G.R. No. 149193 - Bangayan vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp.

Petitioner Ricardo B. Bangayan maintained two accounts—a savings account and a current account—at Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), Binondo Branch, Manila, with an automatic transfer condition allowing checks issued by Bangayan to be funded from either account.
On June 26, 1992, Bangayan purportedly signed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement (Surety Agreement) with RCBC, whereby his accounts would secure obligations of nine corporations to the bank including loan obligations, advances, credits, increases, and expenses.

Bangayan contested the authenticity and genuineness of the Surety Agreement, claiming his signature was not genuine and that the agreement was not notarized. RCBC admitted the agreement lacked a witness’ signature and notarization but explained it was still in the process of completion.
Despite Bangayan’s contestation, RCBC issued four letters of credit between June and August 1992, to four corporations guaranteed under the Surety Agreement—LBZ Commercial, Peaks Marketing, Final Sales Enterprise, and Lotec Marketing—for importation of goods from Korea. RCBC claimed it would not have extended such letters of credit without Bangayan’s surety.

On September 15, 1992, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) demanded payment of customs duties amounting to PhP13,265,225 related to the shipments under three letters of credit. RCBC notified Bangayan, who acknowledged the situation and said he was working to resolve it.
Following the BOC demand, RCBC froze Bangayan’s accounts, refusing payments drawn on them unless ordered by BOC. Bangayan contested this, stating no writ of garnishment had been presented.
On September 18, 1992, two checks from Bangayan’s current account (Nos. 93799 and 93800) totaling PhP8,150,000 were presented and initially paid but then credited back and dishonored with notation “REFER TO DRAWER.” United Pacific Enterprises, payee, demanded payment from Bangayan.
On September 24, 1992, the Korea Exchange Bank (advising bank) negotiated a fourth letter of credit for Lotec Marketing amounting to US$712,800, later reimbursed by RCBC who debited Bangayan’s current account with PhP12,762,600 to partly satisfy this obligation.
By October 15, 1992, five additional checks amounting to PhP5,674,000 were presented and dishonored by RCBC due to insufficient funds; the payees demanded payment from Bangayan.

An investigation by BOC was conducted regarding importations through the letters of credit. RCBC Account Officer Philip Saria signed a statement before BOC relating to the letters of credit issued.
Bangayan filed a complaint for damages against RCBC and Philip Saria, alleging wrongful dishonor of checks and violation of the Bank Secrecy Act by disclosing confidential information to BOC without his consent.
The trial court found no evidence that RCBC disclosed classified or confidential information in violation of Republic Act No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Act).
Receipts showed that the corporations eventually paid the customs duties demanded by BOC, and RCBC released shipment papers for the imported PVC resin.
Bangayan filed the complaint on November 9, 1992; RCBC defended invoking the Surety Agreement and the lien on Bangayan’s accounts resulting from the guaranteed corporations’ obligations.

The parties presented evidence: Bangayan and witnesses testified; RCBC presented Mr. Eli Lao as defense witness.
The trial court initially struck Mr. Lao’s testimony due to his non-appearance but later reinstated it, allowing cross-examination.
The trial court dismissed Bangayan’s complaint for damages on October 17, 1994. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on August 6, 2001.
Bangayan filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.

Whether RCBC was justified in dishonoring Bangayan’s seven checks and whether Bangayan is entitled to damages for the dishonor.
Whether the trial court committed reversible error by reinstating Mr. Lao’s testimony despite its earlier order striking it off.
Whether RCBC and Philip Saria violated the Bank Secrecy Act by wrongfully disclosing Bangayan’s confidential bank information to third parties (BOC).