403 Phil. 883
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from dismissing plaintiff-appellant's complaint in Civil Case No. Q-35744, and ordering plaintiff-appellant to return and/or release to defendant-appellant Dick Go all funds in its control under the account of said Dick Go, including accrued earnings, if any, and lifting and setting aside all attachments and/or garnishments issued by reason of the case is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered ordering defendant-appellant Dick Go and defendant Eduardo Lauchengco to pay, jointly and severally, to plaintiff-appellant the amount of P1,307,811.62, with interest at the legal rate from September 7, 1982 until fully paid. In all other respects, the decision appealed from is affirmed. With costs against defendant-appellant.In reversing and setting aside the decision of the lower court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's factual findings but made "corrections and deletions" therein, thus:
The two PNB checks were traced to have been deposited in the accounts of one Robert Santos at the SBTC Congressional Branch in Quezon City and in the SBTC Caloocan City Branch. The Congressional Branch Account (CA-2110-0282-47) was opened on May 31, 1982 (not on May 3, 1982), admittedly with the participation of Dick Go who, however, insisted that he met a real live person who was a walk-in-client, contrary to the prosecution's claim that the name Robert Santos and Dick Go are one and the same person. At the time the Congressional Branch account was opened, Dick Go was Assistant Manager-in-charge of Accounting Department, Nora Isidro was Branch Manager, and Dolores Satuito was Assistant Manager-in-charge of Cash Department which also superintended the New Accounts Department.In addition to the above corrections and deletions in the lower court's factual findings, the Court of Appeals found the following "additional facts to complete the story":
On June 21, 1982 (not sometime before June 18, 1982), Current Account No. CA-3310-0031-03 (not No. CA-33100031) in the name of Robert Santos was also opened at the SBTC Caloocan City Branch where accused Eduardo Lauchengco was then employed as bookkeeper. The account was opened with the intervention of Eduardo Lauchengco who reserved and opened the account without accomplishing the necessary papers, and received the corresponding checkbook which he then delivered to defendant-appellee Dick Go (TSN, November 16, 1984, pp. 10-17, (not that it is not clear under what circumstances the Caloocan City Branch account was opened) xxx.
Earlier, on June 3, 1982, a bank account in the name of Fernando Cruz was opened with the Philippine Bank of Communication (PBC for short) by accused Generoso Fermin who at that time was a bank officer at the PBC. Fermin admitted opening the fictitious account and making withdrawals therein but claimed that this was to accommodate Dick Go who was a former officemate -- Dick Go having previously worked with PBC. Eventually, the total sum of P902,500.00 was withdrawn from the Congressional Branch Account and P536,722.00 from the Caloocan City Branch Account. Some of the funds were later traced to have been deposited in the Fernando Cruz Account, in the account of Eduardo Lauchengco's mother, and others in the name of the other defendants in the civil action who were not charged in the criminal cases. (Decision, pp. 4-5, Rollo, pp. 76-77).[3]
The first check, Exhibit H, was deposited on May 31, 1982 with plaintiff-appellant's Caloocan Branch, with the intervention of defendant-appellee Eduardo Lauchengco, and credited on June 1, 1982 to the Robert Santos account (No. 2110-0282-47) in the SBTC's Congressional Branch (TSN, November 16, 1984, p. 5-8) which was opened just a day before. On June 21, 1982 (the same day the Caloocan account of Robert Santos was opened), the second check, Manager's Check No. J81-006142, Exhibit A, for P1,511,293.00, was deposited in Robert Santos' account (CA #2110-0282-47) in SBTC's Congressional branch and credited to the newly opened Robert Santos' account (CA #3310-0031-03) in the Caloocan City Branch. Thus, SBTC's Congressional Branch accepted the check and sent it for clearing, and transmitted merely the deposit slip for the check, as well as the receipt of transfer of the account, to the Caloocan City Branch (TSN, March 21, 1984, p. 9).In this petition for review, petitioner submits the following errors allegedly committed by the Court of Appeals:
From June 3, 1982 up to June 24, 1982, withdrawals from the two accounts of Robert Santos through clearing, as well as encashments over the counter, and deposits to various account, including those to Fernando Cruz' account with the PBCom, were made as follows: (Listing of checks omitted)[4]
The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it disregarded the findings of fact of the trial court and, thereafter, reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court, on the basis of mere conclusions without support in, nor citation of, specific evidence, or that its findings and decision are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record, or that it overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different result;Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals made additional findings not supported by the evidence on record and that it abused its discretion in disregarding the factual findings of the lower court. He argues that the Court of Appeals' reversal of the decision of the lower court was based on unsupported conclusions and despite the absence of contrary evidence; and that it misappreciated the facts, thereby necessitating a review of factual matters by this Court.II
The Court of Appeals committed an error of law in allowing the respondent bank to recover from petitioner the amounts it paid to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) representing the proceeds of the two (2) PNB manager's checks placed in the Robert Santos account.[5]
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.In the case at bar, the judge who heard and saw the witnesses testify was not the same judge who penned the decision. As such, this Court is deprived of some important details necessary to determine the weight of evidence for either party. Be that as it may, this Court shall endeavour to weigh the evidence based on other factors available to this Court as can be gleaned principally from the recorded testimonies and the cold, hard transcripts of this case.
Although the lower court did not directly state that Robert Santos exists, neither did it state that he does not exist. Instead, it found that:
"COURT: Q: And according to the records, who approves the opening of the account? A: Usually the officer who interview the walk-in client. Q: Per the documents who approve the opening of the account? A: Your Honor, again it is not indicated in the records who approves the opening of the account. Q: Records don't show. A: Yes, your Honor. Q: But . . . on the day of the opening of the account, who was the highest officer of the branch in the office? WITNESS: At the time of the opening your Honor? COURT: Yes. WITNESS: I don't exactly recall now if the Branch Manager Nora Isidro was present in the opening, but I can recall that Mr. Dick Go admitted to me that he talked to this Robert Santos.COURT: Does that appear in your report that he admitted to you? WITNESS: Can I look into my report, your Honor? COURT: Yes, please.
WITNESS: (Witness examining her report) A: Yes, your Honor. COURT: Q: What did you say there? A: That Mr. Robert Santos was indorsed to the New Accounts clerk. x x x x x x x x x
Similarly, the testimony of Teresita Zosimo Hulinganga, whose bare verbal statements and claims that it was Dick Go who opened or caused to be opened the Robert Santos account with SBTC Congressional Branch, is belied by the documents she identified in the course of her testimony which, in addition to her admission that she was the one who had custody of and who issues to bank clients the signature cards, application forms and control cards necessary for the opening of new accounts of bank depositors, clearly show on their faces that: (1) she was the one who filled up the account number found on the signature card (Exh. "M") before the same was forwarded to Dick Go for approval; (2) she was the one who affixed the control number on the application form; (3) she was the one who filled up the index or control card and her signature appears below the printed words in said card which reads: "Sold by", "Check Serial Number" and "Manner of Payment" (Exh. "N"); (4) she was the one who issued the bank checkbook to Robert Santos (Exh. "N"); and (5) she was the one who prepared and filled up the deposit slip for the initial cash deposit of P500.00 on the Robert Santos account (Exh. "O").[10]In finding that petitioner caused the opening of Current Account No. 2110-0282-47 in the name of Robert Santos, the Court of Appeals likewise relied on the testimony of Teresita Hulinganga and commented on the lower court's finding, thus:
The involvement of Dick Go in the Robert Santos account could be traced from the time it was opened. Teresita Hulinganga, the new accounts clerk who assisted defendant-appellant in opening the account, and who we do not find to be actuated by any motive to testify against her superior, save to relate the incidents as she knew them, testified that it was her superior, Dick Go, who secured the application form and signature card a day or two before the account was opened (TSN, February 8, 1984, pp. 10, 29), returned them already filled up (Id., pp. 29-30), gave the initial deposit and obtained the checkbook from her. She disclaimed ever seeing Robert Santos (TSN, December 16, 1983, pp. 9-15). The trial court expressed misgivings about her testimony since she filled in most of the entries in the application documents (Rollo, p. 79; Decision, p. 7) But the entries she made like the account and control numbers, who "sold" the checkbook, the manner of payment, and the like, are normally the entries a new accounts clerk would fill in for new accounts, as in the account then being opened by Dick Go for a certain Robert Santos. In fact, filling up the deposit slip for initial deposits, according to defendant-appellant himself, is usually the new accounts clerk's job (TSN, November 27, 1985, p. 15). If Teresita Hulinganga still performed her tasks without having seen the applicant, this could be attributed to the fact that Dick Go followed up on the application and as a superior officer, exercised professional ascendancy over this clerk who had the right to assume defendant-appellant Dick Go knew what he was doing.[11]We do not agree with the above findings of the Court of Appeals. As correctly observed by the trial court, the alleged non-existence of Robert Santos and the participation of petitioner in the opening of the Robert Santos account were based on the "bare verbal statements" of Hulinganga and Matutina. On the other hand, petitioner's oral testimony, that he met Robert Santos in person and that it was Hulinganga who opened the Robert Santos account, is corroborated by documentary evidence which were identified and admitted by Hulinganga herself. In the weighing of evidence, documentary evidence prevails over testimonial evidence.[12]
Defendant-appellant Dick Go's involvement in the Robert Santos account was highly unusual and unexplainable. It was defendant-appellant Dick Go who supposedly interviewed the alleged Robert Santos when he opened the account and affixed his signature as approving officer in the signature card (Exh. M-1). Again, by his own admission, he had opportunities to refer to the account whenever there are deposits and encashments in relation to it (TSN, January 29, 1986, p. 11). When the second check, Manager's Check No. J81-006142 (Exh. A) for P1,511,293 was deposited in the Robert Santos account in SBTC's Congressional Branch, defendant-appellant Dick Go was the one who approved the clearing statement (Exh. U-1-a). Defendant-appellant Dick Go was the one who conveniently received the telephone call from the supposed Robert Santos who allegedly expressed his desire to transfer his account (CA No. 2110-0282-47) from the Congressional Branch to the Caloocan City Branch (TSN, November 27, 1985, p. 22). He also facilitated the transfer by calling SBTC's Caloocan City Branch for the transfer (Id., pp. 22-23), caused the preparation of the receipt of transfer (RT) and signed the same (Exh. V). Underscoring all these, defendant-appellant is the sole person who claims that there is such a person as Robert Santos when all convincing and established evidence point to the contrary. Under the circumstances, defendant-appellant Dick Go's disclaimer of his participation in the irregularity involving the two diverted checks is stripped of all credence.[13]While admitting his participation in the opening of the Robert Santos account, petitioner nonetheless insists that his acts were limited to: 1) interviewing Robert Santos prior to his opening of a current account; and 2) approving the signature card and the application form. His role in the opening of the Robert Santos account were in line with his duties as assistant manager of the accounting department.[14] In fact, prosecution witness Hulinganga acknowledged that petitioner had to sign the signature card as approving officer of the branch.[15] The participation of petitioner in the processing of Robert Santos account were never questioned by the prosecution as irregular. Hence, the Court of Appeals cannot insinuate that petitioner's acts were "highly unusual and unexplainable". In fact, even the finding of the Court of Appeals that petitioner conveniently received the telephone call from Robert Santos for the transfer of his account from the Congressional Branch is not extraordinarily unusual and unexplainable.
As observed by the trial court:
COURT: Q: Let me see. In Congressional Branch, who is in custody of these specimen cards? Who keeps them and to whom are these turned over?A: At the end of the day, your honor, these are turned over to the officers for authentication approval and then x x x they are included in the outstanding files and kept in the vault ovenight.COURT: Q: Who is in charge of these files? Who was the person in the bank in charge of these files? WITNESS: A: It is the cashier, your Honor. COURT: Q: Who is the cashier at that time? A: At that time, I think, it was Mrs. Satuito, you Honor. COURT: All right, continue.
ATTY. RACHO: (cont. of the cross-exam.) Q: Mrs. Mendoza, in your observation found in the last two pages of your audit report, in the observation under item 1.6 last page, it is stated there that the officer-in-charge of New Accounts, Congressional Branch has not closely monitored review of these accounts; this officer-in-charge of New Accounts is Mrs. Dolores Satuito. Is it not?WITNESS: A: Yes, sir. x x x x x x x x xCOURT: Q: In other words, why did you not say in your report that Mr. Dick Go facilitated the withdrawal? WITNESS: A: Because usually in our audit report, your Honor, we don't give conclusions but our actual findings. COURT: Q: You mentioned that Mrs. Satuito did not closely monitor this account. She was negligent.
A: In a way your Honor, Yes.[16]
Significantly, the cashier, Dolores Satuito, who is in-charge of New Accounts was neither investigated, punished or called to the witness stand. The impression gathered by the Court is that a big cover-up was initiated to spare many people in the SBTC, the PNB, the Bureau of Customs, and, perhaps, even some people at the NSC, by the prosecution of minor employees of the bank. If an alert Bureau of Customs personnel had not discovered the non-payment of taxes, the whole scam would not have surfaced. But, having discovered the nefarious act, it is strange that none of the banks (PNB and SBTC) sought an investigation on how the two checks originally delivered by Edmund Ulibarri of NSC to a certain Claro Cases of the LMC Brokerage firm ended up with the Security Bank. No attempt was made to ask the National Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation of the Bureau of Customs Personnel on how the steel plates were released. In fact, as earlier mentioned, the original receipts used in the release of the imported goods were never produced in evidence.[17]As to SBTC's allegation that petitioner siphoned and appropriated the proceeds of said checks, the Court of Appeals found that it was Dick Go who received the checkbook of Robert Santos. In view of said finding, the Court of Appeals modified the lower court's finding that it is not clear under what circumstances the Caloocan City Branch account was opened and the proceeds of said account appropriated.