Case Digest (G.R. No. 173134)
Facts:
In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Tarcila Fernandez (G.R. No. 173134, September 2, 2015), respondent Tarcila “Baby” Fernandez and her husband, Manuel G. Fernandez Sr., jointly opened four AND/OR deposit accounts with BPI’s Shaw Boulevard Branch in mid-1991: Peso Time Certificate of Deposit Nos. 2425545 (P1,684,661.40), 2425556 (P1,534,335.10), FCDU Time Certificate of Deposit No. 449059 (US$36,219.53), and Savings Account No. 3301-0145-61 (P11,369,800.78). The certificates provided that pre-termination before maturity required bank discretion, presentation of the original certificates, and interest penalties. On September 24, 1991, Tarcila presented the certificates and passbook to pre-terminate but was deferred pending consultation with her husband. Later that day, Manuel appeared, falsely claimed loss of the certificates, submitted a BPI‐supplied pro-forma affidavit of loss, and executed an Indemnity Agreement with third-party respondent Dalmiro Sian. BPI then credited theCase Digest (G.R. No. 173134)
Facts:
- Joint AND/OR Time and Savings Deposit Accounts
- Peso Time Certificate of Deposit No. 2425545 (June 27, 1991; P1,684,661.40; 90 days; 17.5% p.a.) in the names of Manuel G. Fernandez Sr., Baby Fernandez, or Monique Fernandez
- Peso Time Certificate of Deposit No. 2425556 (July 1, 1991; P1,534,335.10; 92 days; 17.5% p.a.) in the names of Manuel G. Fernandez Sr., Marco Fernandez, or Tarcila Fernandez
- FCDU Time Certificate of Deposit No. 449059 (August 27, 1991; US$36,219.53; 30 days; 5.3125% p.a.) in the names of Manuel or Tarcila Fernandez
- Savings Account No. 3301-0145-61 (September 10, 1991; P11,369,800.78; 5% p.a.) in the names of Manuel Fernandez, Baby Fernandez, or Monique Fernandez
- Pre-termination Transactions (September 24–26, 1991)
- Tarcila presented original certificates to BPI Shaw Boulevard Branch to effect pre-termination; bank refused, insisting on contacting Manuel.
- Manuel arrived, claimed loss of certificates, signed BPI’s affidavit of loss and an Indemnity Agreement with third-party respondent Dalmiro Sian; bank released full proceeds to Manuel, which were funneled through a newly opened BPI account under Sian’s name and withdrawn the same day.
- Court Proceedings
- Tarcila filed Civil Case No. 95-671 (RTC Makati) for damages and her proportionate share, alleging bad faith by BPI.
- RTC awarded Tarcila one-half of the dollar deposit, one-third of each peso deposit, P50,000 exemplary damages, and P500,000 attorney’s fees, applying Article 1214 (solidary creditors).
- On appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 61764), the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding BPI acted in bad faith and dismissed BPI’s third-party complaint against Sian (intimidation).
- BPI’s motion for reconsideration was denied. BPI then filed a Rule 45 petition in the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did BPI breach its contractual obligations under the certificates of deposit by releasing proceeds without presentation of the originals?
- Did BPI act in bad faith toward co-depositor Tarcila?
- Is the Indemnity Agreement between BPI and Sian enforceable against Tarcila’s claim?
- Are exemplary damages and attorney’s fees properly awarded?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)