CASE DIGEST: PCIB vs. Franco
[G.R. No. 180069 : March 05, 2014] PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC.), Petitioner, v. ARTURO P. FRANCO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MAURICIA P. FRANCO, FLORIBEL P. FRANCO, AND ALEXANDER P. FRANCO, Respondents. PERALTA, J.:
FACTS: Respondent who was 51 years old then decided to save up for his retirement and to invest his hard earned money. He chose to deposit his savings with defendant bank primarily because of the latters representation that by making such investment, he was actually providing for his future since his investment would be commingled, pooled and automatically rolled-over for better investment return and which will provide for his needs upon retirement, without need for him to take any further action. Respondent secured from the bank several Trust Indenture Certificates.
Sometime in 1995, plaintiff discovered that one of his children had leukemia and in the ensuing hospitalization and treatment, plaintiff spent a lot of money; that because his funds were already exhausted, plaintiff then turned to his Trust Indenture Certificates and started inquiring as to how he could liquidate the trust. In the beginning, defendant bank constantly asked for time to look for his records and promised to have an answer before July 15, 1998. On June 22 however, plaintiff received a letter from defendants counsel denying plaintiffs request for payment by stating that due to the conversion of all outstanding PCIBank trust indenture accounts into common trust certificates, all such PCIBank trust indenture certificates have been rendered null and void. Defendant also argues that the present action had already prescribed.
Plaintiff now prays for the payment of the amounts under the Trust Indenture Certificates, plus interest, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff is entitled the relief he seeks
HELD: Yes. Petitioner Bank failed to adduce any documentary evidence to establish the alleged fact that the four TICs were already paid or cancelled, or that respondents participation therein was already withdrawn. With all these findings, the CA concluded that the claim of respondent is not yet barred by prescription, since the maturity dates of the four TICs did not terminate the express trust created between the parties.
Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove non-payment for it is presumed. The creditors possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been discharged by payment.
In this case, respondents possession of the original copies of the subject TICs strongly supports his claim that petitioner Banks obligation to return the principal plus interest of the money placement has not been extinguished. The TICs in the hands of respondent is a proof of indebtedness and a prima facie evidence that they have not been paid. Petitioner Bank could have easily presented documentary evidence to dispute the claim, but it did not. In its omission, it may be reasonably deduced that no evidence to that effect really exist. Worse, the testimonies of petitioner Banks own witnesses, reinforce, rather than belie, respondents allegations of non-payment.
FACTS: Respondent who was 51 years old then decided to save up for his retirement and to invest his hard earned money. He chose to deposit his savings with defendant bank primarily because of the latters representation that by making such investment, he was actually providing for his future since his investment would be commingled, pooled and automatically rolled-over for better investment return and which will provide for his needs upon retirement, without need for him to take any further action. Respondent secured from the bank several Trust Indenture Certificates.
Sometime in 1995, plaintiff discovered that one of his children had leukemia and in the ensuing hospitalization and treatment, plaintiff spent a lot of money; that because his funds were already exhausted, plaintiff then turned to his Trust Indenture Certificates and started inquiring as to how he could liquidate the trust. In the beginning, defendant bank constantly asked for time to look for his records and promised to have an answer before July 15, 1998. On June 22 however, plaintiff received a letter from defendants counsel denying plaintiffs request for payment by stating that due to the conversion of all outstanding PCIBank trust indenture accounts into common trust certificates, all such PCIBank trust indenture certificates have been rendered null and void. Defendant also argues that the present action had already prescribed.
Plaintiff now prays for the payment of the amounts under the Trust Indenture Certificates, plus interest, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff is entitled the relief he seeks
HELD: Yes. Petitioner Bank failed to adduce any documentary evidence to establish the alleged fact that the four TICs were already paid or cancelled, or that respondents participation therein was already withdrawn. With all these findings, the CA concluded that the claim of respondent is not yet barred by prescription, since the maturity dates of the four TICs did not terminate the express trust created between the parties.
Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove non-payment for it is presumed. The creditors possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been discharged by payment.
In this case, respondents possession of the original copies of the subject TICs strongly supports his claim that petitioner Banks obligation to return the principal plus interest of the money placement has not been extinguished. The TICs in the hands of respondent is a proof of indebtedness and a prima facie evidence that they have not been paid. Petitioner Bank could have easily presented documentary evidence to dispute the claim, but it did not. In its omission, it may be reasonably deduced that no evidence to that effect really exist. Worse, the testimonies of petitioner Banks own witnesses, reinforce, rather than belie, respondents allegations of non-payment.
