G.R. No. 126153; January 14, 2004
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and ATTY. MORDENO CUA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) received a tested telex from Manufacturer’s Hanover Trust Co. (Mantrust) in New York on December 18, 1985, instructing it to remit US$14,056.25 to PNB Cagayan de Oro Branch under Account No. 16087. PNB implemented the order on December 20, 1985. Upon verification, PNB Cagayan de Oro Branch discovered it did not maintain said account. It was later found that Account No. 16087 was with Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank (PCIB), Cagayan de Oro Branch, under the name of the Center for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), with private respondent Atty. Mordeno Cua as the sole signatory. PNB Cagayan de Oro Branch then transferred the funds to the PCIB account.
Subsequently, Mantrust rectified its message and recalled the funds, stating the money was not intended for PNB. PNB complied with the recall on January 21, 1986. Upon request for PCIB to return the amount, PNB was informed the entire sum had been withdrawn by Atty. Cua. After Cua refused restitution demands, PNB filed a complaint for sum of money against him. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of PNB, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that PNB failed to prove Cua actually withdrew the money.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that PNB failed to discharge its burden of proving that Atty. Mordeno Cua withdrew the remitted amount from the CESS account, thereby making him liable for its restitution.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that PNB failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that Cua withdrew the funds. PNB’s reliance on a judicial admission was misplaced. In his Answer, Cua specifically denied the allegation in paragraph 6 of the Complaint that he withdrew the money, stating he had “no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth” of said allegation, which under the Rules of Court operates as a specific denial, not an admission.
Furthermore, the evidence presented by PNB was insufficient. The testimonies and documents only established that the funds were transferred to the CESS account at PCIB and that Mantrust later recalled the remittance. PNB did not present any bank withdrawal slip, receipt, or other conclusive evidence showing that Cua, as sole signatory, actually withdrew the money. The demand letters sent by PNB to Cua did not contain any assertion or admission from him that he made the withdrawal; they were merely requests for information and proposals for settlement. Since PNB bore the burden of proof to establish every element of its cause of action, its failure to prove the fact of withdrawal was fatal to its claim for restitution.