G.R. No. 199161 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, V. JAMES T. CUA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , defendant is directed to pay plaintiff the following: 1. The amount of US$50,860.53 or its peso equivalent plus interest of 1.09375% per annum from December 14, 2004 until fully paid; 2. Attorney's fees in the amount of P500,000.00 plus appearance fee of P2,000.00 per hearing; and 3. Costs of suit. Defendant's counter-claims are dismissed for lack of merit. [16] PNB moved for reconsideration, [17] but the same was denied by the RTC in its Order, [18] dated 28 April 2008. Undaunted, PNB elevated an appeal before the CA. [19] The CA Ruling In its appealed decision, the CA affirmed with modification the 28 November 2007 decision and 28 April 2008 order of the RTC. The appellate court concurred with the trial court that the burden of proof shifted to PNB. Unfortunately, PNB failed to substantiate its claims. The appellate court, thus, found no reversible error in the trial court's disquisition that PNB should be held liable to James. The appellate court, however, modified the RTC decision by reducing the amount of attorney's fees to P50,000.00 from the original award of P500,000.00 finding the latter to be exorbitant. The fallo of the appealed decision provides: WHEREFORE , the Decision dated 28 November 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City, Branch 195, in Civil Case No. 05-0066, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that the award of attorney's fees is reduced to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). [20] Hence, this petition for review where PNB raised the following issues: ISSUES I. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT RESPONDENT RECEIVED THE PROCEEDS OF SUBJECT LOAN, THUS, IGNORING APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT HOLDING THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE IS THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT THE BORROWER HAS RECEIVED THE LOAN PROCEEDS. II. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTARIZED PROMISSORY NOTES, DESPITE THE DEARTH OF CLEAR AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERTHROW THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE AND THE PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 132, SECTION 23 OF THE RULES OF COURT. III. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT RULE THAT RESPONDENT WAS BOUND BY HIS PROMISSORY NOTES, EVEN IF THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY PERSON TAKES ORDINARY CARE OF HIS CONCERNS, ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD SHOWS THAT RESPONDENT VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY EXECUTED SUCH PROMISSORY NOTES. [21] Essentially the issue in this case is whether PNB sufficiently established James' receipt of the loan proceeds. THE COURT'S RULING The appeal is meritorious. Before going into the merits of the case, it must be underscored that the loan subject of this case is the loan secured by CTD No. B-658788 which was later replaced by CID No. B-630178. Although PNB insists that the subject loan and the 14 February 2001 loan are one and the same, the documentary evidence it submitted does