GR 47815; (March, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47815 March 11, 1992
PEOPLE’S BANK and TRUST COMPANY (now BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVIII of the Court of First Instance of Manila and MELCHOR SAMONTE, respondents.
FACTS
Sometime in January 1972, a woman identifying herself as Aurora S. de Arabis purchased appliances from private respondent Melchor Samonte, paying with a Philamlife check drawn against Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) in the amount of P7,716.80. The check bore a receipt identification stamp with the name and signature of Aurora S. de Arabis and was endorsed in favor of Samonte, who also asked her to sign again at the back. On February 2, 1972, Samonte deposited the check in his current account with petitioner People’s Bank and Trust Company, which subsequently cleared it. On February 26, 1973, FEBTC notified the petitioner bank that the payee’s signature on the check had been forged, as evidenced by a sworn affidavit dated January 31, 1973, from Aurora S. de Arabis stating she was the payee, had not received the check, and that her signature was forged since she uses only her thumbmark. The petitioner bank refunded the amount to FEBTC and debited Samonte’s account, resulting in an overdraft of P7,679.83, which Samonte refused to pay despite demands, leading to the recovery suit.
ISSUE
Whether or not the affidavit of Aurora S. de Arabis is admissible as evidence to prove the forgery of her signature on the check.
RULING
No, the affidavit is not admissible. The affidavit of Aurora S. de Arabis is inadmissible hearsay evidence. Affidavits are generally rejected as hearsay because they are not prepared by the affiant, may contain omissions or misunderstandings, and deprive the adverse party of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant. In this case, the petitioner’s sole evidence to prove forgery was the affidavit, and the affiant was not presented in court to testify. Without her testimony, there was no competent evidence to prove the forgery. Consequently, the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof, and the case must fall. The petition for review was denied for lack of merit.