|
|
|
|
Republic
of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
CITIBANK, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank) and INVESTORS’ FINANCE CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style of FNCB Finance, Petitioners, G.R. No. 156132
- versus-October 12, 2006 MODESTA R. SABENIANO, Respondent. x---------------------------------------------------------------------x D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,[1] under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, of the decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, and the resolution,[3] dated 20 November 2002, of the same court which, although modifying its earlier Decision, still denied for the most part the Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioners. Petitioner Citibank, N.A. (formerly known as the First National City Bank) is a banking corporation duly authorized and existing under the laws of the United States of America and licensed to do commercial banking activities and perform trust functions in the Philippines. Petitioner Investor’s Finance Corporation, which did business under the name and style of FNCB Finance, was an affiliate company of petitioner Citibank, specifically handling money market placements for its clients. It is now, by virtue of a merger, doing business as part of its successor-in-interest, BPI Card Finance Corporation. However, so as to consistently establish its identity in the Petition at bar, the said petitioner shall still be referred to herein as FNCB Finance.[4] chan robles virtual law library Respondent Modesta R. Sabeniano was a client of both petitioners Citibank and FNCB Finance. Regrettably, the business relations among the parties subsequently went awry. On 8 August 1985, respondent filed a Complaint[5] against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 11336, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Respondent claimed to have substantial deposits and money market placements with the petitioners, as well as money market placements with the Ayala Investment and Development Corporation (AIDC), the proceeds of which were supposedly deposited automatically and directly to respondent’s accounts with petitioner Citibank. Respondent alleged that petitioners refused to return her deposits and the proceeds of her money market placements despite her repeated demands, thus, compelling respondent to file Civil Case No. 11336 against petitioners for “Accounting, Sum of Money and Damages.” Respondent eventually filed an Amended Complaint[6] on 9 October 1985 to include additional claims to deposits and money market placements inadvertently left out from her original Complaint. In their joint Answer[7] and Answer to Amended Complaint,[8] filed on 12 September 1985 and 6 November 1985, respectively, petitioners admitted that respondent had deposits and money market placements with them, including dollar accounts in the Citibank branch in Geneva, Switzerland (Citibank-Geneva). Petitioners further alleged that the respondent later obtained several loans from petitioner Citibank, for which she executed Promissory Notes (PNs), and secured by (a) a Declaration of Pledge of her dollar accounts in Citibank-Geneva, and (b) Deeds of Assignment of her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance. When respondent failed to pay her loans despite repeated demands by petitioner Citibank, the latter exercised its right to off-set or compensate respondent’s outstanding loans with her deposits and money market placements, pursuant to the Declaration of Pledge and the Deeds of Assignment executed by respondent in its favor. Petitioner Citibank supposedly informed respondent Sabeniano of the foregoing compensation through letters, dated 28 September 1979 and 31 October 1979. Petitioners were therefore surprised when six years later, in 1985, respondent and her counsel made repeated requests for the withdrawal of respondent’s deposits and money market placements with petitioner Citibank, including her dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva and her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance. Thus, petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint and for the award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. When the parties failed to reach a compromise during the pre-trial hearing,[9] trial proper ensued and the parties proceeded with the presentation of their respective evidence. Ten years after the filing of the Complaint on 8 August 1985, a Decision[10] was finally rendered in Civil Case No. 11336 on 24 August 1995 by the fourth Judge[11] who handled the said case, Judge Manuel D. Victorio, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, decision is hereby rendered as follows:
(1) Declaring as illegal, null and void the setoff effected by the defendant Bank [petitioner Citibank] of plaintiff’s [respondent Sabeniano] dollar deposit with Citibank, Switzerland, in the amount of US$149,632.99, and ordering the said defendant [petitioner Citibank] to refund the said amount to the plaintiff with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, compounded yearly, from 31 October 1979 until fully paid, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment; (2) Declaring the plaintiff [respondent Sabeniano] indebted to the defendant Bank [petitioner Citibank] in the amount of P1,069,847.40 as of 5 September 1979 and ordering the plaintiff [respondent Sabeniano] to pay said amount, however, there shall be no interest and penalty charges from the time the illegal setoff was effected on 31 October 1979;chan robles virtual law library (3) Dismissing all other claims and counterclaims interposed by the parties against each other. Costs against the defendant Bank. All the parties appealed the foregoing Decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 51930. Respondent questioned the findings of the RTC that she was still indebted to petitioner Citibank, as well as the failure of the RTC to order petitioners to render an accounting of respondent’s deposits and money market placements with them. On the other hand, petitioners argued that petitioner Citibank validly compensated respondent’s outstanding loans with her dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva, in accordance with the Declaration of Pledge she executed in its favor. Petitioners also alleged that the RTC erred in not declaring respondent liable for damages and interest. On 26 March 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision[12] affirming with modification the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 11336, dated 24 August 1995, and ruling entirely in favor of respondent in this wise – WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the assailed 24 August 1995 Decision of the court a
quo is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, as follows:
1. Declaring as
illegal, null and void the set-off effected by the defendant-appellant
Bank of the plaintiff-appellant’s dollar deposit with Citibank,
Switzerland, in the amount of US$149,632.99, and ordering
defendant-appellant Citibank to refund the said amount to the
plaintiff-appellant with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent
(12%) per annum, compounded yearly, from 31 October 1979 until fully
paid, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment;
2. As defendant-appellant Citibank failed to establish by competent evidence the alleged indebtedness of plaintiff-appellant, the set-off of P1,069,847.40 in the account of Ms. Sabeniano is hereby declared as without legal and factual basis; 3. As defendants-appellants failed to account the following plaintiff-appellant’s money market placements, savings account and current accounts, the former is hereby ordered to return the same, in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon by the contending parties as evidenced by the certificates of investments, to wit: (i) Citibank NNPN
Serial No. 023356 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 22526) issued on 17
March 1977, P318,897.34 with 14.50% interest p.a.;
(ii) Citibank NNPN Serial No. 23357 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 22528) issued on 17 March 1977, P203,150.00 with 14.50 interest p.a.; (iii) FNCB NNPN Serial No. 05757 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 04952), issued on 02 June 1977, P500,000.00 with 17% interest p.a.; (iv) FNCB NNPN Serial No. 05758 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 04962), issued on 02 June 1977, P500,000.00 with 17% interest per annum; (v) The Two Million (P2,000,000.00) money market placements of Ms. Sabeniano with the Ayala Investment & Development Corporation (AIDC) with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum compounded yearly, from 30 September 1976 until fully paid; 4. Ordering defendants-appellants to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff-appellant the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) by way of moral damages, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) as exemplary damages, and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as attorney’s fees. Apparently, the parties to the case, namely, the respondent, on one hand, and the petitioners, on the other, made separate attempts to bring the aforementioned Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, before this Court for review.chan robles virtual law library G.R. No. 152985 Respondent no longer sought a reconsideration of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, and instead, filed immediately with this Court on 3 May 2002 a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review,[13] which, after payment of the docket and other lawful fees, was assigned the docket number G.R. No. 152985. In the said Motion, respondent alleged that she received a copy of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision on 18 April 2002 and, thus, had 15 days therefrom or until 3 May 2002 within which to file her Petition for Review. Since she informed her counsel of her desire to pursue an appeal of the Court of Appeals Decision only on 29 April 2002, her counsel neither had enough time to file a motion for reconsideration of the said Decision with the Court of Appeals, nor a Petition for Certiorari with this Court. Yet, the Motion failed to state the exact extension period respondent was requesting for. Since this Court did not act upon respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time to file her Petition for Review, then the period for appeal continued to run and still expired on 3 May 2002.[14] Respondent failed to file any Petition for Review within the prescribed period for appeal and, hence, this Court issued a Resolution,[15] dated 13 November 2002, in which it pronounced that: G.R. No. 152985 (Modesta R.
Sabeniano vs. Court of Appeals, et al.). – It appearing that petitioner
failed to file the intended petition for review on certiorari within
the period which expired on May 3, 2002, the Court Resolves to DECLARE
THIS CASE TERMINATED and DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court to INFORM
the parties that the judgment sought to be reviewed has become final
and executory.
The said Resolution was duly recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on 3 January 2003. G.R. No. 156132 Meanwhile, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Reconsideration of its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002. Acting upon the said Motion, the Court of Appeals issued the Resolution,[16] dated 20 November 2002, modifying its Decision of 26 March 2002, as follows: WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED
as Sub-paragraph (V) paragraph 3 of the assailed Decision’s dispositive
portion is hereby ordered DELETED.
The challenged 26 March 2002 Decision of the Court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002 and 20 November 2002, respectively, petitioners filed the present petition, docketed as G.R. No. 156132. The Petition was initially denied[17] by this Court for failure of the petitioners to attach thereto a Certification against Forum Shopping. However, upon petitioners’ Motion and compliance with the requirements, this Court resolved[18] to reinstate the petition. The petition presented fourteen (14) assignments of errors allegedly committed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision, dated 26 March 2002, involving both questions of fact and questions of law which this Court, for the sake of expediency, discusses jointly, whenever possible, in the succeeding paragraphs. I
The Resolution of this Court, dated 13 November 2002, in G.R. No. 152985, declaring the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, final and executory, pertains to respondent Sabeniano alone. Before proceeding to a discussion of the merits of the instant Petition, this Court wishes to address first the argument, persistently advanced by respondent in her pleadings on record, as well as her numerous personal and unofficial letters to this Court which were no longer made part of the record, that the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, had already become final and executory by virtue of the Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 152985, dated 13 November 2002. G.R. No. 152985 was the docket number assigned by this Court to respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review. Respondent, though, did not file her supposed Petition. Thus, after the lapse of the prescribed period for the filing of the Petition, this Court issued the Resolution, dated 13 November 2002, declaring the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, final and executory. It should be pointed out, however, that the Resolution, dated 13 November 2002, referred only to G.R. No. 152985, respondent’s appeal, which she failed to perfect through the filing of a Petition for Review within the prescribed period. The declaration of this Court in the same Resolution would bind respondent solely, and not petitioners which filed their own separate appeal before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 156132, the Petition at bar. This would mean that respondent, on her part, should be bound by the findings of fact and law of the Court of Appeals, including the monetary amounts consequently awarded to her by the appellate court in its Decision, dated 26 March 2002; and she can no longer refute or assail any part thereof. [19] This Court already explained the matter to respondent when it issued a Resolution[20] in G.R. No. 156132, dated 2 February 2004, which addressed her Urgent Motion for the Release of the Decision with the Implementation of the Entry of Judgment in the following manner: chan robles virtual law library [A]cting on Citibank’s and
FNCB Finance’s Motion for Reconsideration, we resolved to grant the
motion, reinstate the petition and require Sabeniano to file a comment
thereto in our Resolution of June 23, 2003. Sabeniano filed a
Comment dated July 17, 2003 to which Citibank and FNCB Finance filed a
Reply dated August 20, 2003.
From the foregoing, it is
clear that Sabeniano had knowledge of, and in fact participated in, the
proceedings in G.R. No. 156132. She cannot feign ignorance of the
proceedings therein and claim that the Decision of the Court of Appeals
has become final and executory. More precisely, the Decision
became final and executory only with regard to Sabeniano in view of her
failure to file a petition for review within the extended period
granted by the Court, and not to Citibank and FNCB Finance whose
Petition for Review was duly reinstated and is now submitted for
decision.
Accordingly, the instant Urgent Motion is hereby DENIED. (Emphasis supplied) To sustain the argument of respondent would result in an unjust and incongruous situation wherein one party may frustrate the efforts of the opposing party to appeal the case by merely filing with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review, ahead of the opposing party, then not actually filing the intended Petition.[21] The party who fails to file its intended Petition within the reglementary or extended period should solely bear the consequences of such failure. Respondent Sabeniano did not commit forum shopping. Another issue that does not directly involve the merits of the present Petition, but raised by petitioners, is whether respondent should be held liable for forum shopping. Petitioners contend that respondent committed forum shopping on the basis of the following facts: While petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, was still pending before the Court of Appeals, respondent already filed with this Court on 3 May 2002 her Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review of the same Court of Appeals Decision, docketed as G.R. No. 152985. Thereafter, respondent continued to participate in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930 by filing her Comment, dated 17 July 2002, to petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration; and a Rejoinder, dated 23 September 2002, to petitioners’ Reply. Thus, petitioners argue that by seeking relief concurrently from this Court and the Court of Appeals, respondent is undeniably guilty of forum shopping, if not indirect contempt. This Court, however, finds no sufficient basis to hold respondent liable for forum shopping. Forum shopping has been defined as the filing of two or more suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[22] The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought.[23] To guard against this deplorable practice, Rule 7, Section 5 of the revised Rules of Court imposes the following requirement: Sec. 5. Certification
against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best
of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b)
if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of
the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that
the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as cause for administrative sanctions. Although it may seem at first glance that respondent was simultaneously seeking recourse from the Court of Appeals and this Court, a careful and closer scrutiny of the details of the case at bar would reveal otherwise. It should be recalled that respondent did nothing more in G.R. No. 152985 than to file with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time within which to file her Petition for Review. For unexplained reasons, respondent failed to submit to this Court her intended Petition within the reglementary period. Consequently, this Court was prompted to issue a Resolution, dated 13 November 2002, declaring G.R. No. 152985 terminated, and the therein assailed Court of Appeals Decision final and executory. G.R. No. 152985, therefore, did not progress and respondent’s appeal was unperfected. chan robles virtual law library The Petition for Review would constitute the initiatory pleading before this Court, upon the timely filing of which, the case before this Court commences; much in the same way a case is initiated by the filing of a Complaint before the trial court. The Petition for Review establishes the identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought from this Court, and without such a Petition, there is technically no case before this Court. The Motion filed by respondent seeking extension of time within which to file her Petition for Review does not serve the same purpose as the Petition for Review itself. Such a Motion merely presents the important dates and the justification for the additional time requested for, but it does not go into the details of the appealed case. Without any particular idea as to the assignments of error or the relief respondent intended to seek from this Court, in light of her failure to file her Petition for Review, there is actually no second case involving the same parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought, as that in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930. It should also be noted that the Certification against Forum Shopping is required to be attached to the initiatory pleading, which, in G.R. No. 152985, should have been respondent’s Petition for Review. It is in that Certification wherein respondent certifies, under oath, that: (a) she has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, that she is presenting a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, she shall report that fact within five days therefrom to this Court. Without her Petition for Review, respondent had no obligation to execute and submit the foregoing Certification against Forum Shopping. Thus, respondent did not violate Rule 7, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court; neither did she mislead this Court as to the pendency of another similar case. Lastly, the fact alone that the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, essentially ruled in favor of respondent, does not necessarily preclude her from appealing the same. Granted that such a move is ostensibly irrational, nonetheless, it does not amount to malice, bad faith or abuse of the court processes in the absence of further proof. Again, it should be noted that the respondent did not file her intended Petition for Review. The Petition for Review would have presented before this Court the grounds for respondent’s appeal and her arguments in support thereof. Without said Petition, any reason attributed to the respondent for appealing the 26 March 2002 Decision would be grounded on mere speculations, to which this Court cannot give credence. II
As an exception to the general rule, this Court takes cognizance of questions of fact raised in the Petition at bar. It is already a well-settled rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals by virtue of Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this Court. There are, however, recognized exceptions to the foregoing rule, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the interference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[24] Several of the enumerated exceptions pertain to the Petition at bar. It is indubitable that the Court of Appeals made factual findings that are contrary to those of the RTC,[25] thus, resulting in its substantial modification of the trial court’s Decision, and a ruling entirely in favor of the respondent. In addition, petitioners invoked in the instant Petition for Review several exceptions that would justify this Court’s review of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, i.e., the Court of Appeals made conflicting findings of fact; findings of fact which went beyond the issues raised on appeal before it; as well as findings of fact premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. On the basis of the foregoing, this Court shall proceed to reviewing and re-evaluating the evidence on record in order to settle questions of fact raised in the Petition at bar. The fact that the trial judge who rendered the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 11336, dated 24 August 1995, was not the same judge who heard and tried the case, does not, by itself, render the said Decision erroneous. The Decision in Civil Case No. 11336 was rendered more than 10 years from the institution of the said case. In the course of its trial, the case was presided over by four (4) different RTC judges.[26] It was Judge Victorio, the fourth judge assigned to the case, who wrote the RTC Decision, dated 24 August 1995. In his Decision,[27] Judge Victorio made the following findings: After carefully evaluating the mass of evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is not inclined to believe the plaintiff’s assertion that the promissory notes as well as the deeds of assignments of her FNCB Finance money market placements were simulated. The evidence is overwhelming that the plaintiff received the proceeds of the loans evidenced by the various promissory notes she had signed. What is more, there was not an iota of proof save the plaintiff’s bare testimony that she had indeed applied for loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines. More importantly, the two deeds of assignment were notarized, hence they partake the nature of a public document. It makes more than preponderant proof to overturn the effect of a notarial attestation. Copies of the deeds of assignments were actually filed with the Records Management and Archives Office. Finally, there were sufficient evidence wherein the plaintiff had admitted the existence of her loans with the defendant Bank in the total amount of P1,920,000.00 exclusive of interests and penalty charges (Exhibits “28”, “31”, “32”, and “33”). In fine, this Court hereby finds that the defendants had established the genuineness and due execution of the various promissory notes heretofore identified as well as the two deeds of assignments of the plaintiff’s money market placements with defendant FNCB Finance, on the strength of which the said money market placements were applied to partially pay the plaintiff’s past due obligation with the defendant Bank. Thus, the total sum of P1,053,995.80 of the plaintiff’s past due obligation was partially offset by the said money market placement leaving a balance of P1,069,847.40 as of 5 September 1979 (Exhibit “34”). Disagreeing in the foregoing findings, the Court of Appeals stressed, in its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, “that the ponente of the herein assailed Decision is not the Presiding Judge who heard and tried the case.”[28] This brings us to the question of whether the fact alone that the RTC Decision was rendered by a judge other than the judge who actually heard and tried the case is sufficient justification for the appellate court to disregard or set aside the findings in the Decision of the court a quo?chan robles virtual law library This Court rules in the negative. What deserves stressing is that, in this jurisdiction, there exists a disputable presumption that the RTC Decision was rendered by the judge in the regular performance of his official duties. While the said presumption is only disputable, it is satisfactory unless contradicted or overcame by other evidence.[29] Encompassed in this presumption of regularity is the presumption that the RTC judge, in resolving the case and drafting his Decision, reviewed, evaluated, and weighed all the evidence on record. That the said RTC judge is not the same judge who heard the case and received the evidence is of little consequence when the records and transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) are complete and available for consideration by the former. In People v. Gazmen,[30] this Court already elucidated its position on such an issue: Accused-appellant makes an
issue of the fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the
judge who heard and tried the case and concludes therefrom that the
findings of the former are erroneous. Accused-appellant’s
argument does not merit a lengthy discussion. It is well-settled
that the decision of a judge who did not try the case is not by that
reason alone erroneous.
(People vs. Jaymalin, 214 SCRA 685, 692 [1992])It is true that the judge who ultimately decided the case had not heard the controversy at all, the trial having been conducted by then Judge Emilio L. Polig, who was indefinitely suspended by this Court. Nonetheless, the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial were complete and were presumably examined and studied by Judge Baguilat before he rendered his decision. It is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case to decide it on the basis of the record. The fact that he did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the transcript of their testimonies does not for that reason alone render the judgment erroneous. Although it is true that the
judge who heard the witnesses testify is in a better position to
observe the witnesses on the stand and determine by their demeanor
whether they are telling the truth or mouthing falsehood, it does not
necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial
cannot render a valid decision since he can rely on the transcript of
stenographic notes taken during the trial as basis of his decision.
Accused-appellant’s
contention that the trial judge did not have the opportunity to observe
the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses since he was not the same
judge who conducted the hearing is also untenable. While it is
true that the trial judge who conducted the hearing would be in a
better position to ascertain the truth and falsity of the testimonies
of the witnesses, it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was
not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision
since the latter can also rely on the transcribed stenographic notes
taken during the trial as the basis of his decision.
(People vs. De Paz, 212 SCRA 56, 63 [1992]) At any rate, the test to
determine the value of the testimony of the witness is whether or not
such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience
of mankind (People vs. Morre, 217 SCRA 219 [1993]). Further, the
credibility of witnesses can also be assessed on the basis of the
substance of their testimony and the surrounding circumstances (People
v. Gonzales, 210 SCRA 44 [1992]). A critical evaluation of the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses reveals that their testimony
accords with the aforementioned tests, and carries with it the ring of
truth end perforce, must be given full weight and credit.
Irrefragably, by reason
alone that the judge who penned the RTC Decision was not the same judge
who heard the case and received the evidence therein would not render
the findings in the said Decision erroneous and unreliable. While
the conduct and demeanor of witnesses may sway a trial court judge in
deciding a case, it is not, and should not be, his only
consideration. Even more vital for the trial court judge’s
decision are the contents and substance of the witnesses’ testimonies,
as borne out by the TSNs, as well as the object and documentary
evidence submitted andmade part of the records of the case.
This Court proceeds to making its own findings of fact. Since the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, has become final and executory as to the respondent, due to her failure to interpose an appeal therefrom within the reglementary period, she is already bound by the factual findings in the said Decision. Likewise, respondent’s failure to file, within the reglementary period, a Motion for Reconsideration or an appeal of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in the same case, dated 20 November 2002, which modified its earlier Decision by deleting paragraph 3(v) of its dispositive portion, ordering petitioners to return to respondent the proceeds of her money market placement with AIDC, shall already bar her from questioning such modification before this Court. Thus, what is for review before this Court is the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, as modified by the Resolution of the same court, dated 20 November 2002. Respondent alleged that she had several deposits and money market placements with petitioners. These deposits and money market placements, as determined by the Court of Appeals in its Decision, dated 26 March 2002, and as modified by its Resolution, dated 20 November 2002, are as follows:
Money market placements with petitioner Citibank The history of respondent’s money market placements with petitioner Citibank began on 6 December 1976, when she made a placement of P500,000.00 as principal amount, which was supposed to earn an interest of 16% p.a. and for which PN No. 20773 was issued. Respondent did not yet claim the proceeds of her placement and, instead, rolled-over or re-invested the principal and proceeds several times in the succeeding years for which new PNs were issued by petitioner Citibank to replace the ones which matured. Petitioner Citibank accounted for respondent’s original placement and the subsequent roll-overs thereof, as follows:
Petitioner Citibank alleged that it had already paid to respondent the principal amounts and proceeds of PNs No. 23356 and 23357, upon their maturity. Petitioner Citibank further averred that respondent used the P500,000.00 from the payment of PNs No. 23356 and 23357, plus P600,000.00 sourced from her other funds, to open two time deposit (TD) accounts with petitioner Citibank, namely, TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784. Petitioner Citibank did not deny the existence nor questioned the authenticity of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 it issued in favor of respondent for her money market placements. In fact, it admitted the genuineness and due execution of the said PNs, but qualified that they were no longer outstanding.[31] In Hibberd v. Rohde and McMillian,[32] this Court delineated the consequences of such an admission: By the admission of the
genuineness and due execution of an instrument, as provided in this
section, is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that
he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his
authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures
exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that
the document was delivered; and that any formal requisites required by
law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it
lacks, are waived by him. Hence, such defenses as that the
signature is a forgery (Puritan Mfg. Co. vs. Toti & Gradi, 14 N.
M., 425; Cox vs. Northwestern Stage Co., 1 Idaho, 376; Woollen vs.
Whitacre, 73 Ind., 198; Smith vs. Ehnert, 47 Wis., 479; Faelnar vs.
Escaño, 11 Phil. Rep., 92); or that it was unauthorized, as in
the case of an agent signing for his principal, or one signing in
behalf of a partnership (Country Bank vs. Greenberg, 127 Cal.,
26; Henshaw vs. Root, 60 Inc., 220; Naftzker vs. Lantz, 137 Mich., 441)
or of a corporation (Merchant vs. International Banking Corporation, 6
Phil Rep., 314; Wanita vs. Rollins, 75 Miss., 253; Barnes vs. Spencer
& Barnes Co., 162 Mich., 509); or that, in the case of the latter,
that the corporation was authorized under its charter to sign the
instrument (Merchant vs. International Banking Corporation, supra); or
that the party charged signed the instrument in some other capacity
than that alleged in the pleading setting it out (Payne vs. National
Bank, 16 Kan., 147); or that it was never delivered (Hunt vs. Weir, 29
Ill., 83; Elbring vs. Mullen, 4 Idaho, 199; Thorp vs. Keokuk Coal Co.,
48 N.Y., 253; Fire Association of Philadelphia vs. Ruby, 60 Neb., 216)
are cut off by the admission of its genuineness and due execution.
The effect of the admission is such that in the case of a promissory note a prima facie case is made for the plaintiff which dispenses with the necessity of evidence on his part and entitles him to a judgment on the pleadings unless a special defense of new matter, such as payment, is interposed by the defendant (Papa vs. Martinez, 12 Phil. Rep., 613; Chinese Chamber of Commerce vs. Pua To Ching, 14 Phil. Rep., 222; Banco Español-Filipino vs. McKay & Zoeller, 27 Phil. Rep., 183). x x x Since the genuineness and due execution of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are uncontested, respondent was able to establish prima facie that petitioner Citibank is liable to her for the amounts stated therein. The assertion of petitioner Citibank of payment of the said PNs is an affirmative allegation of a new matter, the burden of proof as to such resting on petitioner Citibank. Respondent having proved the existence of the obligation, the burden of proof was upon petitioner Citibank to show that it had been discharged.[33] It has already been established by this Court that: As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment. When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence – as distinct from the general burden of proof – shifts to the creditor, who is then under the duty of producing some evidence of non-payment.[34]chan robles virtual law library Reviewing the evidence on record, this Court finds that petitioner Citibank failed to satisfactorily prove that PNs No. 23356 and 23357 had already been paid, and that the amount so paid was actually used to open one of respondent’s TD accounts with petitioner Citibank. Petitioner Citibank presented the testimonies of two witnesses to support its contention of payment: (1) That of Mr. Herminio Pujeda,[35] the officer-in-charge of loans and placements at the time when the questioned transactions took place; and (2) that of Mr. Francisco Tan,[36] the former Assistant Vice-President of Citibank, who directly dealt with respondent with regard to her deposits and loans. The relevant portion[37] of Mr. Pujeda’s testimony as to PNs No. 23356 and 23357 (referred to therein as Exhibits No. “47” and “48,” respectively) is reproduced below: Atty. Mabasa:
Okey [sic]. Now Mr. Witness, you were asked to testify in this case and this case is [sic] consist [sic] of several documents involving transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. Now, were you able to make your own memorandum regarding all these transactions? A Yes, based on my recollection of these facts, I did come up of [sic] the outline of the chronological sequence of events. Court: Are you trying to say that you have personal knowledge or participation to these transactions? A Yes, your Honor, I was the officer-in charge of the unit that was processing these transactions. Some of the documents bear my signature. Court: And this resume or summary that you have prepared is based on purely your recollection or documents? A Based on documents, your Honor. Court: Are these documents still available now? A Yes, your honor. Court: Better present the documents. Atty. Mabasa: Yes, your Honor, that is why your Honor. Atty. Mabasa:chan robles virtual law library Q Now, basing on the notes that you prepared, Mr. Witness, and according to you basing also on your personal recollection about all the transactions involved between Modesta Sabeniano and defendant City Bank [sic] in this case. Now, would you tell us what happened to the money market placements of Modesta Sabeniano that you have earlier identified in Exhs. “47” and “48”? A The transactions which I said earlier were terminated and booked to time deposits. Q And you are saying time deposits with what bank? A With First National Citibank. Q Is it the same bank as Citibank, N.A.? A Yes, sir. Q And how much was the amount booked as time deposit with defendant Citibank? A In the amount of P500,000.00. Q And outside this P500,000.00 which you said was booked out of the proceeds of Exhs. “47” and “48”, were there other time deposits opened by Mrs. Modesta Sabeniano at that time. A Yes, she also opened another time deposit for P600,000.00. Q So all in all Mr. Witness, sometime in April of 1978 Mrs. Modesta Sabeneano [sic] had time deposit placements with Citibank in the amount of P500,000.00 which is the proceeds of Exh. “47” and “48” and another P600,000.00, is it not? A Yes, sir. Q And would you know where did the other P600,000 placed by Mrs. Sabeneano [sic] in a time deposit with Citibank, N.A. came [sic] from? A She funded it directly. Q What are you saying Mr. Witness is that the P600,000 is a [sic] fresh money coming from Mrs. Modesta Sabeneano [sic]? A That is right. In his deposition in Hong Kong, Mr. Tan recounted what happened to PNs No. 23356 and 23357 (referred to therein as Exhibits “E” and “F,” respectively), as follows: Atty. Mabasa
: Now from the Exhibits that
you have identified Mr. Tan from Exhibits “A” to “F”, which are
Exhibits of the plaintiff. Now, do I understand from you that the
original amount is Five Hundred Thousand and thereafter renewed in the
succeeding exhibits?
Mr. Tan : Yes, Sir. Atty. Mabasa : Alright, after these Exhibits “E” and “F” matured, what happened thereafter? Mr. Tan : Split into two time deposits.chan robles virtual law library Atty. Mabasa : Exhibits “E” and “F”? Before anything else, it should be noted that when Mr. Pujeda’s testimony before the RTC was made on 12 March 1990 and Mr. Tan’s deposition in Hong Kong was conducted on 3 September 1990, more than a decade had passed from the time the transactions they were testifying on took place. This Court had previously recognized the frailty and unreliability of human memory with regards to figures after the lapse of five years.[38] Taking into consideration the substantial length of time between the transactions and the witnesses’ testimonies, as well as the undeniable fact that bank officers deal with multiple clients and process numerous transactions during their tenure, this Court is reluctant to give much weight to the testimonies of Mr. Pujeda and Mr. Tan regarding the payment of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 and the use by respondent of the proceeds thereof for opening TD accounts. This Court finds it implausible that they should remember, after all these years, this particular transaction with respondent involving her PNs No. 23356 and 23357 and TD accounts. Both witnesses did not give any reason as to why, from among all the clients they had dealt with and all the transactions they had processed as officers of petitioner Citibank, they specially remembered respondent and her PNs No. 23356 and 23357. Their testimonies likewise lacked details on the circumstances surrounding the payment of the two PNs and the opening of the time deposit accounts by respondent, such as the date of payment of the two PNs, mode of payment, and the manner and context by which respondent relayed her instructions to the officers of petitioner Citibank to use the proceeds of her two PNs in opening the TD accounts. Moreover, while there are documentary evidences to support and trace respondent’s money market placements with petitioner Citibank, from the original PN No. 20773, rolled-over several times to, finally, PNs No. 23356 and 23357, there is an evident absence of any documentary evidence on the payment of these last two PNs and the use of the proceeds thereof by respondent for opening TD accounts. The paper trail seems to have ended with the copies of PNs No. 23356 and 23357. Although both Mr. Pujeda and Mr. Tan said that they based their testimonies, not just on their memories but also on the documents on file, the supposed documents on which they based those portions of their testimony on the payment of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 and the opening of the TD accounts from the proceeds thereof, were never presented before the courts nor made part of the records of the case. Respondent’s money market placements were of substantial amounts – consisting of the principal amount of P500,000.00, plus the interest it should have earned during the years of placement – and it is difficult for this Court to believe that petitioner Citibank would not have had documented the payment thereof. When Mr. Pujeda testified before the RTC on 6 February 1990,[39] petitioners’ counsel attempted to present in evidence a document that would supposedly support the claim of petitioner Citibank that the proceeds of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 were used by respondent to open one of her two TD accounts in the amount of P500,000.00. Respondent’s counsel objected to the presentation of the document since it was a mere “xerox" copy, and was blurred and hardly readable. Petitioners’ counsel then asked for a continuance of the hearing so that they can have time to produce a better document, which was granted by the court. However, during the next hearing and continuance of Mr. Pujeda’s testimony on 12 March 1990, petitioners’ counsel no longer referred to the said document. As respondent had established a prima facie case that petitioner Citibank is obligated to her for the amounts stated in PNs No. 23356 and 23357, and as petitioner Citibank failed to present sufficient proof of payment of the said PNs and the use by the respondent of the proceeds thereof to open her TD accounts, this Court finds that PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are still outstanding and petitioner Citibank is still liable to respondent for the amounts stated therein. The significance of this Court’s declaration that PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are still outstanding becomes apparent in the light of petitioners’ next contentions – that respondent used the proceeds of PNs No. 23356 and 23357, together with additional money, to open TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784 with petitioner Citibank; and, subsequently, respondent pre-terminated these TD accounts and transferred the proceeds thereof, amounting to P1,100,000.00, to petitioner FNCB Finance for money market placements. While respondent’s money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance may be traced back with definiteness to TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784, there is only flimsy and unsubstantiated connection between the said TD accounts and the supposed proceeds paid from PNs No. 23356 and 23357. With PNs No. 23356 and 23357 still unpaid, then they represent an obligation of petitioner Citibank separate and distinct from the obligation of petitioner FNCB Finance arising from respondent’s money market placements with the latter. Money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance According to petitioners, respondent’s TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784, in the total amount of P1,100,000.00, were supposed to mature on 15 March 1978. However, respondent, through a letter dated 28 April 1977,[40] pre-terminated the said TD accounts and transferred all the proceeds thereof to petitioner FNCB Finance for money market placement. Pursuant to her instructions, TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784 were pre-terminated and petitioner Citibank (then still named First National City Bank) issued Manager’s Checks (MC) No. 199253[41] and 199251[42] for the amounts of P500,000.00 and P600,00.00, respectively. Both MCs were payable to Citifinance (which, according to Mr. Pujeda,[43] was one with and the same as petitioner FNCB Finance), with the additional notation that “A/C MODESTA R. SABENIANO.” Typewritten on MC No. 199253 is the phrase “Ref. Proceeds of TD 17783,” and on MC No. 199251 is a similar phrase, “Ref. Proceeds of TD 17784.” These phrases purportedly established that the MCs were paid from the proceeds of respondent’s pre-terminated TD accounts with petitioner Citibank. Upon receipt of the MCs, petitioner FNCB Finance deposited the same to its account with Feati Bank and Trust Co., as evidenced by the rubber stamp mark of the latter found at the back of both MCs. In exchange, petitioner FNCB Finance booked the amounts received as money market placements, and accordingly issued PNs No. 4952 and 4962, for the amounts of P500,000.00 and P600,000.00, respectively, payable to respondent’s savings account with petitioner Citibank, S/A No. 25-13703-4, upon their maturity on 1 June 1977. Once again, respondent rolled-over several times the principal amounts of her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance, as follows:
Based on the foregoing records, the principal amounts of PNs No. 5757 and 5758, upon their maturity, were rolled over to PNs No. 8167 and 8169, respectively. PN No. 8167[45] expressly canceled and superseded PN No. 5757, while PN No. 8169[46] also explicitly canceled and superseded PN No. 5758. Thus, it is patently erroneous for the Court of Appeals to still award to respondent the principal amounts and interests covered by PNs No. 5757 and 5758 when these were already canceled and superseded. It is now incumbent upon this Court to determine what subsequently happened to PNs No. 8167 and 8169.chan robles virtual law library Petitioner FNCB Finance presented four checks as proof of payment of the principal amounts and interests of PNs No. 8167 and 8169 upon their maturity. All the checks were payable to respondent’s savings account with petitioner Citibank, with the following details:
On 3 September 1979, petitioner FNCB Finance issued Check No. 100168, pay to the order of “Citibank N.A. A/C Modesta Sabeniano,” in the amount of P1,022,916.66, as full payment of the principal amounts and interests of both PNs No. 20138 and 20139 and, resultantly, canceling the said PNs.[48] Respondent actually admitted the issuance and existence of Check No. 100168, but with the qualification that the proceeds thereof were turned over to petitioner Citibank.[49] Respondent did not clarify the circumstances attending the supposed turn over, but on the basis of the allegations of petitioner Citibank itself, the proceeds of PNs No. 20138 and 20139, amounting to P1,022,916.66, was used by it to liquidate respondent’s outstanding loans. Therefore, the determination of whether or not respondent is still entitled to the return of the proceeds of PNs No. 20138 and 20139 shall be dependent on the resolution of the issues raised as to the existence of the loans and the authority of petitioner Citibank to use the proceeds of the said PNs, together with respondent’s other deposits and money market placements, to pay for the same. Savings and current accounts with petitioner Citibank Respondent presented and submitted before the RTC deposit slips and bank statements to prove deposits made to several of her accounts with petitioner Citibank, particularly, Accounts No. 00484202, 59091, and 472-751, which would have amounted to a total of P3,812,712.32, had there been no withdrawals or debits from the said accounts from the time the said deposits were made. Although the RTC and the Court of Appeals did not make any definitive findings as to the status of respondent’s savings and current accounts with petitioner Citibank, the Decisions of both the trial and appellate courts effectively recognized only the P31,079.14 coming from respondent’s savings account which was used to off-set her alleged outstanding loans with petitioner Citibank.[50] Since both the RTC and the Court of Appeals had consistently recognized only the P31,079.14 of respondent’s savings account with petitioner Citibank, and that respondent failed to move for reconsideration or to appeal this particular finding of fact by the trial and appellate courts, it is already binding upon this Court. Respondent is already precluded from claiming any greater amount in her savings and current accounts with petitioner Citibank. Thus, this Court shall limit itself to determining whether or not respondent is entitled to the return of the amount of P31,079.14 should the off-set thereof by petitioner Citibank against her supposed loans be found invalid. Dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva Respondent made an effort of preparing and presenting before the RTC her own computations of her money market placements and dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva, purportedly amounting to a total of United States (US) $343,220.98, as of 23 June 1985.[51] In her Memorandum filed with the RTC, she claimed a much bigger amount of deposits and money market placements with Citibank-Geneva, totaling US$1,336,638.65.[52] However, respondent herself also submitted as part of her formal offer of evidence the computation of her money market |