Case Digest (G.R. No. 217022)
Facts:
In International Exchange Bank (now UnionBank of the Philippines) vs. Jose Co Lee and Angela T. Lee, iBank filed on November 20, 2003 a complaint for sum of money and damages against Christina T. Lee, Jeffrey R. Esquivel, Violeta T. Lee, Karin Tse Go, Jose Co Lee, and Angela T. Lee, alleging that Christina fraudulently pre-terminated Forward Foreign Exchange Placement Accounts of Liu Siu Lang Sy (₱8,800,000.00) and the spouses Co (₱8,244,645.27), diverted proceeds into her boyfriend Jeffrey’s account, and that these funds were later transferred to Karin, Jose, and Angela and withdrawn. When iBank discovered the deceit, it reinstated the amounts and sued to recover them. Jose and Angela denied involvement. After iBank rested its case on May 10, 2016, Jose and Angela filed a demurrer to evidence, which the Regional Trial Court granted on March 1, 2017 for “insufficiency of evidence,” thereby dismissing the complaint against them. iBank’s motion for reconsideration was denied on MaCase Digest (G.R. No. 217022)
Facts:
- Background and Complaint
- On November 20, 2003, International Exchange Bank (iBank), now UnionBank, filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against Christina T. Lee, Jeffrey R. Esquivel, Violeta T. Lee, Karin Tse Go, Jose Co Lee, and Angela T. Lee. It alleged that Christina (a treasury products sales associate) conspired with Jeffrey to misappropriate ₱8,800,000.00 (Sy) and ₱8,244,645.27 (Spouses Co) from clients’ Forward Foreign Exchange Placement Accounts by tricking the bank into crediting these amounts to Jeffrey’s account, then dispersing proceeds to Karin, Jose, Angela, and Violeta. Upon discovery, the bank reinstated the funds to Sy and Spouses Co.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- After iBank rested its evidence on May 10, 2016, Jose and Angela filed a Demurrer to Evidence.
- On March 1, 2017, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the demurrer, holding that (a) iBank proved only Christina’s fraud, (b) it failed to present Sy and Spouses Co as witnesses to deny consent, and (c) it did not demand restitution from Jose and Angela. The complaint against them was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
- iBank’s motions for partial reconsideration (denied May 22, 2017) and for leave to appeal (unacted on) were followed by withdrawal of its Notice of Appeal and the filing of a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) on August 23, 2017.
- Appellate and Supreme Court Proceedings
- On August 17, 2018, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy—iBank should have appealed the RTC’s demurrer resolution. Reconsideration was denied on November 13, 2018.
- iBank filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on January 4, 2019, contending (a) certiorari was proper due to RTC’s undue delay on its Motion for Leave, and (b) sufficient evidence showed Jose’s and Angela’s liability. Respondents answered; petitioner replied.
Issues:
- Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to contest the RTC’s grant of the demurrer to evidence.
- Whether UnionBank established by sufficient evidence its entitlement to recovery against respondents Jose Co Lee and Angela T. Lee.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)