Ting Ting Pua Vs Sps. Benito Case Digest
Ting Ting Pua Vs Sps. Benito Case Digest
RESOLUTION
During trial, petitioner Pua clarified that the PhP 8,500,000 check was
given by respondents to pay the loans they obtained from her under
a compounded interest agreement on various dates in 1988.4 As Pua
narrated, her sister, Lilian Balboa (Lilian), vouched for respondents’
ability to pay so that when respondents approached her, she
immediately acceded and lent money to respondents without
requiring any collateral except post-dated checks bearing the
borrowed amounts.5 In all, respondents issued 176 checks for a total
amount of one million nine hundred seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP
1,975,000). These checks were dishonored upon presentment to the
drawee bank.7
For the defense, both respondents Caroline and Benito testified along
with Rosa Dela Cruz Tuazon (Tuazon), who was the OIC-Manager of
Asiatrust-Binondo Branch in 1997. Respondents categorically denied
obtaining a loan from petitioner.17 Respondent Caroline, in particular,
narrated that, in August 1995, she and petitioner’s sister, Lilian, forged
a partnership that operated a mahjong business. Their agreement
was for Lilian to serve as the capitalist while respondent Caroline was
to act as the cashier. Caroline also agreed to use her personal checks
to pay for the operational expenses including the payment of the
winners of the games.18 As the partners anticipated that Caroline will
not always be in town to prepare these checks, she left with Lilian five
(5) pre-signed and consecutively numbered checks19 on the
condition that these checks will only be used to cover the costs of the
business operations and in no circumstance will the amount of the
checks exceed PhP 5,000.20
The witness for the respondents, Ms. Tuazon, testified that respondent
Caroline opened Asiatrust Account No. 5513-0054-9 in September
1994.32 She claimed that the average maintaining balance of
respondent Caroline was PhP 2,000 and the highest amount issued by
Caroline from her account was PhP 435,000.33 She maintained that
respondent Caroline had always completed her checks with her own
handwriting and not with a check writer. On October 15, 1996,
Caroline’s checking account was closed at the instance of the bank
due to 69 instances of check issuance against insufficient balance.34
After trial, the RTC issued its Decision dated January 31, 2006 in favor
of petitioner. In holding thus, the RTC stated that the possession by
petitioner of the checks signed by Caroline, under the Negotiable
Instruments Law, raises the presumption that they were issued and
delivered for a valuable consideration. On the other hand, the court
a quo discounted the testimony for the defense completely denying
respondents’ loan obligation to Pua.35
The general rule is that this Court in petitions for review on certiorari
only concerns itself with questions of law, not of fact,41 the resolution
of factual issues being the primary function of lower courts.42 However,
several exceptions have been laid down by jurisprudence to allow the
scrutiny of the factual arguments advanced by the contending
parties, viz: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or
conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible ; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are
conflicting ; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the
factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of fact are
contradicted by the presence of evidence on record ; (8) the findings
of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court ; (9) the CA manifestly
overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion ; (10) the findings of
the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are
contrary to the admissions of both parties.43 At the very least,
therefore, the inconsonance of the findings of the RTC and the CA
regarding the existence of the loan sanctions the recalibration of the
evidence presented by the parties before the trial court.
The claim of Caroline Siok Ching Teng that the three (3) checks were
part of the blank checks she issued and delivered to Lilian Balboa,
wife of plaintiff-appellee, and intended solely for the operational
expenses of their mahjong business is belied by her admission that she
issued three (3) checks (Exhs. "A", "B" "C") because Vicente showed the
listing of their account totaling ₱5,175,250.00 (TSN, November 17, 1997,
p. 10).64 x x x
Clearly, respondents’ defense that Caroline left blank checks with
petitioner’s sister who, it is said, is now determined to recoup her past
losses and bring financial ruin to respondents by falsifying the same
blank checks, had already been thoroughly passed upon and
rejected by this Court. It cannot, therefore, be used to support
respondents’ denial of their liability.
SO ORDERED.