GR 257151; (February, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 257151 , February 13, 2023
BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, INC., VIVIAN DULDULAO, AND CHRISTINE NAKANISHI, PETITIONERS, VS. LIZA A. SEASTRES AND ANNABELLE N. BENAJE, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondent Liza A. Seastres, a depositor at Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. (BDO), discovered several unauthorized withdrawals and encashments from her accounts at two BDO branches (People Support Branch and Rufino Branch) from April to September 2008, totaling ₱8,121,939.59. The transactions were facilitated by respondent Annabelle Benaje, Seastres’s long-time friend and the Chief Operating Officer of her company. Seastres’s practice was to allow her authorized representatives, particularly Benaje, to process her transactions. When BDO would make confirmatory calls, they were often referred to or answered by Benaje, who would claim Seastres was unavailable. BDO employees, including petitioners Vivian Duldulao and Christine Nakanishi (branch heads), verified the signatures on the withdrawal slips and manager’s checks and found them genuine. Benaje later admitted to the unauthorized transactions, surrendered rubber stamps bearing Seastres’s signature, and promised to return the money. Seastres filed a criminal case against Benaje, which was dismissed. She then filed a civil case for collection of sum of money against petitioners BDO, Duldulao, and Nakanishi. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held petitioners jointly and severally liable to Seastres for actual damages, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the finding of liability but modified the award, holding that Seastres was guilty of contributory negligence (40%) and reducing petitioners’ liability to 60% of the actual damages, while deleting the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
1. Whether the CA correctly found that petitioners failed to exercise the diligence expected from banking institutions in handling Seastres’s accounts.
2. Whether Seastres can be found guilty of contributory negligence, justifying a reduction of petitioners’ liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision with MODIFICATION, reinstating the RTC’s award of moral damages and attorney’s fees.
1. Yes, petitioners failed to exercise the required diligence. The Court upheld the findings of the RTC and CA that BDO, through its employees, breached its duty to treat depositors’ accounts with the highest degree of care. The bank’s procedures were inadequate. The withdrawal slips lacked essential details such as the representative’s name and the account owner’s instruction. More critically, the bank’s confirmatory call procedure was easily circumvented, as calls were routinely directed to Benaje, the very person perpetrating the fraud, who would falsely claim Seastres was unavailable. The bank failed to implement effective safeguards to ensure direct and actual confirmation from the account owner herself. The doctrine of apparent authority was correctly held inapplicable, as the authorization given to Benaje pertained only to the delivery and receipt of documents, not to withdrawals or encashments.
2. No, Seastres was not guilty of contributory negligence. The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s finding of contributory negligence on Seastres’s part. The Court ruled that a depositor’s delegation of routine banking tasks to a trusted representative, and even the depositor’s own negligence, does not absolve the bank from its primary and contractual duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in safeguarding the depositor’s funds. The bank’s failure to adhere to its own verification procedures and to detect the fraudulent signatures (which were later admitted to be forgeries) was the proximate cause of the loss. The bank cannot shift the blame to the depositor for the bank’s own failure to perform its obligations with the highest standard of care required of banking institutions. Consequently, petitioners are liable for the full amount of the unauthorized transactions.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Petitioners are jointly and severally liable to respondent Liza A. Seastres for: (a) actual damages of ₱8,067,939.59; (b) moral damages of ₱100,000.00; (c) attorney’s fees of ₱100,000.00; and (d) costs of suit. The amounts shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.