### G.R. No.

202573
## Bankard, Inc. v. Alarte
######
### Facts:
- Petitioner Bankard, Inc. filed a collection case against respondent Luz P. Alarte
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MeTC).
- The case was filed because respondent failed to pay her credit card obligations to
petitioner.
- Petitioner alleged that respondent applied for and was granted credit
accommodations under Bankard myDream JCB Card No. 3562-8688-5155-1006.
- Petitioner claimed that respondent's credit availments amounted to a total of
P67,944.82, but respondent failed and refused to pay her obligations despite a
written demand.
- The MeTC granted petitioner's Motion to Render Judgment and dismissed the case for
lack of preponderance of evidence.
- Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), but the RTC affirmed the
MeTC's decision.
- Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (CA), but
the CA also affirmed the lower court's decision.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it.
### Issue:
- Whether petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to support its claim against
respondent.
### Ruling:
- The Petition is partially granted.
- The Court finds that petitioner failed to provide clear proof on how the amount
claimed was incurred by respondent.
- The July 9, 2006 Statement of Account sent to respondent does not contain the
particulars of purchase transactions, but rather reflects a running balance of
charges and penalties.
- Petitioner's Complaint was not well-prepared and its cause was not well-argued,
leading to misunderstandings by the lower courts.
- The case is remanded to the MeTC for further proceedings, allowing petitioner to
amend its Complaint and present additional evidence to prove its case.
### Ratio:
- In civil cases, the party with the burden of proof must establish their case by a
preponderance of evidence.
- The burden of proof lies with the petitioner, who must present sufficient evidence
to prove their claim.
- The July 9, 2006 Statement of Account reflects a running balance of charges and
penalties, but does not provide details of purchase transactions.
- Petitioner should have included a summary of respondent's account and past
statements of account to prove that the July 9, 2006 statement was a running balance
and not necessarily immediate credit card purchases.
- The case is remanded to the MeTC for petitioner to amend its Complaint and present
additional evidence to prove its case.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Downloaded at www.jurisprudence.ph
------------------------------------------------------------------