G.R. No. 137932 March 28, 2001
CHIANG YIA MIN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, PAPERCON (PHILIPPINES), INC. and TOM PEK, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Chiang Yia Min, a Chinese national, sought to recover US$100,000.00 from respondent Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). He alleged that he remitted this amount from Hong Kong to RCBC’s head office in 1979 to qualify as a foreign investor. Years later, he discovered the funds had been transferred to an RCBC Shaw Boulevard branch, converted to pesos, and nearly entirely withdrawn via checks payable to respondents Papercon and Tom Pek. Petitioner denied opening this account, authorizing the transfer, or issuing the checks. The trial court ruled in his favor, finding RCBC negligent for allowing an agent of Tom Pek to open the account using incomplete forms without verifying petitioner’s identity or signature, and for permitting substantial withdrawals without proper authorization. It held RCBC solely liable for the principal amount, interest, and damages.
RCBC appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. It found that petitioner failed to prove his claim by preponderance of evidence. The appellate court noted petitioner’s inconsistent testimonies regarding his arrival in the Philippines and his failure to promptly inquire about his substantial investment. It also gave weight to RCBC’s evidence, including the checks themselves and bank records, which indicated regular account transactions. The CA concluded that the checks, having been issued to Papercon and Tom Pek, were presumed issued for valuable consideration, and there was no proof of collusion between the bank and the payees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s finding that RCBC was liable for the unauthorized withdrawal of petitioner’s funds.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The core legal principle applied is that in civil cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish his claim by a preponderance of evidence. The Court found that petitioner failed to discharge this burden. His testimony was replete with inconsistencies, particularly concerning the date of his arrival in the Philippines, which was material to his claim of never having operated the account. His prolonged delay—six years—in checking on a significant investment was deemed contrary to human experience and cast doubt on his credibility.
Conversely, RCBC presented sufficient evidence, including the checks and ledger entries, to support the regularity of the account transactions. The presumption that a check was issued for valuable consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Law stands in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. Petitioner provided no such proof of forgery or lack of consideration. Furthermore, the Court found no conclusive evidence of collusion between RCBC’s officers and the other respondents. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly held that petitioner did not prove his case, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of RCBC’s banking duties must prevail.