Bank of Philippine Islands v. Reyes

G.R. No. 116792, 29 March 1996


On December 7, 1990, respondent Jesusa Reyes together with her daughter, went to BPI Zapote Branch to open an ATM account.

Respondent informed one of petitioners employees, Mr. Capati, that they wanted to open an ATM account for the amount of P200,000.00, P100,000.00 of which shall be withdrawn from her existing savings account with BPI bank and the other P100,000.00 will be given by her in cash.

Capati allegedly made a mistake and prepared a withdrawal slip for P200,00.00 to be withdrawn from her existing savings account with the said bank and the respondent believing in good faith that Capati prepared the papers with the correct amount signed the same unaware of the mistakes in figures.

Minutes later after the slips were presented to the teller, Capati returned to where the respondent was seating and informed the latter that the withdrawable balance could not accommodate P200, 000.00.

Respondent explained that she is withdrawing P100, 000.00 only and then corrected the figure two (2) into one (1) with her signature super-imposed thereto signifying the change, after which the amount of P100, 000.00 in cash in two bundles containing 100 pieces of P500.00 peso bill was given to Capati with her daughter Joan witnessing the same. Thereafter Capati prepared a deposit slip for P200, 000.00 in the name of respondent Jesusa Reyes with the new account number and brought the same to the teller’s booth

After a while, he returned and handed to the respondent her duplicate copy of her deposit reflecting the amount of P200, 000.00 with receipt stamp showing December 7, as the date.

Later on, respondent becomes aware that her ATM account only contained the amount of P100, 000.00 with interest. Hence, she filed an action before the RTC.

Petitioner claimed that there was actually no cash involved with the transactions which happened on December 7, 1990, as contained in the bank’s teller tape.

On August 12, 1994, the RTC issued a Decision upholding the versions of respondents.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA which affirmed the RTC decision with modification.


Whether the CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s finding that respondent Jesusa made an initial deposit of P200, 000.00 in her newly opened Express Teller account on December 7, 1990.


It is a basic rule in evidence that each party to a case must prove his own affirmative allegations by the degree of evidence required by law. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence, or that evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is in opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more believable than that of the other side and that the probability of truth is on one side than on the other.

For a better perspective on the calibration of the evidence on hand, it must first be stressed that the judge who had heard and seen the witnesses testify was not the same judge who penned the decision. Thus, not having heard the testimonies himself, the trial judge or the appellate court would not be in a better position than this Court to assess the credibility of witnesses on the basis of their demeanor.

Hence, to arrive at the truth, we thoroughly reviewed the transcripts of the witnesses’ testimonies and examined the pieces of evidence on record. After a careful and close examination of the records and evidence presented by the parties, we find that respondents failed to successfully prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent Jesusa made an initial deposit of P200, 000.00 in her Express Teller account.

* Case digest by Kristine Camille Gahuman, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018

By |2018-05-17T06:12:40+00:00May 15th, 2018|Case Digests|0 Comments

Leave A Comment