Title
Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc., Vivian Duldulao, and Christine Nakanishi vs. Liza A. Seastres and Annabelle N. Benaje
Case
G.R. No. 257151
Decision Date
Feb 13, 2023
BDO held liable for P7.4M unauthorized withdrawals due to negligence, violating banking diligence; Seastres' trust in Benaje not contributory negligence.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 257151)

Facts:

  • Parties and Accounts
    • Petitioners Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. (BDO), Vivian Duldulao and Christine T. Nakanishi were bank, branch head, and branch head, respectively.
    • Respondent Liza A. Seastres maintained personal and corporate deposit accounts at BDO People Support Branch and BDO Rufino Branch in Makati City.
  • Transactions in Dispute
    • Unauthorized withdrawals by Seastres’ representative, Annabelle N. Benaje, totaling ₱2,962,800.00 from Account No. 20800471 and ₱1,878,600.00 from Account No. 5420-015499.
    • Encashment of three manager’s checks payable to Seastres, amounting to ₱4,513,139.59.
  • Initial Investigations
    • In October 2008, Seastres’ finance officer requested transaction histories; BDO provided passbooks and printouts.
    • Both BDO branches investigated, verified signatures as genuine, and reported no irregularities.
  • Criminal and Civil Proceedings
    • Seastres filed a criminal complaint for theft and forgery against Benaje before the Makati Prosecutor’s Office; it was dismissed for lack of probable cause.
    • Seastres then filed a civil action for collection against BDO, Duldulao, Nakanishi and later amended to include Benaje.
  • Rulings of Lower Courts
    • RTC (Mar. 10, 2017): found BDO and its employees jointly and severally liable for ₱8,067,939.59 actual damages, ₱100,000 moral damages, ₱100,000 attorney’s fees; denied exemplary damages; ordered Benaje to indemnify.
    • CA (Sept. 30, 2020): upheld bank negligence but held Seastres 40% contributorily negligent; reduced bank liability to ₱4,453,163.75 (60% of actual damages); deleted moral damages and attorney’s fees.

Issues:

  • Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that petitioners failed to exercise the diligence required of banking institutions?
  • If so, is Seastres guilty of contributory negligence warranting reduction of petitioners’ liability?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.