Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 197850 (Rita Tan Mandane v. Carolina G. Bandoy and People of the Philippines) - Before us is a Petition filed by petitioner Rita Mandane from the 28 February 2011 Decision and 5 July 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114309.

The MTC Ruling 

In its 24 April 2008 Decision,^[1] the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) convicted petitioner of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 for issuing a check in favor of respondent Carolina Bandoy in the amount of P35,000 as loan payment, which was not honored when presented for payment as petitioner's account had already been closed. The MTC found that petitioner ignored the demand letter sent to her through registered mail by respondent. The MTC meted out to petitioner a P35,000 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. It also ordered her to pay the costs, as well as the amount of P19,750 representing the balance on the principal, plus interest at the rate of 6% annually from 13 December 2002 and, thereafter, 12% from the date of its Decision until fully paid.

The RTC Ruling 

On 25 August 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed with modification the MTC ruling. It increased the fine to P70,000 and the civil liability to P35,000. In rejecting the claim of petitioner that the prosecution failed to prove her receipt of the demand letter, the RTC ruled that her signature on the check, which she admittedly signed and issued, was similar to that appearing on the registry return card accompanying the demand letter, it also rejected her claim that she had already paid her indebtedness in full because, in the Statement of Account^[2] she had prepared and which respondent Bandoy had countersigned, the former was still paying interest payment.

The CA Ruling 

The Court of Appeals (CA), in its 28 February 2011 Decision^[3] denied the Petition filed by petitioner for lack of merit and sustained the RTC's ruling. In its 5 July 2011 Resolution,^[4] the CA denied her Motion for Reconsideration for not having raised any new or substantial arguments that would merit overturning its Decision.

Our Ruling 

We deny the petition.

We find no cogent reason to reverse or modify the CA ruling. The notice of dishonor was sent to petitioner through a demand letter accompanied by a registry return card. It is true that the said card must be authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the demand letter sent by registered mail. Like the genuineness of the handwriting of a person in general, the genuineness of the signature in the registry return card may be proved by either of the following: (1) any witness who has seen the person write, or has acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person; or (2) the witness or the court upon comparison of the subject handwriting with those that have been admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or that have been proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.^[5] Hence, no error was committed when the RTC and the CA concluded that petitioner had received and ignored the demand letter, because the RTC found the signature on the return card accompanying the demand letter to be similar to that appearing on the subject check admittedly signed and issued by petitioner.

We find no error either in the CA ruling that petitioner had not yet paid her loan, because she was still paying interest thereon, as shown by the Statement of Account she had prepared herself. Under Article 1253 of the Civil Code, "(i)f the debt produces interest, payment of the principal shall not be deemed to have been made until the interests have been covered."

WHEREFORE, The Decision dated 28 February 2011 and Resolution dated 5 July 2011 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114309 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. (Perez, J., on leave of absence; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1114 dated 3 October 2011)

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 68-70. The case, docketed as Crim. Case No. 03-023, was raffled to the Municipal Trial Court of Marilao, Bulacan, was decided by Judge Edward Pacis.

^[2] d. at 48. 

^[3] Rollo, pp. 31-39. The CA Decision rendered by the Special Seventeenth Division was penned by Justice Isaias Dicdican and concurred in by Justices Stephen Cruz and Rodil Zalameda. 

^[4] Id. at 40-41. 

^[5] RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Sec. 22.