Case Digest (G.R. No. 257151)
Facts:
Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc., Vivian Duldulao, and Christine Nakanishi v. Liza A. Seastres and Annabelle N. Benaje, G.R. No. 257151 (Formerly UDK 16942), February 13, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. (BDO) and two of its branch officers, Vivian Duldulao and Christine Nakanishi; respondents are depositor Liza A. Seastres and her long‑time representative Annabelle N. Benaje. Seastres maintained personal and corporate accounts with BDO’s People Support Branch and Rufino Branch. In 2008 she discovered numerous withdrawals and encashments totaling Php 8,121,939.59 that she claimed were unauthorized.
Seastres’s company finance officer queried BDO for transaction histories in October 2008; BDO produced account records and one of its branch heads (Nakanishi) informed Seastres that Benaje had effectuated the withdrawals. BDO investigated and reported no irregularity; Seastres pursued reconciliation and discovered multiple withdrawal slips and three manager’s checks encashed by Benaje. Benaje later admitted making the questioned withdrawals and surrendered two rubber stamps bearing Seastres’s signature; she promised to return the funds. A criminal complaint against Benaje was dismissed for lack of probable cause and not appealed.
Seastres filed a civil action for collection against BDO, Duldulao, Nakanishi, and Benaje. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 70, Taguig City, in a Decision dated March 10, 2017 found petitioners negligent for failing to exercise “meticulous care and extraordinary diligence,” granted Seastres actual damages (Php 8,067,939.59), moral damages (Php 100,000), attorney’s fees (Php 100,000), costs, and ordered Benaje to indemnify the bank and its officers. The RTC rejected the applicability of apparent authority, noting the authorization on record limited Benaje to deposits, inquiries and document pickup and did not authorize withdrawals.
Petitioners moved for partial reconsideration; the RTC denied it. They appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated September 30, 2020 the CA affirmed the RTC’s finding of BDO’s lack of diligence but found Seastres guilty of contributory negligence and apportioned liability 60% to the bank and 40% to Seastres; it also reduced actual damages by excluding one unoffered withdrawal slip and deleted awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees. Both parties’ motions for reconsideration before the CA were denied in a February 16, 2021 Resolution.
BDO, Duldulao and Nakanishi fi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that petitioners failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of banking institutions in handling respondent Seastres’s accounts?
- If petitioners were negligent, was respondent Seastres guilty of contributory negligence that justifies reducing p...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)