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

The case involves the liability of Banco De Oro Universal Bank (BDO) and its employees for unauthorized withdrawals from the accounts of respondent Liza A. Seastres, made by her representative, Annabelle N. Benaje. The petitioners (BDO and its employees) were found negligent for: 1) allowing withdrawals by Benaje without Seastres accomplishing the required authorization forms; 2) processing withdrawal slips bearing Seastres’s signature even when presented by Benaje; and 3) allowing Benaje to encash manager’s checks where Seastres was the payee. The dissenting opinion argues that Seastres was guilty of contributory negligence. It was established that Seastres entrusted all her banking transactions to Benaje, giving her full access to accounts and passbooks, and that Benaje had been representing Seastres in all transactions with the bank for about 12 years, a practice known and accepted by the bank. Seastres also admitted in a complaint-affidavit that Benaje enjoyed her full trust and confidence. Furthermore, Seastres regularly received bank statements but failed to check them, discovering the irregularities only when alerted by a third party.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Liza A. Seastres was guilty of contributory negligence.

RULING

The dissenting opinion concludes that Seastres was guilty of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is defined as conduct by the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm suffered, which falls below the standard of care required for self-protection. The opinion finds that Seastres failed to exercise ordinary care by: 1) granting Benaje de facto full authority over her accounts beyond the limited power in the written authorization; 2) failing to monitor her bank statements regularly; and 3) placing full trust and confidence in Benaje without sufficient oversight. This want of ordinary care concurred with the bank’s negligence, proximately causing her loss. Consequently, the dissenting opinion applies a 60-40 ratio of liability, holding petitioners liable for 60% of the damages and Seastres for 40%. Additionally, the opinion modifies the actual damages awarded, deducting amounts corresponding to withdrawal slips and checks where Seastres failed to prove her signatures were forged, reducing the total recoverable amount. The opinion votes to PARTIALLY GRANT the Petition for Review on Certiorari.