512 Phil. 366
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which, by Decision[13] of January 25, 2001, credited his version and accordingly reversed the trial court's decision in this wise:SO ORDERED. (Underscoring in the original)[12]
- Ordering the dismissal of the complaint;
- On the counterclaim ordering the plaintiff Carmelito Villapaz to pay to defendants spouses Antonio and Lolita Tan:
a. P100,000.00 as moral damages;
b. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
c. P30,000.00 as attorney's fees; and- Plaintiff Carmelito Villapaz to pay the costs.
Briefly stated, the lower Court gave four reasons for ruling out a loan, namely: (a) the defense of defendants-appellees that they did not go to plaintiff-appellant's place on February 6, 1992, date the check was given to them; (b) defendants-appellees could not have borrowed money on that date because from January to March, 1992, they had an average daily deposit of P700,000 and on February 6, 1992, they had P1,211,400.64 in the bank, hence, they had "surely no reason nor logic" to borrow money from plaintiff-appellant; (c) the alleged loan was not reduced in writing and (d) the check could not be a competent evidence of loan.Thus, the Court of Appeals disposed:
The four-fold reasoning cannot be sustained. They are faulty and do not accord either with law or ordinary conduct of men. For one thing, the first two given reasons partake more of alibi and speculation, hence, deserve scant consideration. For another, the last two miss the applicable provisions of law.
The existence of a contract of loan cannot be denied merely because it is not reduced in writing. Surely, there can be a verbal loan. Contracts are binding between the parties, whether oral or written. The law is explicit that contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. A loan (simple loan or mutuum) exists when a person receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing and acquires the ownership thereof. He is bound to pay to the creditor the equal amount of the same kind and quality.
Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, maybe in keeping with good faith, usage and law.
The lower Court misplaced its reliance on Article 1358 of the Civil Code providing that to be enforceable, contracts where the amount involved exceed five hundred pesos, must appear in writing. Such requirement, it has been held, is only for convenience, not for validity. It bears emphasis that at the time plaintiff-appellant delivered the crossed-check to defendants-appellees, plaintiff-appellant had no account whatsoever with them. Defendants-appellees' contention that they did not obtain any loan but merely exchanged the latter's check for cash is not borne by any evidence.
Notably, plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee Antonio Tan are compadres, one of them being a godfather to the other's son. There is no established enmity between them such that plaintiff-appellant would be motivated to institute an unfounded action in court. Plaintiff-appellant's sole purpose was to be paid back the loan he extended to defendants-appellees. Thus, a pertinent portion of his testimony on cross-examination discloses:ATTY. TAN (On Cross Examination):Apart from their self-serving testimonies, there is no evidence or proof that defendants-appellees actually delivered to plaintiff-appellant the cash amount of P250,000.00 in exchange for the check. Defendant-appellee Tan testified that he records his transactions if it involves a huge cash amount. But surprisingly in this case, he did not follow his usual practice.
Q: Now, aside from this check that you issued, did you let the defendant sign a cash voucher?A: I did not require him any cash voucher or any written document because as I said we are close friends and I trusted him so I issued a check in his name Tony Tan.Q: You said that the spouses Tan were in need of money on February 6, 1992. Why did you have to issue a cross-check?A: I issued a cross-check in order to be sure that he received the money from me so that he could not deny that he did not receive. (TSN of Villapaz dtd 7/25/95, p. 21)ATTY. CARPENTERO (On Cross-Examination):Plaintiff-appellant has a checking account with PBCom Bank. This is located within walking distance (300 meters) from defendants-appellees' store. If plaintiff-appellant was in dire need of money, he could have personally withdrawn said money from his own account, since it was sufficiently funded. Defendant-appellee Antonio Tan himself testified that plaintiff-appellant's check was sufficiently funded.
Q: x x x you have noticed Carmelito Villapaz to have trusted and have full confidence in you during your business relationship, correct?A: All people have trust and confidence but whenever there is a transaction, it should be covered a (sic) proof.Q: You mean you are a fellow who adheres that every transaction should be recorded?A: Yes, if the transaction involves a big amount,Q: But in this case of Carmelito Villapaz you noticed personally that he has trust and confidence in your person, correct?A: The truth is, if ever we have a transaction which involves P1,000.00 or P2,000.00, we need no document at all as proof, but because it is a big amount, it needs documents. (TSN of Tan dtd 5/9/96, pp. 12-13.
It is well-nigh unlikely that the wife who was supposed to have delivered the money on such a short notice, produced, prepared and counted the money at home from Obrero, Davao City, then delivered it to plaintiff-appellant who was in the Golden Harvest Store at Sta Ana Avenue, Davao City. In contrast, PBCom Bank where plaintiff-appellant has his account is in the same vicinity of the store of Golden Harvest.
Certainly, by way of exception to the general rule, the erroneous inferences in the factual finding of the trial Court cannot bind the appellate courts.
The trial Court placed much emphasis on the daily and time deposit accounts of defendants-appellees. It is immaterial whether or not one is financially capable. A pauper may borrow money for survival; a prince may incur a loan for expansion.[14] (Emphasis supplied; underscoring in the original)
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Defendants-appellees are ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P250,000.00 with 12% interest per annum from judicial demand or filing of the complaint in Court until fully paid.[15]Hence, the present appeal by petitioners anchored on the following grounds:
Petitioners maintain that they did not secure a loan from respondent, insisting that they encashed in Davao City respondent's February 6, 1992 crossed check; in the ordinary course of business, prudence dictates that a contract of loan must be in writing as in fact the New Civil Code provides that to be enforceable "contracts where the amount involved exceed[s] P500.00 must appear in writing even a private one," hence, respondent's "self-serving" claim does not suffice to prove the existence of a loan; respondent's allegation that no memorandum in writing of the transaction was executed because he and they are "kumpadres" does not inspire belief for respondent, being a businessman himself, was with more reason expected to be more prudent; and the mere encashment of the check is not a contractual transaction such as a sale or a loan which ordinarily requires a receipt and that explains why they did not issue a receipt when they encashed the check of respondent.I.
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the transaction in dispute was a contract of loan and not a mere matter of check encashment as found by the trial court.II.
The Honorable Court likewise erred in reasoning that the trial court placed much emphasis on the daily and time deposits of herein petitioners to determine their financial capability.III.
The Honorable Court failed to consider the wanton, reckless manner of respondent in attempting to enforce an obligation that does not even exist, thus justifying the award for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs of suit.[16] (Underscoring supplied)
(1) | Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405; |
(2) | The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of the conjugal partnership of gains; |
(3) | The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its object an act appearing or which should appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third person; |
(4) | The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a public document. |
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in writing, even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405. (Underscoring supplied) |