BPI v. MENDOZA

Bank of the Philippine Islands Vs. Amado M. Mendoza and Maria Marcos Vda. De Mendoza

G.R. No. 198799

March 20, 2017

FACTS:

On April 8, 1997, respondents: (a) opened a foreign currency savings (US savings account) at BPI-Gapan Branch and deposited therein the total amount of US$ 16,264.00, in US Treasury Check payable to "Ma. Marcos Vda. de Mendoza" (subject check); and (b) placed the amount of US$2,000.00 in a time deposit account. After the lapse of the thirty (30) day clearing period on May 9 and 13, 1997, respondents withdrew the amount of US$16,244.00 from the US savings account, leaving only US$20.00 for bank charges.

On June 26, 1997, BPI received a notice from its correspondent bank, Bankers Trust Company New York (Bankers Trust), that the subject check was dishonored due to "amount altered", as evidenced by (1) an electronic mail (e-mail) advice from Bankers Trust, and (2) a photocopy of the subject check with a notation "endorsement cancelled" by Bankers Trust as the original copy of the subject check was allegedly confiscated by the government of the United States of America (US government).

This prompted BPI to inform respondents of such dishonor and to demand reimbursement. BPI then claimed that: (a) on July 18, 1997, respondents allowed BPI to apply the proceeds of their time deposit account in the amount of US$2,015.00 to their outstanding obligation; (b) upon the exhaustion of the said time deposit account, Amado gave BPI a promissory note dated September 8, 1997 containing his promise to pay BPI-Gapan Branch the amount of P1,000.00 monthly; and (c) when respondents failed to fulfill their obligation despite repeated demands, BPI was constrained to give a final demand letter to respondents on November 27, 1997.

In a Decision dated May 9, 2007, the RTC ruled in BPI's favor. Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the CA. In a Decision dated February 4, 2011, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC's ruling, and consequently, dismissed BPI's complaint for lack of merit. It held that BPI failed to prove the dishonor of the subject check, since: (a) the presentation of a mere photocopy of the subject check is in violation of the Best Evidence Rule; and (b) the e-mail advice from Bankers Trust was not properly authenticated in accordance with the Rules on Electronic Evidence as the person who sent the e-mail advice was neither identified nor presented in court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the BPI had proven its cause of action by preponderance of evidence.

FACTS:

Yes. The Supreme Court finds the petition meritorious. Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court reads: Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in 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; In order to fall under the aforesaid exception, it is crucial that the offeror proves: (a) the existence or due execution of the original; (b) the loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-production in court; and (c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. In this case, BPI sufficiently complied with the foregoing requisites.

First, the existence or due execution of the subject check was admitted by both parties. Second, the reason for the non-presentation of the original copy of the subject check was justifiable as it was confiscated by the US government for being an altered check. The subject check, being a US Treasury Warrant, is not an ordinary check, and practically speaking, the same could not be easily obtained. Lastly, absent any proof to the contrary and for the reasons already stated, no bad faith can be attributed to BPI for its failure to present the original of the subject check. Thus, applying the exception to the Best Evidence Rule, the presentation of the photocopy of the subject check as secondary evidence was permissible.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 4, 2011 and the Resolution dated August 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91704 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated May 9, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 87 in Civil Case No. 1913 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION, adjusting the interest imposed on the amount ordered to be returned, i.e., P369, 600.51, to six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the date of extrajudicial demand on June 27, 1997, until fully paid.