G.R. No. 157177 ; February 11, 2008
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. JESUSA P. REYES and CONRADO B. REYES, respondents.

FACTS

On December 7, 1990, respondent Jesusa Reyes, assisted by her daughter, went to the BPI Zapote Branch to open an ATM account with a deposit of P200,000.00. She intended to source P100,000.00 from her existing savings account and to deposit another P100,000.00 in cash. Bank employee Cicero Capati prepared a withdrawal slip for P200,000.00 from her savings account. Upon being informed that her balance was insufficient, Jesusa corrected the slip to P100,000.00. She then claims to have handed Capati P100,000.00 in cash. Capati later gave her a machine-validated deposit slip for P200,000.00 for the new account. Later, her statement of account reflected only a P100,000.00 deposit. She demanded the return of the missing P100,000.00.
The bank’s version was截然不同. It admitted the transfer of P100,000.00 from her old account to the new one but denied any cash deposit. It asserted that Jesusa initially wanted to transfer P200,000.00 but, due to insufficient funds, reduced it to P100,000.00. The bank claimed the deposit slip for P200,000.00 was a clerical error later corrected and validated for only P100,000.00, with Capati signing the correction himself as Jesusa had already left.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision ordering BPI to return P100,000.00 to the respondents based on the preponderance of evidence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and RTC decisions and dismissed the complaint. The Court held that respondents failed to prove their claim by a preponderance of evidence. In civil cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and mere preponderance of evidence suffices, meaning evidence that is more convincing and credible. The Court found the respondents’ evidence lacking.
The purported cash deposit of P100,000.00 was not reflected in the bank’s teller tape for the day, which showed no cash transaction of that magnitude involving Capati. The validated deposit slip presented by respondents was not the original copy given to the bank but a duplicate, and the validation stamp was unclear and questionable. In contrast, the bank presented the original, machine-validated deposit slip showing only P100,000.00. The respondents’ conduct was also inconsistent with a person who had just deposited a large sum; they did not immediately verify the account balance despite having an ATM card. The positive testimony of the bank employee, corroborated by documentary evidence, was deemed more credible than the respondents’ uncorroborated claim. Thus, the claim was unsubstantiated.