of the criminal case. See
Respondents Exhibit "2."
63 566 Phil. 492, 501 (2008). The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated November 20, 2002 and Resolution dated April 21, 2003 of the
Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED."
64 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 61457, pp. 7-8; exhibit "G."

65 TSN, July 16, 1998, p. 17. Exhibits "6" to "10."

66 TSN, May 29, 2002, pp. 20, 24-28, 31.

67 G.R. No. 195592, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 251, 265, emphasis supplied.

68 See also Pan Pacific Service Contractors, Inc. and Ricardo Del Rosario v. Equitable PCI Bank, formerly
The Philippine Commercial International Bank, G.R. No. 169975, March 18, 2010, 616 SCRA 102.
69 Prisma Construction and Development Corporation and Rogelio S. Pantaleon v. Arthur Menchavez, G.R.
No. 160545, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 590; citing Tan v. Valdehueza, 160 Phil. 760, 767 (1975) and Ching v.
Nicdao, G.R. No. 141181, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 316, 361.
70 See Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 95;
citing Article 1169 of the Civil Code, which provides: "Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198660_2013.html 8/9
8/19/2017 G.R. No. 198660
delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their
obligation."
71 See Circular No. 799 of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas which took effect on July 1, 2013.

72 Article 121, Family Code: The conjugal partnership shall be liable for: x x x (3) Debts and obligations
contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have been
benefited x x x. See also Carlos v. Abelardo, G.R. No. 146504, April 9, 2002, 380 SCRA 361.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198660_2013.html 9/9