GR L 27328; (May, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27328 May 30, 1983
ISIDRO M. ONGSIP, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO., defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Isidro M. Ongsip maintained a current account with Prudential Bank. The bank debited two sums from his account: P225,484.95 on June 2, 1955, representing postdated checks, and P19,416.37 on July 14, 1955, representing marginal deposits for letters of credit opened by third parties. Ongsip demanded restitution, but the bank refused. The bank claimed a special arrangement existed for the postdated checks, whereby they would be deposited, debited upon deposit, and later re-credited upon maturity. For the marginal deposits, the bank alleged Ongsip acted as a surety and orally authorized the debit.
The trial court rejected the bank’s claims. It found no proof of the alleged special arrangement for the postdated checks, deeming it an irregular banking practice, and noted the bank failed to produce the checks as evidence. The court also found no credible evidence of Ongsip’s oral authorization for the marginal deposit debits. The bank appealed, arguing the trial court ignored evidence of re-crediting the P225,484.95 and documents proving Ongsip’s liability for the marginal deposits.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) Whether the bank lawfully debited P225,484.95 from Ongsip’s account for the postdated checks; and (2) Whether Ongsip was liable for the P19,416.37 in marginal deposits for the letters of credit.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court affirmed that the bank unlawfully debited the P225,484.95. The bank’s claim of a special arrangement and subsequent re-crediting lacked credible evidence. The bank failed to produce the postdated checks, and its evidence of re-crediting was self-serving and not corroborated by credit memoranda or communicated to Ongsip during his demands. The preponderance of evidence supported the finding of an improper debit.
On the second issue, the Court reversed the trial court, finding Ongsip liable for the P19,416.37. Exhibits presented by the bank conclusively proved Ongsip had assumed the obligation for the marginal deposits related to the six letters of credit. The Court dismissed the bank’s affirmative defense of prescription, as the action on a written contract was filed within the ten-year prescriptive period. Other defenses like estoppel were deemed immaterial to the core issues. The bank was ordered to pay Ongsip P225,484.95 with legal interest, but his claim for P19,416.37 was dismissed.