Ting Ting Pua V Sps. Lo Bun Tong (Patron) PDF
Ting Ting Pua V Sps. Lo Bun Tong (Patron) PDF
Ting Ting Pua V Sps. Lo Bun Tong (Patron) PDF
[03] TING TING PUA v SPS LO BUN TONG A Complaint for a Sum of Mone y was file d by Pua against Sps. Lo Bun Tiong
GR No. 198660 | Oct. 23, 2013 (Spouses). Pua praye d for the Spouses to pay he r P8.5M covere d by a check.
Justice Velasco, Jr. During trial, Pua clarifie d that the P8.5M che ck was give n by Spouses to pay
Freya Patron | Group 2 loans the y obtaine d from he r unde r a compounde d inte rest agreeme nt on
various dates in 1988.
PETITONER: Ting Ting Pua o Pua’s siste r Lilian vouche d for Spouses’ ability to pay so that when
RESPONDENTS: Spouses Be nito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Te ng Spouses approache d her, she imme diate ly acce de d and le nt money
without re quiring any collateral e xce pt post-date d checks bearing
TOPIC: (as state d in the syllabus) the borrowe d amounts.
Issuance – De live ry o Spouses issue d 17 checks for a total of P1.975M. These checks were
dishonore d upon presentme nt to drawee bank.
CASE SUMMARY: Pua file d a complaint for a sum of money against the Spouses Lo Because of the dishonor, Pua de mande d payme nt but the Spouses aske d for
Bun Tiong in the amount of P8.5M cove re d by a check. According to Pua, she did not more time because of the ir financial difficultie s. Pua oblige d and simply
re quire any collateral for the loan e xce pt post-date d checks bearing the borrowe d re minde d them of the ir inde bte dness from time to time .
amounts, so the spouses issue d 17 checks totaling P1.975M which we re dishonored Some time in Se pt. 1996 whe n the ir financial situation became bette r, Spouses
upon presentme nt to the bank. She eve ntually file d a case because the subse que nt allege dly calle d and aske d Pua for the computation of the ir loan.
Asiatrust check issue d was also dishonore d. On the othe r hand, the spouses de nie d o Pua showe d them that total was P13,218,544.20, using the ir agreed
obtaining a loan from Pua and also de nie d comple ting the Asiatrust check. The RTC rate of 2% compounde d inte rest rate pe r month.
rule d in favor of Pua, but the CA re ve rse d. The SC rule d that the CA erre d in o Spouses reque ste d amount to be lowere d to P8.5M and Pua oblige d
re ve rsing the RTC. In a suit for recovery of sum of money, plaintiff-cre ditor has the Spouses de livere d an Asiatrust Check bearing the amount P8.5M date d March
burde n of proof to show that de fe ndant has not paid loan. But it is also long 30, 1997 with the assurance that the check was good. In turn, they demande d for
establishe d that whe re the plaintiff-cre ditor possesses and submits in e vide nce an the re turn of the 17 pre viously dishonore d che cks.
instrume nt showing the inde bte dness, a presumption that cre dit has not been o Pua re fuse d to re turn the bad checks, wanting first to e ncash the
satisfie d arises in he r favor. The CA discounte d the value of the only hard pieces of Asiatrust Check.
e vide nce in this case – the checks issue d by the wife in 1988 and 1996 that we re in The Asiatrust Che ck was also dishonore d. Pua then file d a complaint to collect.
possession of, and prese nte d in court by Pua. A check constitute s an e vide nce of Spouses’ de fense –
inde bte dness and is a veritable proof of an obligation. It can be use d in lie u of and for o The y de nie d obtaining a loan from Pua
the same purpose as a promissory note. The 17 original checks, comple te d and o The wife said that in Aug. 1995, she and Lilian (Pua ’s sister) forge d
de livere d to Pua, are sufficie nt by themse lves to prove the existe nce of the loan. The a partnership that ope rate d a mahjong business. The agreeme nt
wife had not de nie d the ge nuine ness of the checks. Instead, he r argume nt was they was for Lilian to se rve as capitalist while the wife will be the
we re give n to various othe r pe rsons and Pua had s imply collecte d all the checks to cashier, and agreed to use he r personal checks to pay for the
damage the Spouses’ re putation. The SC re instate d the RTC decision. operational e xpe nses.
o Since the y anticipate d that the wife will not always be in town to
DOCTRINE: When an instrument is no longer in possession of the person who pre pare the checks, she le ft with Lilian 5 pre -signe d and
signed it and it is complete in its terms, a valid and intentional delivery by him is consecutive ly numbe re d checks on the condition that the checks
presumed until the contrary is proved. will only be use d to cover the costs of the business operations and
in no circumstance will the amount of checks e xcee d P5k.
o In March 1996, the wife and Lilian had a serious disagreeme nt that o But it re fuse d to orde r Spouses to pay P8.5M conside ring that the
re sulte d in the dissolution of the ir partnership. The wife admitte d agree ment to pay inte rest on the loan was not e xpressly stipulate d
that in the haste of the ir dissolution, she forgot about the checks. in wr iting by the parties.
o It was only whe n Lilian’s husband file d a complaint for sum of o Orde re d Spouses to pay principal + le gal interest from date of
mone y in Feb. 1997 against the Spouses to recover P5,175,250 de mand.
covering 3/5 post-date d and pre -signe d checks. CA – se t aside RTC.
o The wife de nie d having comple te d the Asiatrust Check by using a o Asiatrust Check was an incomple te de livere d instrume nt and that
check write r or type write r as she had no check write r and she had Pua faile d to prove the e xiste nce of the Spouses ’ indebte dness to
always complete d checks in he r own handwriting. She insiste d that her. There fore , Pua had no cause of action against the spouses.
Pua and her sister comple te d the check after its de livery.
o She also could not have gone to see Pua with he r husband as they ISSUE and RULING: (Doctrine in bold le tte rs)
had been se parate in fact for nearly 10 years. WON there was in fact a loan obligation to Pua. (YES)
o As for the 17 checks issue d by her in 1988, the wife said the y were In a suit for recove ry of sum of money, plaintiff-cre ditor has the burde n of proof
not inte nde d for Pua but for the be ne fit of othe r persons. to show that de fendant has not paid loan. But it is also long establishe d that
o The wife said the complaint was designe d to allow Liilan to re cover whe re the plaintiff-cre ditor possesses and submits in e vide nce an instrume nt
her losses in the fore ign e xchange business she had with he r. showing the indebte dness, a presumption that cre dit has not bee n satisfie d arises
o The husband corroborate d his wife ’s te stimony respecting the ir in he r favor. The re fore , the de fe ndant is require d to overcome the presumption.
almost a de cade of se paration so he could not have accompanie d The CA discounte d the value of the only hard pieces of e vide nce in this case – the
her to see Pua to pe rsuade Pua to lowe r down any allege d checks issue d by the wife in 1988 and 1996 that we re in possession of, and
inde bte dness. In fact, be fore the filing of the complaint, he never prese nte d in court by Pua .
me t Pua. He claims he was impleade d to attach his prope rty and o A check constitutes an e vide nce of inde bte dness and is a veritable proof of
force him to e nter into an amicable se ttle me nt with Pua. an obligation. It can be use d in lie u of and for the same purpose as a
o He said the Asiatrust Check came from an account that be longe d promissory note . (Pacheco v CA)
sole ly to his wife . o A check functions more than a promissory note since it not only contains an
The witness for the Spouses, Tuazon, testifie d – unde rtaking to pay an amount of money but is an order addresse d to a bank
o That the wife ope ne d an Asiatrust account in Se pt. 1994. Her and partakes of a re presentation that the drawe r has funds on de posit
average maintaining balance was P2k and the highest amount she against which check is drawn, sufficie nt to e nsure payme nt upon its
isse d was P435k. She always comple te d her checks with her own prese ntation the bank. (Lozano v Martine z)
handwriting and not a check write r. o The very same principle is found in NIL 24 (Pre sumption of consideration)
o On Oct. 15, 1996, he r checking account was close d at the instance of The 17 original checks, comple te d and de live re d to Pua, are sufficie nt by
the bank due to 69 instances of check issuance against insufficie nt themse lves to prove the e xiste nce of the loan. The wife had not de nie d the
balance . ge nuine ness of the checks. Instead, he r argument was they we re give n to various
RTC – in favor of Pua. othe r pe rsons and Pua had s imply collecte d all the checks to damage the
o Possession of che cks signe d by the wife , under NIL, raises the Spouses’ re putation.
presumption that they we re issue d and de live re d for a valuable o Incre dible and runs counte r to human e xperie nce e nshrine d in NIL 16:
consideration. “When an instrument is no longer in possession of the person who signed
o Discounte d testimony for de fe nse comple te ly de nying the loan it and it is complete in its terms, a valid and intentional delivery by him is
obligation to Pua. presumed until the contrary is proved.”
SC obse rvations re : CA’s appreciation of e vide nce -
o CA ove rlooke d the original copie s of the bank re turn slips offe re d by Pua in
e vide nce . The return slips show that 1988 checks issue d by the wife were
dishonore d be cause they were drawn against insufficie nt funds.
o As for the Asiatrust check issue d by the wife to substitute the compounde d
value of the 1988 checks, CA sympathize d with Spouses’ ve rsion holding
that it is buttresse d by Spouses ’ alle gations describing the same de fense
made in BP22 case and civil complaint for collection of sum of mone y file d
against them by Pua ’s brothe r-in-law. Eve n if the y were acquitte d, SC
sustaine d the factual findings in the civil case finding the m civilly liable to
pay the amount of the checks.
It seems that the wife displaye d cavalie r attitude towards the value and the
obligation concomitant with the issuance of a check. As atteste d to by Spouses ’
own witne ss, the wife really has a docume nte d history of issuing insufficie ntly
funde d checks for 69 times at the ve ry least.
The SC sustaine d the finding that inte rest cannot be collecte d be cause it was not
in writing. It also adde d that the husband cannot escape the joint and solidary
liability to pay because without any e vide nce to the contrary, it is presume d that
procee ds of the loan re dounde d to the be nefit of the ir family so the CPG is liable .
*although the e xistence of a loan is a question of fact, the SC still e ntertaine d the
pe tition be cause the case fe ll unde r the e xce ption – the RTC and CA rulings we re not
in consonance with each other.