G.R. No. 23836 - Andreas vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands

Title: Andreas vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands

Case: G.R. No. 23836

Decision Date: Sep 9, 1925

A businessman sued BPI for refunding erroneously paid interest on drafts, claiming no legal basis for charges. Court ruled in his favor, affirming no contract authorized additional interest.

Font Size:

Dark Mode

Case Digest (G.R. No. 23836)
Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Parties and Background

H. R. Andreas is a resident businessman of Manila and the plaintiff in the case.

The defendant is the Bank of the Philippine Islands, a banking corporation organized under Philippine law with its principal place of business in Manila.

The Foreign Credit Transaction and the Drafts

On May 31, 1920, the American Trading Company of Australia issued a bill of exchange at Sydney addressed to the plaintiff as drawee for the sum of 5,050 pounds, payable to the order of the Bank of New South Wales 30 days after sight.

The draft was duly endorsed to the defendant bank, and the plaintiff accepted it on June 21, 1920.

On or about July 13, 1920, upon the defendant’s demand, the plaintiff paid the full draft amount. In addition, through what was later described as an error, he also paid interest charges amounting to P1,136.96 on the first draft. Similar allegations and interest charges on other drafts form the basis of three additional causes of action.

The Foreign Credit Application and Contractual Terms

Prior to the draft transactions, on May 15, 1920, the plaintiff submitted a written “request for foreign credit” to the defendant.

The request detailed that the plaintiff authorized the bank to instruct its correspondent in Sydney to negotiate the draft(s) within a term not exceeding 30 days after sight.

It stipulated that the plaintiff would accept and pay the drafts upon presentation, provided they were negotiated before May 31, 1920.

The request also required the handover of collateral (bills of lading and a policy of marine insurance) and specified the bank’s commission at a rate of 1/4 of one per cent for the credit used, along with all incidental expenses.

Implicit in the application was the understanding that the drafts would incorporate, as part of the Australian banking practices, the interest charges related to the coal purchase transaction.

Payment Details and Interest Charges Collection

The defendant processed several drafts drawn by the Australian bank, with the following interest charge details:

First draft – Interest for 107 days at a 9% per annum rate = P1,136.96.

Second draft – Interest for 114 days amounting to P2,927.40.

Third draft – Interest for 151 days amounting to P1,068.31.

Fourth draft – Interest for 154 days amounting to P3,127.66.

The original expectation under the foreign credit was that interest on the coal was included in the “exchange” calculation by the Australian banks, from the date of the draft until the arrival of funds in London.

It is admitted that when the plaintiff paid, he did not realize that additional interest charges were being applied by the defendant bank on its own account.

Disputed Nature of the Interest Charges

The defendant contended that, following established banking customs in Manila and abroad, it was entitled to charge interest on the amount from the time the payment was made until the remittance of funds to the London bank.

Testimonies from Mr. Ford (Chief of the Foreign Department) and Mr. Mouatt (clerk at the Bank of New South Wales) confirmed that:

The interest charge of 9% per annum was imposed solely by the defendant and was not authorized by the Bank of New South Wales.

The interest on the drafts was generally computed from the draft’s date until the arrival of the funds in London.

The defendant attempted to rely on evidence of an established custom and usage in the banking industry, but such testimonies and evidence were largely objected to and ultimately sustained by the trial judge.

Plaintiff’s Protest and Subsequent Developments

After making the payments, including the 9% interest charges, the plaintiff later protested the imposition of these additional charges.

In subsequent correspondence with the defendant, he argued that he had already paid the interest intrinsic to the Australian bank’s “exchange” rate and should not be charged interest separately by the defendant.

The plaintiff maintained that he paid the full amount of the original draft, and therefore any extra interest was in error and should be refunded.

Issue:

Entitlement to Interest Charges

Whether the defendant bank is legally entitled to charge interest on its own account from the date its account was debited until the funds were remitted to the London bank.

Hearsay and Evidentiary Concerns

Whether the trial judge erred in excluding Mr. Ford’s testimony regarding the operational rules of Australian banks under the Association of Australian Banks, considering it hearsay evidence.

Adequacy of the Plaintiff’s Pleadings

Whether the trial judge erred in not dismissing the second, third, and fourth causes of action on the basis that the plaintiff failed to prove the exact computation of the allegedly unduly charged interest.

Existence of an Implied Agreement on Interest

Whether, by paying the 9% interest charges, the plaintiff ratified or agreed to these charges, and if such ratification could legally bind him to pay interest beyond the amount included in the original draft amount.

Relevance of Established Customs and Usages

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to consider competent evidence of a general or local banking custom that would support the defendant’s practice of charging interest on foreign credits.

Determination of the Nature and Scope of Interest

Whether the trial judge improperly conflated the legal issue of interest as a matter of compensation for the detention of money with contractual agreement issues concerning the additional interest charges imposed by the defendant.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END