Ong Bun v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 212362, 14 March 2018, (589 SCRA 80)

 

When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the creditor. Even where it is the plaintiff (petitioner herein) who alleges nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant (respondent herein) to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.

The claim of BPI that the certificates had been paid, is not supported by credible evidence and, therefore, unsubstantiated. The fact that the petitioner still has a copy of the Custodian Certificate of the Silver Certificates of Time Deposit is material as it is inconceivable that the bank would make payment without requiring the surrender thereof. Hence, the conclusion that the Silver Certificates of Deposit may have been withdrawn by the petitioner or his wife although they failed to surrender the custodian certificates is speculative and replete of any proof or evidence.

Furthermore, the surrender of such certificates would have promoted the protection of the bank and would have been more in line with the high standards expected of any banking institution. Banks, their business being impressed with public interest, are expected to exercise more care and prudence than private individuals in their dealings.