G.R. No. 198660; October 23, 2013
TING TING PUA, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES BENITO LO BUN TIONG and CAROLINE SIOK CHING TENG, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ting Ting Pua filed a complaint for sum of money against respondent spouses, alleging they obtained loans from her in 1988, issuing 176 checks totaling PHP 1,975,000, which were dishonored. She claimed that in 1996, after computing the debt with compounded monthly interest at 2%, the obligation ballooned to over PHP 13 million. The respondents allegedly negotiated a reduction to PHP 8.5 million and issued Asiatrust Check No. BND057750 for this amount, which was also dishonored upon presentment, prompting the lawsuit.
Respondents denied obtaining any loan from Pua. Respondent Caroline testified that the check in question was one of five pre-signed blank checks she left with Pua’s sister, Lilian Balboa, for operational expenses of a since-dissolved mahjong business partnership, with the condition that no check would exceed PHP 5,000. She asserted she did not complete the check for PHP 8.5 million, alleging it was filled out by Pua or Lilian after the fact. Both respondents also denied jointly approaching Pua to negotiate the debt, claiming they had been separated for nearly a decade.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether petitioner Pua successfully proved the existence of a loan agreement and the respondents’ liability based on the PHP 8.5 million check.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling absolving the respondents. The legal logic centered on the burden of proof in civil cases and the insufficiency of Pua’s evidence. For a sum of money action based on a loan, the claimant must prove the existence of the loan and the debtor’s failure to pay. The check alone, being a negotiable instrument, does not by itself establish the loan; it is merely evidence of an underlying obligation that must be proven.
The Court found Pua’s evidence wanting. Her claim of an oral loan agreement from 1988 lacked corroboration and documentary support. Her computation of the ballooned debt based on compounded interest was unsupported by any written agreement detailing such terms. Crucially, the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the PHP 8.5 million check were rendered dubious by Caroline’s credible testimony. Caroline’s claim that the check was pre-signed and later completed without her consent was consistent with her banking habit of handwriting checks, unlike the typewritten entries on the disputed check, and was corroborated by the bank manager. The Court also found the respondents’ denial of jointly transacting with Pua credible given their established separation. Thus, Pua failed to discharge her burden of proving her case by preponderance of evidence.