Cases (Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence) Flashcards
Instant complaint was filed by petitioner against Chante to recover from Chan the principal sum of P770,488.30 representing the unpaid balance of the amount fraudulently withdrawn from Chan’s ATM. FEBTC alleged that between 8:52 p.m. of May 4, 1992 and 4:06 a.m. of May 5, 1992, Chan had withdrawn funds totaling P967,000.00 from the PNB-MEGALINK ATM facility at the Manila Pavilion Hotel in Manila; that the withdrawals were done in a series of 242 transactions with the use of the same machine, at P4,000.00/withdrawal; and that the transactions were processed and recorded by the respective computer systems of PNB and MEGALINK despite the following circumstances, namely: (a) the offline status of the branch of account (FEBTC Ongpin Branch); (b) Chan’s account balance being only P198,511.70 at the time; (c) the maximum withdrawal limit of the ATM facility being P50,000.00/day; and (d) his withdrawal transactions not being reflected in his account, and no debits or deductions from his current account with the FEBTC Ongpin Branch being recorded. FEBTC asserted further that defendant took advantage of a system bug which allowed the excessive withdrawals. Chan denied liability and instead insisted that he had been actually home at the time of the withdrawals. He alluded to a possible “inside job” as the cause of the supposed withdrawals, citing a newspaper report to the effect that an employee of FEBTC’s had admitted having debited accounts of its depositors by using his knowledge of computers as well as information available to him. Chan claimed that it would be physically impossible for any human being like him to stand long hours in front of the ATM facility just to withdraw funds.
ISSUE: Whether or not a civil action may be decided in favor of the plaintiff where the defendant relies on bare and uncorroborated denial of the former’s allegation.
No. The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it. Verily, the party who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side. This is because our system frees the trier of facts from the responsibility of investigating and presenting the facts and arguments, placing that responsibility entirely upon the respective parties. The burden of proof, which may either be on the plaintiff or the defendant, is on the plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner required by the Rules of Court; or on the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly the essential allegations but raises an affirmative defense or defenses, that, if proved, would exculpate him from liability.
Burden of proof is a term that refers to two separate and quite different concepts, namely:
(a) the risk of non-persuasion, or the burden of persuasion, or simply persuasion burden; and
(b) the duty of producing evidence, or the burden of going forward with the evidence, or simply the production burden or the burden of evidence.
In its first concept, it is the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition or issue by such a quantum of evidence as the law demands in the case at which the issue arises. In its other concept, it is the duty of producing evidence at the beginning or at any subsequent stage of trial in order to make or meet a prima facie case. Generally speaking, burden of proof in its second concept passes from party to party as the case progresses, while in its first concept it rests throughout upon the party asserting the affirmative of the issue. Being the plaintiff, FEBTC must rely on the strength of its own evidence instead of upon the weakness of Chan’s evidence. Its burden of proof thus required it to preponderantly demonstrate that his ATM card had been used to make the withdrawals, and that he had used the ATM card and PIN by himself or by another person to make the fraudulent withdrawals. Otherwise, it could not recover from him any funds supposedly improperly withdrawn from the ATM account.
