K.S. Alima Law Office

K.S. Alima Law Office Law Firm

25/08/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a bank cannot require a depositor to return money they already withdrew on the ground of unjust enrichment when the loss was caused by the bank’s own gross negligence.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition filed by BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO), holding that the bank’s disregard of its own banking policy amounted to gross negligence.

The case stemmed from Cristina Barcellano’s (Barcellano) deposit of a regional check worth PHP 151,200 from an Albay branch of Landbank into her savings account at BDO’s Lucena City branch.

The BDO teller mistakenly validated the check as local instead of regional, allowing the amount to be credited after only three banking days instead of the required seven.

Believing the funds were available, Barcellano withdrew PHP 76,000. Shortly after, BDO received a stop payment order on the check and demanded that she return the money. Although Barcellano initially agreed, she never repaid the amount. BDO later refused to release the remaining balance and filed a criminal complaint for estafa.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals acquitted Barcellano, finding no fraud, deceit, or abuse of confidence on her part and blamed BDO’s own negligence.

Before the SC, BDO asked for a review of the civil aspect of the case, arguing that despite Barcellano's acquittal, she should still be required to return the money. BDO argued that her refusal amounted to unjust enrichment and that since the funds were released due to its error in processing the check, Barcellano was required to return them based on the principle of 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘪, which requires the repayment of money received by mistake.

The SC disagreed, ruling that there was no unjust enrichment because BDO failed to prove that Barcellano knowingly received and retained a benefit to which she was not entitled.

SC declared that the bank did not explain why the stop payment order was issued or show that Barcellano knew the check would not be honored. Instead, the evidence showed that she withdrew the money in good faith after BDO itself made the funds available in her account.

The SC also ruled that BDO’s own gross negligence caused its loss. It found that the bank credited the check before it had properly cleared it, incorrectly treated a regional check as a local check, and failed to detect the error until after receiving the stop payment order. These lapses showed a failure to observe basic safeguards meant to protect the bank from the risks of invalid checks.

The SC also rejected BDO’s reliance on solutio indebiti. Although the doctrine generally requires the return of money received by mistake, it does not apply when the mistake resulted from the payor’s own gross negligence. Here, BDO’s error stemmed from its failure to exercise the extraordinary diligence and reasonable prudence required of banks.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171657

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261264-bdo-unibank-inc-vs-cristina-barcellano-y-riego/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

📌 NOTARIZATION REMINDERS 📌
13/07/2026

📌 NOTARIZATION REMINDERS 📌

09/07/2026

READ: Statement of the Office of the Spokesperson on the confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers

📢 OFFICE ADVISORY
07/07/2026

📢 OFFICE ADVISORY

14/06/2026
📢 OFFICE ADVISORYPlease be advised that K.S. Alima Law Office will be closed from May 25, 2026 to May 26, 2026.Regular b...
25/05/2026

📢 OFFICE ADVISORY

Please be advised that K.S. Alima Law Office will be closed from May 25, 2026 to May 26, 2026.

Regular business operations will resume on Wednesday, May 27, 2026.

For urgent concerns, you may send us a message and we will respond once operations resume.

Thank you for your understanding.

— K.S. Alima Law Office

14/05/2026

May 14, 2026 | IBP Statement on the Reported Shooting at the Philippine Senate

📢 OFFICE ADVISORYPlease be advised that K.S. Alima Law Office is closed TODAY, Tuesday, May 12, 2026.Regular business op...
12/05/2026

📢 OFFICE ADVISORY

Please be advised that K.S. Alima Law Office is closed TODAY, Tuesday, May 12, 2026.

Regular business operations will resume on Wednesday, May 13, 2026.

For urgent concerns, you may send us a message and we will respond once operations resume.

Thank you for your understanding.

— K.S. Alima Law Office

06/05/2026

Pinawalang-sala ng ang isang lalaking nahaharap sa kasong violence against women and their children o VAWC dahil sa pagtanggi umano nitong magbigay ng suportang pinansiyal sa isang batang hindi napatunayang sa kanya. Iginiit nito na nagkakaroon lang ng legal na tungkulin na magbigay ng suportang pinansiyal matapos mapatunayan ang filiation o paternity o ugnayan ng isang anak sa kanyang ama.

Sa desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, binaliktad ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang mga hatol ng Regional Trial Court at Court of Appeals na unang nagdeklarang guilty ang akusado sa kasalanang economic abuse sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. 9262 o ang Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act).

Nagsampa ng reklamo ang isang babae laban sa kanyang dating kasintahan na inakusahan niyang tumatangging magbigay ng suportang pinansiyal para sa kanyang anak.

Patuloy na itinanggi ng akusado na siya ang ama sa katwirang ipinanganak ang bata walong buwan matapos ang huli nilang pagtatalik.

Sa paglilitis, iprinisinta ng babae ang birth certificate ng bata bilang ebidensya. Gayunpaman, ang bahaging nagsasaad ng pangalan ng ama ay minarkahan ng “N/A” at hindi nilagdaan. Inamin din ng babae na tumanggi ang akusado na magbigay ng suportang pinansiyal dahil nag-aalinlangan ito kung siya nga ang ama ng bata.

Sa pagbaliktad ng hatol sa akusado, ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na para mahatulan ang isang tao sa kasalanang economic abuse sa ilalim ng Section 5(i) ng Anti-VAWC Act, dapat mapatunayan ng prosekusyon na: (1) ang biktima ay isang babae at/o kanyang anak; (2) ang babae ay asawa o kapareha ng akusado, o kaya ay isang taong may anak sa akusado; (3) tumanggi ang akusado na magbigay ng kailangang suportang pinansiyal; at (4) ang pagtanggi ay may layuning magdulot ng paghihirap sa isip o emosyon.

Sa kasong ito, nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na nabigo ang prosekusyon na patunayan ang dalawang mahahalagang elemento: na may anak ang akusado at ang babae, at ginawa para magdulot ng pinsalang sikolohikal ang pagtanggi sa pagbibigay ng suporta.

Dahil hindi napatunayan ang paternity ng akusado sa kasong ito, walang legal na obligasyon na magbigay ng suporta ang maaaring ipataw sa kanya.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164663.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164655.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


🇵🇭 LABOR DAY ADVISORY – MAY 1, 2026In celebration of Labor Day, we recognize and honor the hard work and dedication of e...
01/05/2026

🇵🇭 LABOR DAY ADVISORY – MAY 1, 2026

In celebration of Labor Day, we recognize and honor the hard work and dedication of every Filipino worker.

Please be informed that K.S. Alima Law Office is OPEN today, despite the holiday, to continue serving clients who may need legal assistance and notarial services.

📩 Feel free to message us for inquiries or visit us during office hours.

Your legal needs remain our priority—even on holidays.

Address

2nd Floor, M. J. Building, Animas Street Cor. Recto Street, Aguada
Ozamiz
7200

Opening Hours

Monday 8:30am - 5pm
Wednesday 8:30am - 5pm
Thursday 8:30am - 5pm
Friday 8:30am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when K.S. Alima Law Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share