09/10/2023
βBanks are required to exercise the highest degree of diligence, along with high standards of integrity and performance in view of its significant role in commercial transactions.β
SC: BDO Negligent for Allowing Unauthorized Withdrawals |
Banks are required to exercise the highest degree of diligence, along with high standards of integrity and performance in view of its significant role in commercial transactions.
Thus underscored the Supreme Courtβs Third Division in a 19-page Decision, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, denying the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. (BDO), Vivian Duldulao, and Christine T. Nakanishi. The petition assailed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which found the petitioners liable to Liza A. Seastres, a depositor in BDO.
In ruling for Seastres, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTCβs factual findings that BDO totally failed to comply with its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in taking care of Seastresβ bank accounts. The Court reiterated the doctrine established in jurisprudence that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.
In the case of BDO, the Court said that BDO was duty bound to exercise the highest degree of diligence in handling Seastresβ bank accounts and in ascertaining that the signatures in the subject withdrawal slips and managerβs checks were made by Seastres and not by anybody else.
However, the Court found that BDO failed to comply with its own rules and regulations regarding withdrawals made through a representative.
As established during trial, BDOβs own rules and regulations require all withdrawals to be made by the depositor by properly filing out a withdrawal slip. Further, withdrawals made by a person other than the depositor him/herself may be allowed only upon the depositorβs written authorization to be verified by the bank teller.
However, in the case of Seastres, BDO allowed Benaje to personally transact the unauthorized withdrawals without confirming from Seastres the authority of Benaje. The Court noted that the alleged written authorization in favor of Benaje is limited to deposits, inquiries, pick-ups, and printouts on behalf of Seastres. The same authorization did not authorize Benaje to make any withdrawals.
The Supreme Court thus ruled that BDO is solely liable to Seastres for over PhP8,000,000.00 in actual and moral damages, attorneyβs fees, and cost of suit, to earn legal interest of six percent per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.
Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-bdo-negligent-for-allowing-unauthorized-withdrawals/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/257151-banco-de-oro-universal-bank-inc-vivian-duldulao-and-christine-nakanishi-vs-liza-a-seastres-and-annabelle-n-benaje/. Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/257151-dissenting-opinion-justice-samuel-h-gaerlan/.