GR 148582; (January, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148582; January 16, 2002
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. ESTRELLA O. QUERIMIT, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Estrella Querimit opened a dollar time deposit account with petitioner Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) in 1986, for which she was issued four bearer certificates of deposit totaling US$60,000. The certificates were to mature in 60 days and were renewable with accrued interest if not presented for encashment. Respondent kept the certificates, intending to use the fund after retirement. In 1993, after her husband’s death, she sought to withdraw the deposit but was informed by FEBTC that her husband had already withdrawn the money.
FEBTC claimed it accommodated the husband’s withdrawal and presented internal bank documents—including demand drafts, debit tickets, and interbranch transaction records—to prove payment. Respondent maintained she never surrendered the bearer certificates, which remained in her possession. She filed a complaint for sum of money against FEBTC after her formal demands were refused.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner FEBTC has sufficiently proven that it had already paid the value of the bearer certificates of deposit, thereby discharging its obligation to respondent Querimit.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, holding that FEBTC failed to prove payment. The certificates were payable to bearer. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, the instrument’s production and surrender are generally required for payment to discharge the maker. The bank’s obligation is to pay the lawful holder who presents the certificate. Respondent remained the holder, as the unindorsed certificates were never surrendered.
FEBTC’s evidence consisted solely of internal accounting entries and unclaimed demand drafts. These documents did not conclusively prove that payment was actually received by the respondent or her husband. The Court emphasized that the bank’s internal records are not proof of payment to the depositor; they merely show internal fund movements. Without proof that the bearer instruments were surrendered or that the proceeds were delivered to the lawful holder, the bank’s obligation remains undischarged. The defense of laches was also rejected, as the action was filed within the prescriptive period from the date of demand and refusal. Consequently, FEBTC was ordered to allow withdrawal of the deposit plus accrued interest and was held liable for damages and attorney’s fees for its unjustified refusal to pay.