DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

From the January 25, 2001 decision [1] of the Court of Appeals reversing
that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Digos, Davao del Sur [2] which
dismissed the complaint filed by herein respondent Carmelito Villapaz
against herein petitioners-spouses Antonio 'Tony and Lolita Tan, the present
Petition for Review on Certiorari [3] was lodged.

On February 6, 1992, respondent issued a Philippine Bank of

Communications (PBCom) crossed check [4] in the amount of P250,000.00,
payable to the order of petitioner Tony Tan. On even date, the check was
deposited at the drawee bank, PBCom Davao City branch at Monteverde
Avenue, to the account of petitioner Antonio Tan also at said bank.

The Malita, Davao del Sur Police, by letter of June 22, 1994, [5] issued an
invitation-request to petitioner Antonio Tan at his address at Malatibas Plaza,
Lolita's Rendezvous, Bonifacio St., Davao City inviting him to appear before
the Deputy Chief of Police Office on June 27, 1994 at 9:00 oclock in the
morning 'in connection with the request of [herein respondent] Carmelito
Villapaz, for conference of vital importance.

The invitation-request was received by petitioner Antonio Tan on June 22,

1994 [6] but on the advice of his lawyer, [7] he did not show up at the
Malita, Davao del Sur Police Office.

On November 7, 1994, [8] respondent filed before the Digos, Davao del Sur

RTC a Complaint for sum of money against petitioners-spouses, alleging
that, inter alia, on February 6, 1992, petitioners-spouses repaired to his
place of business at Malita, Davao and obtained a loan of P250,000.00,
hence, his issuance of the February 6, 1992 PBCom crossed check which
loan was to be settled interest-free in six (6) months; on the maturity date
of the loan or on August 6, 1992, petitioner Antonio Tan failed to settle the
same, and despite repeated demands, petitioners never did, drawing him to
file the complaint thru his counsel to whom he agreed to pay 30% of the
loan as attorney's fees on a contingent basis and P1,000.00 per appearance
fee; and on account of the willful refusal of petitioners to honor their
obligation, he suffered moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, among
other things.
 

By their Answer, [9] petitioners, denying having gone to Malita and having

obtained a loan from respondent, alleged that the check was issued by
respondent in Davao City on February 6, 1992 'in exchange for equivalent
cash; they never received from respondent any demand for payment, be it
verbal or written, respecting the alleged loan; since the alleged loan was one
with a period ' payable in six months, it should have been expressly
stipulated upon in writing by the parties but it was not, hence, the essential
requisite for the validity and enforceability of a loan is wanting; and the
check is inadmissible to prove the existence of a loan for P250,000.00.

By way of Compulsory Counterclaim, petitioners prayed for the award of

damages and litigation expenses and attorney's fees. [10]

Crediting defendants-petitioners' version, Branch 19 of the RTC, Digos,

Davao del Sur, by Decision [11] of July 24, 1996, dismissed the Complaint
and granted the Counterclaim, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

as follows:
 
1.         Ordering the dismissal of the complaint;

2.         On the counterclaim ordering the plaintiff

Carmelito Villapaz to pay to defendants ' spouses
Antonio and Lolita Tan:
a.       P100,000.00 as moral damages;
b.      P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
c.       P30,000.00 as attorney's fees; and

3. Plaintiff Carmelito Villapaz to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED. (Underscoring in the original) [12]

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which, by Decision [13] of

January 25, 2001, credited his version and accordingly reversed the trial
court's decision in this wise:

Briefly stated, the lower Court gave four reasons for ruling out a
loan, namely: (a) the defense of defendants-appellees that
they did not go to plaintiff-appellant's place on February 6,
 1992, date the check was given to them; (b) defendants-
appellees could not have borrowed money on that date
because from January to March, 1992, they had an average
daily deposit of P700,000 and on February 6, 1992, they
had P1,211,400.64 in the bank, hence, they had 'surely no
reason nor logic to borrow money from plaintiff-appellant; (c)
the alleged loan was not reduced in writing and (d) the check
could not be a competent evidence of loan.
 
The four-fold reasoning cannot be sustained. They are faulty and do
not accord either with law or ordinary conduct of men. For one
thing, the first two given reasons partake more of alibi and
speculation, hence, deserve scant consideration. For another,
the last two miss the applicable provisions of law.
 
The existence of a contract of loan cannot be denied merely
because it is not reduced in writing. Surely, there can be a
verbal loan. Contracts are binding between the parties,
whether oral or written. The law is explicit that contracts shall
be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered
into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are
present. A loan (simple loan or mutuum) exists when a person
receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing and
acquires the ownership thereof. He is bound to pay to the
creditor the equal amount of the same kind and quality.
Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the
parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been
expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which,
according to their nature, maybe in keeping with good faith,
usage and law.
 
The lower Court misplaced its reliance on Article 1358 of the
Civil Code providing that to be enforceable, contracts
where the amount involved exceed five hundred pesos,
must appear in writing. Such requirement, it has been held,
is only for convenience, not for validity. It bears emphasis
that at the time plaintiff-appellant delivered the crossed-check
to defendants-appellees, plaintiff-appellant had no account
whatsoever with them. Defendants-appellees' contention
that they did not obtain any loan but merely exchanged
the latter's check for cash is not borne by any evidence.
 
Notably, plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee Antonio Tan are
compadres, one of them being a godfather to the other's son.
 There is no established enmity between them such that
plaintiff-appellant would be motivated to institute an
unfounded action in court. Plaintiff-appellant's sole purpose
was to be paid back the loan he extended to defendants-
appellees. Thus, a pertinent portion of his testimony on cross-
examination discloses:
 
ATTY. TAN (On Cross Examination):
 
Q: Now, aside from this check that you issued, did you let the
defendant sign a cash voucher?
A: I did not require him any cash voucher or any written
document because as I said we are close friends
and I trusted him so I issued a check in his name
Tony Tan.
 
Q: You said that the spouses Tan were in need of money on
February 6, 1992. Why did you have to issue a
cross-check?
A: I issued a cross-check in order to be sure that he received the
money from me so that he could not deny that he
did not receive. (TSN of Villapaz dtd 7/25/95, p. 21)
 
Apart from their self-serving testimonies, there is no evidence or
proof that defendants-appellees actually delivered to plaintiff-
appellant the cash amount of P250,000.00 in exchange for the
check. Defendant-appellee Tan testified that he records his
transactions if it involves a huge cash amount. But surprisingly
in this case, he did not follow his usual practice.
 
ATTY. CARPENTERO (On Cross-Examination):
 
Q: x x x you have noticed Carmelito Villapaz to have trusted and
have full confidence in you during your business
relationship, correct?
A: All people have trust and confidence but whenever there is a
transaction, it should be covered a (sic) proof.
 
Q: You mean you are a fellow who adheres that every transaction
should be recorded?
A: Yes, if the transaction involves a big amount,
 
Q: But in this case of Carmelito Villapaz you noticed personally that
he has trust and confidence in your person, correct?
A: The truth is, if ever we have a transaction which
involves P1,000.00 or P2,000.00, we need no
document at all as proof, but because it is a big
amount, it needs documents. (TSN of Tan dtd
5/9/96, pp. 12-13.
 
Plaintiff-appellant has a checking account with PBCom Bank. This is
located within walking distance (300 meters) from
defendants-appellees' store. If plaintiff-appellant was in
dire need of money, he could have personally
withdrawn said money from his own account, since it
was sufficiently funded. Defendant-appellee Antonio Tan
himself testified that plaintiff-appellant's check was sufficiently
funded.
 
It is well-nigh unlikely that the wife who was supposed to have
delivered the money on such a short notice, produced,
prepared and counted the money at home from Obrero, Davao
City, then delivered it to plaintiff-appellant who was in the
Golden Harvest Store at Sta Ana Avenue, Davao City. In
contrast, PBCom Bank where plaintiff-appellant has his
account is in the same vicinity of the store of Golden
Harvest.
 
Certainly, by way of exception to the general rule, the
erroneous inferences in the factual finding of the trial
Court cannot bind the appellate courts.
 
The trial Court placed much emphasis on the daily and time deposit
accounts of defendants-appellees. It is immaterial whether or
not one is financially capable. A pauper may borrow money for
survival; a prince may incur a loan for
expansion. [14] (Emphasis supplied; underscoring in the
original)
 
 

Thus, the Court of Appeals disposed:

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby REVERSED and SET

ASIDE. Defendants-appellees are ordered to pay plaintiff-
appellant the sum of P250,000.00 with 12% interest per
annum from judicial demand or filing of the complaint in Court
until fully paid. [15]
 

Hence,the present appeal by petitioners anchored on the following grounds:

I.
 
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the
transaction in dispute was a contract of loan and not a mere
matter of check encashment as found by the trial court.
 

 
II.
 
The Honorable Court likewise erred in reasoning that the trial court
placed much emphasis on the daily and time deposits of
herein petitioners to determine their financial capability.
 
III.
 
The Honorable Court failed to consider the wanton, reckless manner
of respondent in attempting to enforce an obligation that does
not even exist, thus justifying the award for moral and
exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs of
suit. [16] (Underscoring supplied)
 
 

Petitioners maintain that they did not secure a loan from respondent,
insisting that they encashed in Davao City respondent's February 6, 1992
crossed check; in the ordinary course of business, prudence dictates that a
contract of loan must be in writing as in fact the New Civil Code provides
that to be enforceable 'contracts where the amount involved
exceed[s] P500.00 must appear in writing even a private one, hence,
respondent's 'self-serving claim does not suffice to prove the existence of a
loan; respondent's allegation that no memorandum in writing of the
transaction was executed because he and they are 'kumpadres does not
inspire belief for respondent, being a businessman himself, was with more
reason expected to be more prudent; and the mere encashment of the check
is not a contractual transaction such as a sale or a loan which ordinarily
requires a receipt and that explains why they did not issue a receipt when
they encashed the check of respondent.
Petitioners add that they could not have gone to Malita on February 6, 1992,
as claimed by respondent, to obtain the alleged loan represented by the
check because February 6, 1992 was the opening for business in Davao City
of Golden Harvest of which petitioner Antonio Tan is treasurer and in-charge
of the bodega, during which opening guests and well-wishers including
respondent were entertained.

Petitioners furthermore maintain that they were financially stable on

February 6, 1992 as shown by the entries of their bank
passbook, [17] hence, there was no reason for them to go to a distant place
like Malita to borrow money.

The petition fails.

By petitioner Antonio Tan's account, respondent arrived at the Golden

Harvest place of business at Davao City on February 6, 1992 at about 10:30
in the morning [18] and left before noon of the same day; respondent,
however, returned to Golden Harvest shortly before 3:00 oclock in the
afternoon of the same day upon which he informed him (petitioner Antonio
Tan) that he needed to bring cash to Malita in the amount of P250,000.00
but 'time was running out and . . . he was so busy that was why he
requested [him] to accommodate (sic) the said amount at 3:00 p.m. [19]

Still by petitioner Antonio Tan's account, he thereupon inquire by telephone from his wife who
was at their house whether she had P250,000.00 cash and as his wife replied she had, he asked
her to bring the cash, as she did, to the Golden Harvest where she gave the amount
of P250,000.00 to him (petitioner Antonio Tan); in the meantime, as respondent had left for a
while but not before leaving the check, he (petitioner Antonio Tan) kept the P250,000.00 cash
and gave the check to his wife who had it deposited on the same afternoon to his account at
PBCom Monteverde branch after he received clearance from the bank manager, who knows him
(petitioner Antonio Tan) very well, that respondent's account at same branch of the bank was
funded and the check could be deposited and credited to his (petitioner Antonio Tan's ) account
that same afternoon; and when later that same afternoon respondent returned to the Golden
Harvest, he turned over to him the P250,000.00 cash.

 
Petitioner Antonio Tan's foregoing tale hardly inspires credence. For it is contrary to common
experience. If indeed respondent, who came all the way from Malita to Davao City, arriving at
petitioner Antonio Tan's workplace at Golden Harvest at 10:30 in the morning, needed cash
of P250,000.00, and the drawee bank PBCom Davao City, Monteverde branch where respondent
maintained a current account could even be reached by foot from the Golden Harvest in just a
few minutes (albeit by petitioner Antonio Tan's own information respondent brought his truck
with him), [20] it being about 300 meters away, [21] respondent could just have gone there
and drew cash from his current account via over the counter transaction. After all, his account
had sufficient funds. In other words, he did not have to encash his check from petitioners.

Even assuming that, as claimed by petitioner Antonio Tan, at the time respondent needed to have
his check encashed, it was already close to 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, why could not have
PBCom Monteverde branch also accommodated him and allow him to encash his check that
same time when he, like petitioners, was also a client-depositor and the bank was still open for
business?

Petitioners' version was thus correctly denied credit by the appellate court.

'That apart from the check no written proof of the grant of the loan was executed was credibly
explained by respondent when he declared that petitioners' son being his godson, he, out of trust
and respect, believed that the crossed check sufficed to prove their transaction.

As for petitioners' reliance on Art. 1358 [22] of the Civil Code, the same is misplaced for the
requirement that contracts where the amount involved exceeds P500.00 must appear in writing is
only for convenience. [23]

At all events, a check, the entries of which are no doubt in writing, could prove a loan
transaction. [24]

That petitioner Antonio Tan had, on February 6, 1992, an outstanding balance of more
than P950,000.00 in his account at PBCom Monteverde branch where he was later to deposit
respondent's check did not rule out petitioners' securing a loan. It is pure naivete to believe that if
a businessman has such an outstanding balance in his bank account, he would have no need to
borrow a lesser amount.

 
In fine, as petitioners' side of the case is incredible as it is inconsistent with the principles by
which men similarly situated are governed, whereas respondent's claim that the proceeds of the
check, which were admittedly received by petitioners, represented a loan [25] extended to
petitioner Antonio Tan is credible, the preponderance of evidence inclines on respondent.

WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

CASE DIGEST

Facts: On February 6, 1992, respondent Villapaz issued a Philippine Bank of Communications

(PBCom) crossed check in the amount of P250,000.00, payable to the order of petitioner Tony
Tan. On that date, the check was deposited at the drawee bank, PBCom Davao City branch at
Monteverde Avenue, to the account of petitioner Antonio Tan also at said bank.

On November 7, 1994 respondent filed a Complaint for sum of money against the spouses,
alleging that on February 6, 1992, the spouses went to his place of business at Malita, Davao
and obtained a loan of P250,000.00, hence, his issuance of the February 6, 1992 PBCom crossed
check which loan was to be settled interest-free in six (6) months.

On the maturity date of the loan or on August 6, 1992, petitioner Antonio Tan failed to settle
the same, and despite repeated demands, petitioners never did, drawing Villapaz to file the
complaint; and on account of the willful refusal of petitioners to honor their obligation, he
suffered moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, among other things.

The spouses denied having gone to Malita and having obtained a loan from respondent,
alleging that the check was issued by respondent in Davao City on February 6, 1992 "in
exchange for equivalent cash"; they never received from respondent any demand for payment,
be it verbal or written, respecting the alleged loan; since the alleged loan was one with a period
— payable in six months, it should have been expressly stipulated upon in writing by the parties
but it was not, hence, the essential requisite for the validity and enforceability of a loan is
wanting; and the check is inadmissible to prove the existence of a loan for P250,000.00.

Petitioners maintain that they did not secure a loan from respondent, insisting that they
encashed in Davao City respondent's February 6, 1992 crossed check; in the ordinary course of
business, prudence dictates that a contract of loan must be in writing as in fact the New Civil
Code provides that to be enforceable "contracts where the amount involved exceed[s] P500.00
must appear in writing even a private one," hence, respondent's "self-serving" claim does not
suffice to prove the existence of a loan; respondent's allegation that no memorandum in
writing of the transaction was executed because he and they are "kumpadres" does not inspire
belief for respondent, being a businessman himself, was with more reason expected to be more
prudent; and the mere encashment of the check is not a contractual transaction such as a sale
or a loan which ordinarily requires a receipt and that explains why they did not issue a receipt
when they encashed the check of respondent.

Petitioners furthermore maintain that they were financially stable on February 6, 1992 as
shown by the entries of their bank passbook hence, there was no reason for them to go to a
distant place like Malita to borrow money.

The lower Court gave four reasons for ruling out a loan: (a) the defense of spouses Tan that
they did not go to Villapaz's place on February 6, 1992, date the check was given to them; (b)
Spouses Tan could not have borrowed money on that date because from January to March,
1992, they had an average daily deposit of P700,000 and on February 6, 1992, they had
P1,211,400.64 in the bank, hence, they had "surely no reason nor logic" to borrow money from
Villapaz; (c) the alleged loan was not reduced in writing and (d) the check could not be a
competent evidence of loan.

Issue: Whether or not the transaction in dispute was a contract of loan and not a mere matter
of check encashment as found by the trial court. YES

Held: The four-fold reasoning cannot be sustained. They are faulty and do not accord either
with law or ordinary conduct of men. For one thing, the first two given reasons partake more of
alibi and speculation, hence, deserve scant consideration. For another, the last two miss the
applicable provisions of law.

The existence of a contract of loan cannot be denied merely because it is not reduced in
writing. Surely, there can be a verbal loan. Contracts are binding between the parties, whether
oral or written. The law is explicit that contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may
have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. A
loan (simple loan or mutuum) exists when a person receives a loan of money or any other
fungible thing and acquires the ownership thereof. He is bound to pay to the creditor the equal
amount of the same kind and quality.

Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not
only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences
which, according to their nature, maybe in keeping with good faith, usage and law.
The lower Court misplaced its reliance on Article 1358 of the Civil Code providing that to be
enforceable, contracts where the amount involved exceed five hundred pesos, must appear in
writing. Such requirement, it has been held, is only for convenience, not for validity. It bears
emphasis that at the time Villapaz delivered the crossed-check to the petitioner spouses,
Villapaz had no account whatsoever with them. Spouses' contention that they did not obtain
any loan but merely exchanged the latter's check for cash is not borne by any evidence.

That apart from the check, no written proof of the grant of the loan was executed was credibly
explained by respondent when he declared that petitioners' son being his godson, he, out of
trust and respect, believed that the crossed check sufficed to prove their transaction.

As for petitioners' reliance on Art. 1358[22] of the Civil Code, the same is misplaced for the
requirement that contracts where the amount involved exceeds P500.00 must appear in writing
is only for convenience.

At all events, a check, the entries of which are no doubt in writing, could prove a loan
transaction.

In the case of Spouses Tan vs. Carmelito Villapaz, GR 160892 dated 22 November 2005, the
Supreme Court held that although Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires all other contracts
where the amount involves exceeds five hundred pesos (P500) to appear in writing, even a
private one, this requirement is only for convenience and not validity. Therefore, the existence
of a contract of loan cannot be denied merely because it was not in writing.