PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH XXXVIII OF THE COURT OF FIRST IN…

This is a petition for review on certiorari^[1]
to annul and set aside the decision dated December 15, 1977 of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXVIII in Civil Case No. 112149 for the
recovery of a sum of money reversing the decision of the City Court of Manila,
Branch XII ordering private
respondent Melchor Samonte to pay the petitioner bank the amount of P7,679.83,
with 14% interest from March 5, 1973 until fully paid, plus attorney’s fees
equivalent to 20% of the amount due and to pay the costs as well as the order
dated February 2, 1978 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the
appealed decision.

The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:

Sometime in January, 1972, a certain woman who identified herself
as Aurora S. de Arabis purchased an airconditioner, television and stereo sets
from private respondent Melchor Samonte, a franchise dealer of Radiowealth
Appliances, with a Philippine American Life Insurance Company (Philamlife)
check drawn against the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) in the amount
of P7,716.80 (pp. 8-9, TSN, January 18, 1977). Said check had a receipt identification stamp bearing the name and
signature of Aurora S. de Arabis and was endorsed in favor of private
respondent (Exhibit “1”). Private respondent even asked Aurora S. de Arabis to sign her name again
at the back of said check (Exhibit “1-b”).

On February 2, 1972, private respondent deposited said check in
his current account with the petitioner People’s Bank and Trust Company (now
Bank of the Philippine Islands) which, subsequently, cleared said check.

On February 26, 1973, FEBTC notified the petitioner bank that the
payee’s signature on the subject check had been forged as evidenced by the
sworn affidavit dated January 31, 1973 of Aurora S. de Arabis stating that she
was the payee of FEBTC Check No. A-450422-C and that she had not yet received
said check which was negotiated on a forged signature considering the fact that
she uses only her thumbmark for signature since she does not know how to write
(Exhibit “E”).

Thereafter, petitioner bank refunded to FEBTC the amount covered by said check and debited to private
respondent’s account said amount resulting in an overdraft in his account in
the sum of P7,679.83 which private respondent refused to pay despite several
demands made by the petitioner bank. Hence, this present action.

The only issue raised herein is whether or not the affidavit of
Aurora S. de Arabis is admissible as evidence.

The failure of the petitioner’s counsel to put Aurora S. de
Arabis on the stand is fatal to the case of petitioner and renders the
affidavit of Aurora S. de Arabis inadmissible in evidence under the hearsay
rule^[2]. Affidavits are classified as hearsay
evidence since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another
who uses his own language in writing the affiant’s statements, which may thus
be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of
the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay,
unless the affiant themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
thereon.^[3]
In the case at bar, the only evidence of the petitioner to prove forgery was
the affidavit of Aurora S. de Arabis who was not presented in court to testify
on the alleged forgery of her signature in the check in question. As correctly ruled by the appellate judge in
the appealed decision:

“Without, the letter of Aurora S. Arabis (Exhibit
“E”), there is no other competent evidence tending to prove the
forgery of the signature of the payee of the check. Since said letter is obviously hearsay and incompetent evidence
which under the rules of evidence should not have been admitted by the court,
it is plain that plaintiff has failed to prove the forgery of the signature of
Aurora S. Arabis as payee of the check, and the decision based thereon is
assailable. Thus, in the absence of
competent proof of forgery, the case of plaintiff must fall.”(CFI’s
Decision, p. 4; Rollo, p. 40)

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of
merit.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., no part.

^[1]
Unloaded to the Ponente on December 13, 1991.

^[2]
Paa vs. Chan, L-25945, 21 SCRA
753 (1967).

^[3]
People v. Brioso, L-28482, 37
SCRA 336 (1971).