SUBIC BAY vs. FERNANDEZ (Civil Law Review 2)

G.R. No. 193426               September 29, 2014

SUBIC BAY LEGEND RESORTS AND CASINOS, INC., Petitioner,

vs.

BERNARD C. FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

FACTS:

Ludwin Fernandez, brother of Bernard visited the Legenda Hotel and Casino owned and operated by Subic Bay Kegend Resorts and Casino. Legenda had strategically installed (CCTV) cameras as part of security measures required by its business. The monitors revealed that Ludwin changed $5,000.00 worth of chips into smaller denominations. Legenda admitted in its brief that its surveillance staff paid close attention to Ludwin simply because it was "wmsual" for a Filipino to play using dollar-denominated chips. After Ludwin won $200.00 in a game of baccarat, he redeemed the value of chips worth $7,200.00.

Shortly thereafter, Legenda's internal security officers accosted Ludwin and Deoven and ordered them to return the cash and they complied because they were being pulled away.

Fernandez filed Civil Case for recovery of sum of money with damages against Casino.

The RTC rendered its decision, which decreed as follows:

In arriving at the above conclusion, the trial court held:

There is no dispute that the subject chips were in the possession of the plaintiff. He claims he got hold of them as payment for car services he rendered to a Chinese individual. Defendant however, contends that said chips were stolen from the casino and it is the lawful owner of the same.

The onus fell on defendant to prove that the casino chips were stolen. The proof adduced however, is wanting. The statements of Deoven and Ludwin C. Fernandez, confessing to the source of the chips were recanted hence, have little probative value. The testimony of defendant's witnesses narrated defendant's action responding to the suspicious movements of the Fernandez brothers based on surveillance tapes.

Finding that the evidence preponderates in favor of the Fernandez.

The CA affirmed the trial court's decision. Casino's motion for Reconsideration was rebuffed as well.

ISSUE:

Whether casino chips constitute legal tender.

RULING:

Though casino chips do not constitute legal tender, there is no law which prohibits their use or trade outside of the casino which issues them. In any case, it is not unusual – nor is it unlikely – that respondent could be paid by his Chinese client at the former' s car shop with the casino chips in question; said transaction, if not common, is nonetheless not unlawful. These chips are paid for anyway; petitioner would not have parted with the same if their corresponding representative equivalent - in legal tender, goodwill, or otherwise – was not received by it in return or exchange. Given this premise - that casino chips are considered to have been exchanged with their corresponding representative value - it is with more reason that this Court should require petitioner to prove convincingly and persuasively that the chips it confiscated from Ludwin and Deoven were indeed stolen from it; if so, any Tom, Dick or Harry in possession of genuine casino chips is presumed to have paid for their representative value in exchange therefor. If petitioner cannot prove its loss, then Article 559 cannot apply; the presumption that the chips were exchanged for value remains.