Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
379
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
380
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.
Judges; That the trial court judge who decided a case 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.—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.
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
381
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
382
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. It has already been established
by this Court that—As a general rule, one who pleads payment
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege
nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the
defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove
nonpayment. 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 nonpayment.
383
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
384
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
385
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
386
have involved not only petitioner Citibank, but also BPI, which
accepted the checks for deposit, and the Central Bank of the
Philippines, which cleared the checks. It falls upon the
respondent to overcome or dispute the presumption that the
crossed checks were issued, accepted for deposit, cleared, and paid
for by the banks involved following the ordinary course of their
business. The mere fact that MCs No. 220701 and 226467 do not
bear respondent’s signature at the back does not negate deposit
thereof in her account. The liability for the lack of indorsement on
the MCs no longer fall on petitioner Citibank, but on the bank
who received the same for deposit, in this case, BPI Cubao
Branch. Once again, it must be noted that the MCs were crossed,
for payee’s account only, and the payee named in both checks was
none other than respondent. The crossing of the MCs was already
a warning to BPI to receive said checks for deposit only in
respondent’s account. It was up to BPI to verify whether it was
receiving the crossed MCs in accordance with the instructions on
the face thereof. If, indeed, the MCs were deposited in accounts
other than respondent’s, then the respondent would have a cause
of action against BPI.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
387
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
388
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
the following cases: (a) When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on
the part of the offeror; (b) When the original is in the custody or
under the control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss
of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is a public
record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office.
389
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
and the like.”—While the Court of Appeals can take judicial notice
of the Decision of its Third Division in the Dy case, it should not
have given the said case much weight when it rendered the
assailed Decision, since the former does not constitute a
precedent. The Court of Appeals, in the challenged Decision, did
not apply any legal argument or principle established in the Dy
case but, rather, adopted the findings therein of wrongdoing or
misconduct on the part of herein petitioner Citibank and Mr. Tan.
Any finding of wrongdoing or misconduct as against herein
petitioners should be made based on the factual background and
pieces of evidence submitted in this case, not those in another
case. It is apparent that the Court of Appeals took judicial notice
of the Dy case not as a legal precedent for the present case, but
rather as evidence of similar acts committed by petitioner
Citibank and Mr. Tan. A basic rule of evidence, however, states
that, “Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same
or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a
specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme,
habit, custom or usage, and the like.” The rationale for the rule is
explained thus—The rule is founded upon reason, public policy,
justice and judicial convenience. The fact that a person has
committed the same or similar acts at some prior time affords, as
a general rule, no logical guaranty that he committed the act in
question. This is so because, subjectively, a man’s mind and even
his modes of life may change; and, objectively, the conditions
under which he may find himself at a given time may likewise
change and thus induce him to act in a
390
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
391
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
392
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
393
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
is true that the general rule is that only errors which have been
stated in the assignment of errors and properly argued in the
brief shall be consid
394
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
395
CHICONAZARIO, J.:
1
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,
under Rule
2
45 of the Revised Rules of Court, of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV3 No. 51930,
dated 26 March 2002, and the Resolution, 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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
396
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
397
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
398
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
RTC), the case was transferred to Makati RTC, Branch 57, presided by
Judge Francisco X. Velez, for reasons not disclosed in the Records. Judge
Velez was able to try and hear the case until the presentation of the
evidence by herein petitioners (defendants before the RTC). Respondent
again took the stand to present rebuttal evidence, but even before she
could finish her testimony, Judge Velez inhibited himself upon petitioners’
motion (Order, dated 10 April 1992, penned by Judge Francisco X. Velez,
Records, Vol. 11, p. 1085). The case was transferred to Makati RTC,
Branch 141, presided by Judge Marcelino F. Bautista, Jr. For reasons not
disclosed in the Records, Judge Manuel D. Victorio took over Makati RTC,
Branch 141. After the parties submitted their respective Memoranda,
Judge Victorio declared the case submitted for decision (Order, dated 9
December 1994, penned by Judge Manuel D. Victorio, Records, Vol. III, p.
1602). Judge Victorio rendered his Decision in Civil Case No. 11336 on 24
August 1995 (Records, Vol. III, pp. 16071621).
399
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
400
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
402
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
16 Rollo, p. 374.
17 Resolution, dated 29 January 2003; Rollo, pp. 980AB.
18 Resolution, dated 23 June 2003; Id., at pp. 13111312.
403
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
405
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
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 CAG.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,
_______________
21 See the case of Borromeo v. Court of Appeals (162 Phil. 430, 438; 70
SCRA 329 [1976]) wherein this Court pronounced that a party’s right to
appeal shall not be affected by the perfection of another appeal from the
same decision; otherwise, it would lead to the absurd proposition that one
party may be deprived of the right to appeal from the portion of a decision
against him just because the other party who had been notified of the
decision ahead had already perfected his appeal in so far as the said
decision adversely affects him. If the perfection of an appeal by one party
would not bar the right of the other party to appeal from the same
decision, then an unperfected appeal, as in the case at bar, would have far
less effect.
406
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
22 The Executive Secretary v. Gordon, 359 Phil. 266, 271; 298 SCRA 736,
740 (1998).
23 Young v. John Keng Seng, 446 Phil. 823, 833; 398 SCRA 629, 638
(2003).
407
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
408
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
409
II
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
24 Sps. Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 275, 282283; 285
SCRA 351, 357358 (1998).
25 The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s findings and
conclusions, as follows: (1) By declaring the P1,069,847.40 alleged
indebtedness of Ms. Sabeniano as nonexisting for failure of Citibank
410
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
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, the26 case was presided over by four (4)
different RTC judges. It was Judge Victorio, the fourth
judge assigned to the case, who wrote the 27
RTC Decision,
dated 24 August 1995. In his Decision, Judge Victorio
made the following findings—
_______________
411
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
412
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
29
contradicted or overcame by other evidence. 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.
30
In People v. Gazmen, this Court already elucidated its
position on such an issue—
_______________
413
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
414
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
Sabeniano
Deposit/Placement Amount
Dollar deposit with CitibankGeneva $
149,632.99
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
Deposit/Placement Amount
Money market placement with Citibank,
evidenced
by Promissory Note (PN) No. 23356 (which
cancels
and supersedes PN No. 22526), earning 14.5% P
interest per annum (p.a.) 318,897.34
Money market placement with Citibank,
evidenced by
PN No. 23357 (which cancels and supersedes
PN No. 22528), P
earning 14.5% interest p.a. 203,150.00
Money market placement with FNCB
Finance, evidenced
by PN No. 5757 (which cancels and
supersedes PN No. 4952), P
earning 17% interest p.a. 500,000.00
Money market placement with FNCB
Finance, evidenced
by PN No. 5758 (which cancels and
supersedes PN No. 2962), P
earning 17% interest p.a. 500,000.00
416
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
Sabeniano
_______________
417
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
418
“As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of
proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the
general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove
payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment. 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
34
some evidence of nonpayment.”
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
34 Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 326 Phil. 89, 95;
256 SCRA 84, 8990 (1996).
35 Mr. Herminio Pujeda, at the time he testified before the RTC in
1990, was already the Vice President of petitioner Citibank.
419
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 officerin 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.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
Atty. Mabasa:
Yes, your Honor, that is why your Honor.
_______________
36 Mr. Francisco Tan, at the time of his deposition in 1990, was already
working as Assistant General Manager for DaiChi Kangyo Bank in Hong
Kong.
37 TSN, 12 March 1990, pp. 610.
420
Atty. Mabasa:
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
Exhs. “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?
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
421
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.
Atty. Mabasa: Exhibits “E” and “F”?
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
38 Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 84 Phil. 330, 346 (1949).
422
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,
rolledover 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.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
When
39
Mr. Pujeda testified before the RTC on 6 February
1990, petitioners’ counsel attempted to present in
evidence a document that would supposedly support the
claim of peti
_______________
423
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
424
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
425
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
426
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 52/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
47
memo, dated 6 September 1978, from Mr. Tan of
petitioner Citibank, to a Mr. Bobby Mendoza of petitioner
FNCB Finance. According to the memo, the two checks, in
the total amount of P1,000,000.00, were to be returned to
respondent’s account with instructions to book the said
amount in money market placements for one more year.
Pursuant to the said memo, Checks No. 77035 and 77034
were invested by petitioner FNCB Finance, on behalf of
respondent, in money market placements for which it
issued PNs No. 20138 and 20139. The PNs each covered
P500,000.00,
_______________
427
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
428
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
429
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 55/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 56/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
III
Description Amount
Principal and interests of PNs No. 20138 and
20139
(money market placements with petitioner P
FNCB Finance) 1,022,916.66
Savings account with petitioner Citibank 31,079.14
Dollar remittance from CitibankGeneva
431
(peso equivalent
Of US$149,632.99) 1,102,944.78
Total P 2,156,940.58
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
432
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
All the PNs stated that the purpose of the loans covered
thereby is “To liquidate existing obligation,” except for PN
No. 34534, which stated for its purpose “personal
investment.” Respondent secured her foregoing loans with
petitioner Citibank by executing Deeds of Assignment of
her money market placements with petitioner FNCB
Finance. On 2 March 1978, respondent executed
57
in favor of
petitioner Citibank a Deed of Assignment of PN No. 8169,
which was issued by petitioner FNCB Finance, to secure
payment of the credit and banking facilities extended to
her by petitioner Citibank, in the aggregate principal
amount of P500,000.00. On 9 March 1978, respondent
executed in favor of petitioner
_______________
433
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
434
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
435
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
436
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
437
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 63/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
438
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 64/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 65/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
439
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 66/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
75 TSN, 28 November 1991, Vol. XIII, pp. 78, 23.
440
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 67/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
441
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 68/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
77 TSN, 7 May 1986, Vol. II, pp. 4252; TSN, 19 May 1986, Vol. II, pp. 3
28.
78 Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 364 Phil. 613, 621; 305 SCRA 138, 146
(1999).
442
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 69/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
79 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 538,
553; 326 SCRA 641, 656 (2000), with reference to Tan v. Court of Appeals,
239 SCRA 310, 322 (1994).
80 Gempesaw v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92244, 9 February 1993, 218
SCRA 682, 695.
81 403 Phil. 361, 383; 350 SCRA 446, 467 (2001).
443
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 70/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
444
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 71/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
445
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 72/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
446
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 73/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
447
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 74/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
448
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 75/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
95 Exhibits “GGG” and “JJJ,” plaintiff’s folder of exhibits, pp. 109, 113.
96 Plaintiff’s folder of exhibits, p. 110.
97 See the initials on Exhibit “III1,” plaintiff’s folder of exhibits, p. 112.
449
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 76/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
450
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 77/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
451
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 78/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
452
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 79/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
included in the second set without need for its renewal, and
it still being the original PN for that particular
104
loan, its
stated purpose was for personal investment. Respondent
essentially admitted executing the second set of PNs, but
they were only meant to cover simu
_______________
453
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 80/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
454
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 81/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
105 TSN, deposition of Mr. Francisco A. Tan, 3 September 1990, pp. 13
16.
106 TSN, 22 May 1990, Vol. V, pp. 3161.
107 TSN, 7 March 1991, Vol. IX, pp. 1519; TSN, 13 March 1991, Vol. X,
pp. 79.
455
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 82/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
108 TSN, 19 March 1991, Vol. X, pp. 1721; TSN, 8 April 1991, Vol. X,
pp. 3134.
456
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 83/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
457
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 84/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
458
The best evidence rule has been made part of the revised
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 3, which reads—
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 85/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
459
“It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only
copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily
Inquirer on February 46, 2001. In doing so, the Court, did not,
however, violate the best evidence rule. Wigmore, in his book on
evidence, states that:
“Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial
court’s discretion, whenever in the case in hand the opponent does
not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other
useful purpose will be served by requiring production.24
“x x x x
“In several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavailability
has been abandoned, for certain documents in which ordinarily no
real dispute arised. This measure is a sensible and progressive
one and deserves universal adoption (post, sec. 1233). Its essential
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 86/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
This Court did not violate the best evidence rule when it
considered and weighed in evidence the photocopies and
microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters submitted by
the petitioners to establish the existence of respondent’s
loans. The terms or contents of these documents were
never the point of contention in the Petition at bar. It was
respondent’s position that the PNs in the first set (with the
exception of PN No. 34534) never existed, while the PNs in
the second set (again, excluding PN No. 34534) were
merely executed to cover simulated loan transactions. As
for the MCs representing the proceeds of the loans, the
respondent either denied receipt of certain MCs or
admitted receipt of the other MCs
_______________
115 F.D. Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. II, 571 (8th
ed., 2000).
116 G.R. Nos. 14671015, 3 April 2001, 356 SCRA 108, 137138.
460
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 87/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
461
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 88/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
462
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 89/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
463
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 90/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
464
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 91/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
465
IV
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 92/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
466
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 93/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
122 CIVIL CODE, Article 1980; Guingona, Jr. v. City Fiscal of Manila,
213 Phil. 516, 523524; 128 SCRA 577, 584 (1984).
123 CIVIL CODE, Article 1286.
467
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 94/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
468
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 95/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
124 G.R. No. 57092, 21 January 1993, 217 SCRA 307, 313314.
125 Anachuelo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L71391, 29
January 1987, 147 SCRA 434, 441442.
126 Antillon v. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148, 150151 (1917).
469
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 96/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
470
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 97/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
471
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 98/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
131 Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 396 Phil. 383,
396; 342 SCRA 213, 223 (2000).
472
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 99/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
473
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 100/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
474
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 101/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
135 Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 753, 763;
300 SCRA 565, 574 (1998).
136 Order, dated 12 November 1985, penned by Judge Ansberto P.
Paredes, Records, Vol. I, p. 310; Order, dated 2 September 1988, Id. and
penned by Judge Francisco X. Velez, Records, Vol. I, p. 449; Order, dated
24 November 1988, penned by Judge Francisco X. Velez, Records, Vol. I, p.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 102/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
475
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 103/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
137 Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Triumph Lumber and Construction
Corporation, 361 Phil. 463, 477; 301 SCRA 537, 550 (1999).
138 REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, Section 3(e).
476
_______________
139 The stipulated interest shall apply as indemnity for the damages
incurred in the delay of payment as provided in Article 2209 of the CIVIL
CODE which reads—
ART. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the
debtor incurs delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 104/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of a
stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per annum. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Note, however, that the legal interest has been increased from six
percent to twelve percent per annum by virtue of Central Bank Circulars
No. 416, dated 29 July 1974, and No. 905, dated 10 December 1982.
477
VI
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 105/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
478
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 106/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
141 THE GENERAL BANKING LAW OF 2000, Section 2.
142 Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 942, 948;
315 SCRA 309, 314 (1999).
143 Simex International (Manila), Inc, vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
88013, 19 March 1990, 183 SCRA 360, 367; Bank of Philippine Islands vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 69162, 21 February 1992, 206
SCRA 408, 412413.
144 TSN, 28 January 1986, Vol. I, pp. 57.
479
Q By the way Mrs. Witness will you kindly tell us again, you said
before that you are a businesswoman, will you tell us again
what are the businesses you are engaged into [sic]?
A I am engaged in real estate. I am the owner of the Modesta
Village 1 and 2 in San Mateo, Rizal. I am also the President
and Chairman of the Board of Macador [sic] Co. and Business
Inc. which operates the Macador [sic] International Palace
Hotel. I am also the President of the Macador [sic]
International Palace Hotel, and also the Treasures Home
Industries, Inc. which I am the Chairm an and president of the
Board and also operating affiliated company in the name of
Treasures Motor Sales engaged in car dealers [sic] like Delta
Motors, we are the dealers of the whole Northern Luzon and I
am the president of the Disto Company, Ltd., based in
Hongkong licensed in Honkong [sic] and now operating in Los
Angeles, California.
Q What is the business of that Disto Company Ltd.?
A Disto Company, Ltd., is engaged in real estate and
construction.
Q Aside from those businesses are you a member of any national
or community organization for social and civil activities?
A Yes sir.
Q What are those?
A I am the VicePresident of thes [sic] Subdivision Association of
the Philippines in 1976, I am also an officer of the . . .
Chamber of Real Estate Business Association; I am also an
officer of the Chatholic [sic] Women’s League and I am also a
member of the CMLI, I forgot the definition.
Q How about any political affiliation or government position held
if any?
A I was also a candidate for Mayor last January 30, 1980.
Q Where?
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 107/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
480
481
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 108/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
the 145
actual injury suffered by the respondent, not to enrich
her.
Having failed to exercise more care and prudence than a
private individual in its dealings with respondent,
petitioner Citibank should be liable for exemplary
damages, in 146
the amount147of P250,000.00, in accordance with
Article 2229 and 2234 of the Civil Code.
With the award of exemplary damages, then respondent 148
shall also be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.
Additionally, attorney's fees may be awarded when a party
is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his149
interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party.
In this case, an award of P200,000.00 attorney’s fees shall
be satisfactory.
In contrast, this Court finds no sufficient basis to award
damages to petitioners. Respondent was compelled to
institute the present case in the exercise of her rights and
in the protection of her interests. In fact, although her
Complaint before the RTC was not sustained in its
entirety, it did raise meritorious points and on which this
Court rules in her favor. Any injury resulting 150 from the
exercise of one’s rights is damnum absque injuria.
_______________
145 Tiongco v. Atty. Deguma, 375 Phil. 978, 994995; 317 SCRA 527, 541
(1999); Zenith Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85296,
14 May 1990, 185 SCRA 398, 402403.
146 Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.
147 While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, the
plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of
whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. x x x
148 CIVIL CODE, Article 2208(1).
149 Ching Sen Ben vs. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 544, 555; 314 SCRA
762, 772773 (1999).
150 ABSCBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil.
498, 531532; 301 SCRA 572, 604 (1999); Tierra International
Construction Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 109/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
482
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 110/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
_______________
No. 88912, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 73, 81; Saba v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 77950, 24 August 1990, 189 SCRA 50, 55.
483
SO ORDERED.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 111/112
10/26/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 504
——o0o——
484
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f5515298f371ed401003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 112/112