464 Phil. 76
CORONA, J.:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, plaintiff has miserably failed to prove its case by preponderance of evidence. The above-entitled case is ordered dismissed with costs against plaintiff.On September 25, 1991, Philippine Banking Corporation filed a motion for new trial which the trial court subsequently granted despite the opposition of Sarmiento.
Judgment over counterclaim in the sum of P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P20,000.00 as litigation expenses is hereby awarded in favor of the defendant. No moral or exemplary damages adjudged.[2]
On October 22, 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court’s decision:First Assignment of Error
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED ITS CAUSE OF ACTION WITH AN OVERWHELMING PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCESecond Assignment of Error
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT WHEN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WITHDREW THE AMOUNT OF P4,126,000.00 SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE TIME THAT IT CREDITED THE SAME TO DEFENDANT’S ACCOUNT, PLAINTIFF BANK ABORTED THE LOAN TRANSACTION UNDER PROMISSORY NOTE 626-84Third Assignment of Error
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN AWARDING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE P30,000.00 AS ATTORNEY’S FEES AND P20,000.00 AS LITIGATION EXPENSES, THE SAME BEING WITHOUT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS, AND EXCESSIVE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.[3]
WHEREFORE, the August 3, 1992 decision appealed from is MODIFIED to delete the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. The rest is AFFIRMED in toto.[4]Hence, the instant petition anchoring its plea for reversal on the following errors allegedly committed by the Court of Appeals:
IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAS OVERCOME ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THROUGH THE PRESENTATION OF OVERWHELMING PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING ITS CAUSE OF ACTIONPetitioner contends that the appellate court incorrectly upheld the trial court’s misinterpretation of the clear import of the entries in the bank statement. Said document showed that the proceeds of the loan obtained by respondent Sarmiento under promissory note no. 626-64 had been credited to his current account no. 1025-00815-0 maintained at petitioner’s New Manila Branch in the name of A.L. Sarmiento Construction. Petitioner further alleges that its cause of action against respondent Sarmiento was predicated upon actionable documents, the due execution and authenticity of which respondent admitted. Thus, no proof was required of petitioner to establish the contents of the said documents because such judicial admissions of respondent created a prima facie case in petitioner’s favor.
IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE FAILED TO SUCCESSFULLY CONTROVERT HIS OWN JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE PETITIONER’S CAUSE OF ACTION IS BASED
IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROMISSORY NOTE WAS EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR A VALID CONSIDERATION
IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE HAS SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN THAT THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED THE PROCEEDS OF THE SUBJECT PROMISSORY NOTE
IN AWARDING LITIGATION EXPENSES FOR P20,000.00 WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS.
A pre-existing obligation, it may be conceded, constitutes value and may, of and by itself, serve as valuable and sufficient consideration for a contract such as the loan sued upon. As an essential element of a contract, however, the same should have been satisfactorily proved by the appellant – particularly when, as in the instant case, the absence of consideration was precisely put in issue by the pleadings and was buttressed by both oral and documentary evidence. Having failed in this material respect, the appellant’s withdrawal of the amount supposedly credited to the appellee’s account was understandably interpreted by the court a quo as a termination/cancellation of the loan the latter applied for. Considering further that contracts without consideration do not exist in contemplation of law and produce no effect whatsoever (Article 1352, Civil Code of the Philippines), the trial, likewise, correctly dismissed the appellant’s case.[5] (emphasis supplied)A statement in a written instrument regarding the payment of consideration is merely in the nature of a receipt and may be contradicted.[6] Respondent Sarmiento denied having received the proceeds of the loan and in fact presented evidence showing that on the day petitioner claimed to have credited the subject amount, it was again debited or withdrawn by petitioner, admittedly upon the instruction of the officials from petitioner’s head office. Petitioner attempted to controvert this fact by claiming that the proceeds of the loan were applied to respondent’s previous obligations to the bank. But we find nothing in the records showing that respondent had other obligations to which the proceeds of the loan could or should have been applied. Moreover, petitioner failed to explain just exactly what said obligations were or to what extent the purported proceeds were applied in satisfaction thereof. What appeared clearly was that the proceeds of the loan were deposited then withdrawn the same day by petitioner itself, thus negating its claim that respondent actually received it. Petitioner therefore failed to establish its case against respondent Sarmiento.