Case Digest (G.R. No. 249410)
Facts:
In BPI Family Bank v. Franco, petitioner BPI Family Bank (BPI-FB) brings a Petition for Review on Certiorari from the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming with modification the Manila Regional Trial Court’s August 4, 1993 judgment in Civil Case No. 90-53295. On August 15 and 25, 1989, Tevesteco Arrastre-Stevedoring Co., Inc. and First Metro Investment Corporation (FMIC) opened deposit accounts with BPI-FB’s San Francisco del Monte branch, FMIC placing a P100,000,000 time deposit. On August 31, 1989, respondent Amado Franco opened current (P500,000), savings (P500,000), and one-year time deposit (P1,000,000) accounts funded by a P2,000,000 check from Tevesteco, purportedly for introductions made by Franco. BPI-FB had earlier, under a forged Authority to Debit bearing FMIC officers’ signatures, transferred P80,000,000 from FMIC’s time deposit to Tevesteco’s current account. Tevesteco withdrew P37,455,410.54, including the P2,000,000 credited to Franco. FMIC’s Executive Vice-PresidCase Digest (G.R. No. 249410)
Facts:
- Opening and misappropriation of bank deposits
- On August 15, 1989, Tevesteco Arrastre-Stevedoring Co., Inc. opened savings and current accounts with BPI-Family Bank (SFDM branch).
- On August 25, 1989, First Metro Investment Corporation (FMIC) opened a one-year time deposit of ₱100,000,000 with the same branch.
- On August 31, 1989, Amado Franco opened three accounts (current, savings, time deposit) funded with ₱2,000,000 traceable to a check by Tevesteco, itself funded by an ₱80,000,000 debit from FMIC’s account under a forged Authority to Debit.
- Discovery of forgery and bank’s set-off
- September 4, 1989: FMIC’s EVP Ong declared his signature on the Authority to Debit forged; Tevesteco had already withdrawn ₱37,455,410.54, including ₱2,000,000 paid to Franco.
- September 8, 1989: BPI-FB debited Franco’s current and savings accounts to recover remaining balances; was unable to debit his time deposit due to computer limitations.
- Dishonor of checks and garnishment proceedings
- Two checks drawn by Franco on September 11 and 18, 1989 were dishonored by BPI-FB and stamped “account under garnishment” pursuant to an attachment order in Makati RTC Civil Case No. 89-4996.
- Franco received notice of garnishment only on September 27, 1989, after his checks were dishonored; he was impleaded in the Makati case on May 15, 1990, and obtained an order lifting the attachment on May 16, 1990.
- Subsequent transactions and litigation history
- May 17, 1990: Franco pre-terminated his time deposit; BPI-FB deducted ₱63,189 as advance interest.
- June 4, 1990: Franco filed suit in Manila RTC (Civil Case No. 90-53295) to recover:
- Interest on his current account balance released October 31, 1991.
- Balance of his savings account (₱98,973.23) plus interest.
- The ₱63,189 deducted from his time deposit.
- Actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
- August 4, 1993: Manila RTC rendered judgment in Franco’s favor ordering BPI-FB to pay interest on current account (₱76,500), savings balance with interest (₱498,973.23), attorney’s fees (₱30,000), nominal damages (₱10,000); dismissed bank’s counterclaim.
- CA (1995) affirmed with modification, adding ₱63,189 for time deposit interest, ₱200,000 moral damages, ₱100,000 exemplary damages, and increasing attorney’s fees to ₱75,000.
Issues:
- Rightful ownership and bank’s authority to freeze or set-off Franco’s deposits
- Entitlement to interest on current, savings, and time deposit accounts
- Validity of Franco’s recovery of the ₱400,000 held in Quiaoit’s account
- Lawfulness of dishonoring Franco’s checks under garnishment procedures
- Awardability of moral and exemplary damages against BPI-FB
- Proper award of attorney’s fees
- Sufficiency of factual and legal basis for BPI-FB’s counterclaim
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)