G.R. No. 235914 . July 29, 2020.
Janolino “Noli” C. Palafox represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, Efraim B. Orodio, Petitioner, vs. Ms. Christine B. Wangdali and the Rural Bank of Tabuk Pro (Ka) Inc., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Janolino “Noli” C. Palafox held a Certificate of Time Deposit (CTD) No. 19265 issued by respondent Rural Bank of Tabuk, Inc. When he sought to withdraw its value, the Bank, through its manager Christine B. Wangdali, refused, citing an ongoing Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas investigation into possible fraud and misappropriation involving the account. Palafox, through his attorney-in-fact Efraim B. Orodio (authorized by a Special Power of Attorney), filed a Complaint for Withdrawal of Deposit and Damages. Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing lack of cause of action as the suit was not prosecuted by the real party-in-interest (Palafox himself) and that Palafox was an impostor, as the CTD was under the name “Noli Palafox” and bank records showed signature discrepancies. They also alleged the deposit originated from a simulated loan involving the Bank’s former manager, Rachel Orodio, who used “Palafox” as a dummy. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motions to dismiss and, after trial where only Orodio testified for Palafox and respondents presented no witnesses, ruled in favor of Palafox. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, ruling that Palafox failed to prove his identity as the “Noli Palafox” named in the CTD and thus failed to establish his cause of action.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that petitioner Janolino Palafox failed to prove his identity as the “Noli Palafox” named in Certificate of Time Deposit No. 19265 and therefore failed to establish his cause of action for withdrawal of the deposit.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision. The Court held that the issues raised were factual, and none of the exceptions to the rule that it is not a trier of facts applied. It found that Palafox failed to discharge his burden of proof to establish his case by preponderance of evidence. Specifically, he failed to prove the existence of a cause of action by not establishing his right to the relief prayed for. The CTD was under the name “Noli Palafox,” but the complaint was instituted for “Janolino Palafox.” Petitioner presented no evidence to prove that “Janolino Palafox” and “Noli Palafox” are one and the same person, or that he is authorized to use the name “Noli.” The Special Power of Attorney executed by “Janolino Palafox” in favor of Orodio lacked corroborating evidence, such as an identification card, to indubitably show that the principal was the same person as the CTD account owner. Consequently, petitioner failed to prove his identity and ownership over the CTD.