G.R. No. 133710 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND AMALIO L. SARMIENTO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME “A.L. SARMIENTO CONSTRUCTION,”.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

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. Judgment over counterclaim in the sum of P30,000.00 as attorneys fees and P20,000.00 as litigation expenses is hereby awarded in favor of the defendant. No moral or exemplary damages adjudged. [2] On September 25, 1991, Philippine Banking Corporation filed a motion for new trial which the trial court subsequently granted despite the opposition of Sarmiento. On August 3, 1992, after the reception of evidence, the trial court rendered a decision finding the evidence adduced by the bank to be insufficient to substantiate its claim. The trial court reinstated its earlier dismissal of the case against Sarmiento and denied Philippine Banking Corporations subsequent motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, Philippine Banking Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the following assignments of error: 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 EVIDENCE Second 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 DEFENDANTS ACCOUNT, PLAINTIFF BANK ABORTED THE LOAN TRANSACTION UNDER PROMISSORY NOTE 626-84 Third Assignment of Error THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN AWARDING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE P30,000.00 AS ATTORNEYS FEES AND P20,000.00 AS LITIGATION EXPENSES, THE SAME BEING WITHOUT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS, AND EXCESSIVE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. [3] On October 22, 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial courts decision: WHEREFORE, the August 3, 1992 decision appealed from is MODIFIED to delete the trial courts award of attorneys 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 ACTION IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE FAILED TO SUCCESSFULLY CONTROVERT HIS OWN JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE PETITIONERS 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 PETITIONERS 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. Petitioner contends that the appellate court incorrectly upheld the trial courts misinterpretation of the clear import of the entries in the bank statement. Said document showed that the proceeds of the loan obt