G.R. No. 202573 April 19, 2017
BANKARD, INC. (now RCBC Bankard Services Corporation), Petitioner, vs. LUZ P. ALARTE, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Bankard, Inc. filed a collection case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig against respondent Luz P. Alarte for her alleged unpaid credit card obligations amounting to ₱67,944.82. The complaint was based on a Statement of Account dated July 9, 2006, which reflected the total amount due, including unbilled installments, charges, and penalties. Respondent failed to file an answer, prompting petitioner to file a Motion to Render Judgment.
The MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of preponderance of evidence. It found that the single statement of account submitted by petitioner only showed the imposed late charges and interest charges but did not indicate the specific purchases made by the respondent that gave rise to the principal obligation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the MeTC’s dismissal, holding that the presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(q) of the Rules of Court—that a letter duly directed and mailed was received—merely established that statements were sent, not the truth of the transactional details contained therein. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the collection case based on insufficiency of evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It held that while the lower courts correctly ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a judgment in favor of the petitioner, the outright dismissal of the case was improper. The Court clarified that a credit card transaction is essentially a loan agreement. The petitioner’s lone statement of account, which only summarized charges and penalties without detailing the underlying purchase transactions, failed to substantiate the principal obligation by preponderance of evidence. The presumption of regularity in the sending of statements does not prove the fact of the transactions themselves.
However, the Court ruled that the MeTC should have allowed the petitioner to amend its complaint and present additional evidence to prove its case, rather than dismissing it outright. The Rules on Summary Procedure do not preclude the amendment of pleadings to include necessary details or the submission of further affidavits to clarify the claim. The case was therefore remanded to the MeTC with instructions to allow petitioner to amend its complaint and adduce additional evidence, such as detailed records of the respondent’s credit history and the specific loan transactions, to properly establish the validity of its claim.