October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 179957 : October 17, 2011]
ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC) INC. AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS V. SPOUSES CRISTOBAL AND NEMENCIANA SYBICO, DOING BUSINESS AS OPERATOR OF SYBICO PETRON SERVICE STATION
G.R. No. 179957 (Asset Pool A (SPV-AMC) Inc. as Successor-in-interest of Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Cristobal and Nemenciana Sybico, doing business as operator of Sybico Petron Service Station). � This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 23, 2007 dismissing the appeal filed by Far East Bank & Trust Co. (FEBTC)[1] from the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62 of Makati City in Civil Case No. 99-1798.
On October 6, 1999, FEBTC filed with the RTC a complaint for sum of money against herein respondents. FEBTC alleged that, on various dates, respondents obtained several loans from the former in the aggregate amount of P1,865,000.00 and executed several promissory notes to cover the said loans; that respondents failed and refused to comply with their obligations, and that as of August 23, 1999, the respondents� unpaid loan obligation amounted to P2,691,658.08.
In their Answer, respondents admitted having obtained several loan accommodations from FEBTC in the aggregate principal amount of P1,865,000.00, but asserted that they had already substantially settled and paid the same. Respondents asserted that FEBTC failed to present an updated and accurate statement of accounts showing the actual payments made by them.
In its February 18, 2005 decision, the RTC dismissed FEBTC's complaint on the ground that it failed to prove its cause of action against respondents with the required preponderance of evidence. Specifically, the RTC ruled that FEBTC failed to prove the extent of respondents' liability, as the latter's allegations of non-payment were not duly supported by evidence.
On March 23, 2007, the CA rendered the challenged decision, finding that the trial court committed no reversible error when it ordered the dismissal of the complaint, and holding that both parties failed to discharge the burden of presenting at the trial their respective affirmative allegations. The CA pointed out that the Statement of Account, which FEBTC proffered in evidence, did not amply show nor explain how the principal loan as well as the amounts indicated therein as "total interests due," "past due interest" and "penalty interest� were arrived at. FEBTC s motion for reconsideration of the said Decision was denied by the CA in its Resolution of September 28, 2007.
Hence, this recourse.
We find no reversible error in the challenged decision.
A Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court may only raise questions of law.[2] A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[3] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[4] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[5]
In the instant petition, petitioner merely assails the probative value given by the CA and, ultimately, the RTC on the evidence proffered by FEBTC with regard to the loan obtained by respondents. The issue interposed by petitioner, if at all, would only tend to elicit doubt as to the truth or falsity of the supposed liability of respondents in favor of petitioner. Surely, the foregoing could not be categorized as a question of law.
Petitioner's reliance on "Landl & Company (Phil.), Inc., et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company"[6] is misplaced. In Landl, we considered the computation of the amount of petitioners� indebtedness, inclusive of penalty charges and interests, as a question of law and not of fact, in view of the availability of undisputed evidence that would render the act of computing a mere mathematical exercise and the simple application of the prevailing rule with respect to the deduction of marginal deposit. In this case, however, the determination of respondents' indebtedness is a question of fact as it would require us to examine anew the evidence presented in the proceedings below.
In any case, a perusal of the allegations, issues and arguments set forth by petitioner would readily show that the CA did not commit any reversible error in its assailed decision dated March 23, 2007 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
As aptly found by the RTC and the CA, petitioner failed to substantiate the amount being collected from respondents. A party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence.[7]
In doing so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the defendant's.[8]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Perez, J., on official leave; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1114.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] During the course of the proceedings before the RTC, FEBTC was merged with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) with the latter as the surviving bank. Subsequently, BPI executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of Petition Asset Pool A (SPV-AMC) Inc. over its rights to the loan obtained by respondents.[2] Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[3] Five Star Marketing Co., Inc. v. James L Booc, G.R. No. 143331, October 5, 2007, 535 SCRA 28, 42.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] G.R. No. 159622, July 30, 2004, 479 SCRA 562.
[7] De Grano v. Lacaba, G.R. No. 158877, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 148, 157.
[8] Id. at 157-158.