CITIBANK, N.A.

(Formerly First National City Bank) and INVESTORS’ FINANCE

CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style of FNCB Finance vs
MODESTA R. SABENIANO
G.R. No. 156132, 06 February 2007
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS: Sabeniano was a client of Citibank and FNCB Finance. She had several deposits and
market placements with Citibank and FNCB Finance. At the same time, Sabeniano had
outstanding loans with Citibank, incurred at Citibank-Manila. These loans were secured by
Sabeniano’s money market placements with FNCB Finance through a Deed of Assignment plus a
Declaration of Pledge which states that all present and future fiduciary placements held in her
personal and/or joint name with Citibank Switzerland, will secure all claims that Citibank may
have or, in the future, acquire against her. The Deeds of Assignment were duly notarized, while
the Declaration of Pledge was not notarized and Citibank’s copy was undated, while that of
Sabeniano bore the date, September 24, 1979. Despite repeated demands by Citibank,
Sabeniano failed to pay her outstanding loans. Thus, Citibank used Sabeniano’s deposits and
money market placements to off-set and liquidate her outstanding obligations. Sabeniano,
however, denied having any outstanding loans with Citibank. She likewise alleged that the
signature affixed in the Declaration of Pledge is forged, and she denied that she was duly
informed of the off-setting or compensation thereof made by Citibank. Hence, Sabeniano
sought to recover her deposits and money market placements.

RTC declared the act of off-setting as illegal, null and void and ordered Citibank to
refund the amount plus interest, and ordering Sabeniano, on the other hand to pay Citibank her
indebtedness. Both parties appealed to the CA which affirmed the RTC’s decision, but further
ruled entirely in favor of Sabeniano – holding that Citibank failed to establish her indebtedness
and that all the executed deeds should be returned to her account.

ISSUE: Whether or not the photocopy of the Declaration of Pledge allegedly bearing
Sabeniano’s signature be admissible as evidence

RULING: No

Basic is the rule of evidence that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the
instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Mere photocopies of
documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. This is especially true when the
issue is that of forgery. As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear,
positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The
best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the
alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between
the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose
signature is theorized upon to have been forged. Without the original document containing the
alleged forged signature, one cannot make a definitive comparison which would establish
forgery. A comparison based on a mere xerox copy or reproduction of the document under
controversy cannot produce reliable results.
 Sabeniano made several attempts to have the original copy of the pledge produced
before the RTC so as to have it examined by experts. Yet, despite several Orders by the RTC,
Citibank failed to comply with the production of the original Declaration of Pledge. It is admitted
that Citibank-Geneva had possession of the original copy of the pledge. While Citibank in Manila
and its branch in Geneva may be separate and distinct entities, they are still incontestably
related, and between Citibank and Sabeniano, the former had more influence and resources to
convince Citibank-Geneva to return, albeit temporarily, the original Declaration of Pledge.
Citibank did not present any evidence to convince this Court that it had exerted diligent efforts
to secure the original copy of the pledge, nor did it proffer the reason why Citibank-Geneva
obstinately refused to give it back, when such document would have been very vital to the case
of Citibank. There is thus no justification to allow the presentation of a mere photocopy of the
Declaration of Pledge in lieu of the original, and the photocopy of the pledge presented by
Citibank has no probative value. In addition, even if this Court cannot make a categorical
finding that Sabeniano’s signature on the original copy of the pledge was forged, it is persuaded
that Citibank willfully suppressed the presentation of the original document, and takes into
consideration the presumption that the evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse to
Citibank if produced.