PCIB Vs Balmaceda

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs.
ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA and ROLANDO N. RAMOS, Respondents

G.R. No. 158143
September 21, 2011
BRION, J:
FACTS:
On September 10, 1993, PCIB filed an action for recovery of sum of money with
damages before the RTC against Antonio Balmaceda, the Branch Manager of its
Sta. Cruz, Manila branch. In its complaint, PCIB alleged that between 1991 and
1993, Balmaceda, by taking advantage of his position as branch manager,
fraudulently obtained and encashed 31 Manager’s checks in the total amount of
Ten Million Seven Hundred Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty Pesos
(₱10,782,150.00).
On February 28, 1994, PCIB amended the complaint to implead Rolando Ramos as
one of the recipients of a portion of the proceeds from Balmaceda’s alleged fraud.
PCIB also increased the number of fraudulently obtained and encashed Manager’s
checks to 34, in the total amount of Eleven Million Nine Hundred Thirty Seven
Thousand One Hundred Fifty Pesos (₱11,937,150.00).
Since Balmaceda did not file an Answer, he was declared in default. On the other
hand, Ramos filed an Answer denying any knowledge of Balmaceda’s scheme.
According to Ramos, he is a reputable businessman engaged in the business of
buying and selling fighting cocks, and Balmaceda was one of his clients. Ramos
admitted receiving money from Balmaceda as payment for the fighting cocks that
he sold to Balmaceda, but maintained that he had no knowledge of the source of
Balmaceda’s money.
Subsequently, RTC ruled in favour of PCIB and found that Balmaceda, by taking
undue advantage of his position and authority as branch manager, successfully
obtained and misappropriated the bank’s funds by falsifying several commercial
documents.
In ruling that Ramos acted in collusion with Balmaceda, RTC disbelieved Ramos’
allegation that the sum of money deposited into his Savings Account (PCIB, Pasig
branch) were proceeds from the sale of fighting cocks and held Ramos liable to
pay PCIB the amount of ₱895,000.00.
On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint against Ramos, holding that no

sufficient evidence existed to prove that Ramos colluded with Balmaceda in the
latter’s fraudulent manipulations. The CA also found that PCIB acted illegally in
freezing and debiting ₱251,910.96 from Ramos’ bank account and ordered to
release the amount to appelant Ramos plus interest.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari, filed by the Philippine Commercial
International Bank.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Ramos who received a portion of the money that Balmaceda took
from PCIB, should also be held liable for the return of money to the bank.
RULING:
No, Ramos is not liable.
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition and AFFIRMED the
decision of the Court of Appeals dated with the MODIFICATION that the award
of moral and exemplary damages in favor of Rolando N. Ramos is DELETED.
PCIB, as plaintiff, had to prove, by preponderance of evidence, its positive

assertion that Ramos conspired with Balmaceda in perpetrating the latter’s scheme
to defraud the Bank. All that PCIB’s evidence proves is that Balmaceda used
Ramos’ name as a payee when he filled up the application forms for the Manager’s
checks. But, as the CA correctly observed, the mere fact that Balmaceda made
Ramos the payee on some of the Manager’s checks is not enough basis to conclude
that Ramos was complicit in Balmaceda’s fraud; a number of other people were
made payees on the other Manager’s checks yet PCIB never alleged them to be
liable, nor did the Bank adduce any other evidence pointing to Ramos’
participation that would justify his separate treatment from the others. Also, while
Ramos is Balmaceda’s brother-in-law, their relationship is not sufficient, by itself,
to render Ramos liable, absent concrete proof of his actual participation in the
fraudulent scheme.
The party carrying the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance
of evidence, or evidence which, to the court, is more worthy of belief than the
evidence offered in opposition. In Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., defined
"preponderance of evidence" in the following manner:
"Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate

evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
"greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence."
Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means
probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Ramos’ participation in Balmaceda’s scheme was not proven by PCIB by

preponderance of evidence. Given that PCIB failed to establish Ramos’
participation in Balmaceda’s scheme, it was not even necessary for Ramos to
provide an explanation for the money he received from Balmaceda. Even if the
evidence adduced by the plaintiff appears stronger than that presented by the
defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in the plaintiff’s favor if his evidence still
does not suffice to sustain his cause of action;25 to reiterate, a preponderance of
evidence as defined must be established to achieve this result.

PCIB Vs Balmaceda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PCIB Vs Balmaceda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PCIB Vs Balmaceda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs.

ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA and ROLANDO N. RAMOS, Respondents

On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint against Ramos, holding that no

No, Ramos is not liable.

PCIB, as plaintiff, had to prove, by preponderance of evidence, its positive

"Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate

Ramos’ participation in Balmaceda’s scheme was not proven by PCIB by

You might also like