The Supreme Court has denied the petition of BDO Unibank, Inc. seeking to recover money withdrawn by a depositor after the bank's own teller wrongly cleared a regional check as a local one. The Court ruled that BDO's gross negligence was the proximate cause of its loss and that neither unjust enrichment nor a constructive trust existed to compel the return of the amount.
The Case
On September 17, 2003, Barcellano deposited a regional check from the Ligao City, Albay branch of Landbank to her savings account at BDO's Lucena City branch in the amount of PHP 151,200.00. The BDO teller, Gemena Tamayo, erroneously validated the check as local instead of regional, which caused it to be cleared within three banking days instead of the standard seven banking days applicable to regional checks. As a result, Barcellano was able to withdraw PHP 76,000.00 from her BDO account on September 23, 2003.
The following day, the check was returned to BDO due to a stop payment order, and Tamayo learned of her mistake. The branch manager asked Barcellano to return the money she withdrew. Despite her initial promise to do so, Barcellano never remitted the amount.
On October 10, 2003, Barcellano, through counsel, demanded that she be allowed to withdraw the remaining balance from her BDO account. BDO responded with a final demand letter, which remained unheeded. BDO then filed a complaint for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code against Barcellano before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Lucena City. An Information was filed and the case was raffled to Branch 58 of the RTC of Lucena City.
After trial, the RTC acquitted Barcellano on the ground of reasonable doubt, finding that the prosecution failed to establish fraud, deceit, or abuse of confidence. BDO then appealed the civil aspect of the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC. BDO elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Issue
The Court addressed whether any civil liability could survive Barcellano's acquittal, based on a source of obligation other than delict — specifically whether the erroneous crediting created a constructive trust, gave rise to unjust enrichment, or triggered the principle of solutio indebiti requiring the return of the money to the bank.
The Ruling
The Court held the petition to be devoid of merit. It ruled that Barcellano's acquittal based on the absence of fraud or misrepresentation precludes the finding of civil liability ex delicto, and any surviving civil liability must be rooted in another source of obligation. The Court found that BDO committed multiple errors amounting to gross negligence, and that the principle of solutio indebiti did not apply.
The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The October 29, 2021 Decision and the June 9, 2022 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 110468 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."
By the Numbers
- PHP 151,200.00 — amount of the regional check deposited on September 17, 2003
- PHP 76,000.00 — amount withdrawn by Barcellano on September 23, 2003
- Three banking days — the period within which the check was erroneously cleared as local
- Seven banking days — the standard clearing period for regional checks
- October 10, 2003 — date Barcellano, through counsel, demanded to withdraw the remaining balance
- October 29, 2021 — date of the affirmed Court of Appeals Decision
- June 9, 2022 — date of the affirmed Court of Appeals Resolution
- G.R. No. 261264; CA-G.R. CV No. 110468; Criminal Case No. 2005-1084
The Court's Reasoning
The Court found that BDO committed multiple errors: it credited the amount of the check without clearing it with the drawee bank; its bank teller improperly cleared the check as local instead of regional; and it failed to detect the erroneous clearing until it received a stop payment order. Taken together, these acts constituted gross negligence, as BDO's failure to observe basic safeguards against invalid checks led to the loss.
On solutio indebiti, the Court explained that for the concept to apply, the undue payment must have been made by reason of an essential mistake of fact or a mistake in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law. BDO's payment was not due to error, misconception, or misunderstanding, but to its failure to exercise extraordinary diligence and reasonable business prudence. The name and branch of the drawee bank, Landbank of the Philippines, was visible on the face of the check, showing it was clearly a regional check. The Court stressed that no recovery is due if the mistake done is one of gross negligence.
The Court also noted that the reason for the stop payment order was neither established nor shown to have been known to Barcellano, and that she even tried to withdraw the remaining balance — supporting a reasonable inference that she believed in good faith she was the bona fide owner of the amount in her account.
Emphasizing that banking is imbued with public interest, the Court reiterated that banks must exercise extraordinary diligence, more than that of a good father of a family, and that a bank's disregard of its own banking policy amounts to gross negligence. Paying the drawer an amount from the check before clearing it with the drawee bank is contrary to normal banking practice. The Court concluded that the RTC and the CA did not err in ruling that the proximate cause of BDO's loss was its own negligence, and that no unjust enrichment or constructive trust arose to compel the return of the amount.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Barcellano, G.R. No. 261264.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.