BANKARD, INC. v. ALARTE

BANKARD, INC., Petitioner, vs. LUZ P. ALARTE, Respondent. 

G.R. No. 202573

April 19, 2017

Facts:

Petitioner Bankard, Inc. (Bankard, now RCBC Bankard Services Corporation) is a duly constituted domestic corporation doing business as a credit card provider, extending credit accommodations to its member-cardholders for the purchase of goods and services obtained from Bankard-accredited business establishments, to be paid later on by the member-cardholders following billing.

In 2007, petitioner filed a collection case against respondent Luz P. Alarte before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MeTC). In its Complaint, petitioner alleged that respondent applied for and was granted credit accommodations under Bankard myDream JCB Card.No. 3562-8688-5155-1006; that respondent, using the said Bankard myDream JCB credit card, availed herself of credit acconunodations by "purchasing various products"; that per Statement of Account dated July 9, 2006, respondent's credit availments amounted to a total of ₱67,944.82, inclusive of unbilled monthly installments, charges and penalties or at least the minimum amount due under the credit card; and that respondent failed and refuses to pay her obligations despite her receipt of a written demand.

Thus, it prayed that respondent be ordered to pay the amount of ₱67,944.82, with interest, attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the sum due, and costs of suit. On July 15, 2009, the MeTC issued its Decision dismissing the case for lack of preponderance of evidence or lack or "greater weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner appealed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which, in a May 6, 2010 Decision, affirmed the MeTC based on the same ground.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals, but the same was denied and dismissed for lack of preponderance of evidence. Petitioner moved to reconsider, but in a July 4, 2012 Resolution, the CA held its ground.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner, Bankard Inc. presented sufficient evidence to support its pecuniary claim against respondent Luz P. Alarte.

Ruling: 

No, the petitioner, Bankard Inc. did not present sufficient evidence to support its pecuniary claim against respondent Luz P. Alarte. Upon perusal of the July 9, 2006 Statement of Account sent to respondent would indeed show that it does not contain the particulars of purchase transactions into by the latter; it merely contains the information of the previous statement balance, late and interest charges, amounting to ₱67,944.82

However, the Court held that the manner in which the statement of account is worded indicates that it is a running balance, a continuing and mounting bill of charges consisting of a combined principal amount with finance and penalty charges imposed, which respondent appears to have failed to pay in the past. This is shown by the fact that respondent has failed to pay a past bill amounting to ₱64,615.64 - the "previous statement balance" in the very first line of the above-quoted statement of account.

This could mean that there really were no immediate purchase transactions made by respondent for the month that needed to be specified in the July 9, 2006 Statement of Account; that instead, she simply repeatedly failed and continues to fail to pay her credit card debt arising out of past credit card purchase transactions to petitioner, which thus resulted in a mounting pile of charges imposed upon her outstanding account as reflected in a statement or bill of charges or accounts regularly sent to her.

Moreover, the fault of Petitioner appears to lie in the fact that its Complaint was not well-prepared, and its cause is not well-argued; for this reason, the courts below misunderstood both. The Court cannot completely blame the MeTC, RTC, and CA for their failure to understand or realize the fact that a monthly credit card statement of account does not always necessarily involve purchases or transactions made immediately prior to the issuance of such statement.

While the Court believes that petitioner's claim may be well-founded, it is not enough as to allow judgment in its favor on the basis of extant evidence. It must prove the validity of its claim; this it may do by amending its Complaint and adducing additional evidence of respondent's credit history and proving the loan transactions between them.

Therefore, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The September 28, 2011 Decision and July 4, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Further, Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 72 is ORDERED to conduct further proceedings in accordance with the foregoing disquisition of the Court and allow petitioner Bankard, Inc. to amend its Complaint and/or present additional evidence to prove its case.