Case Digest (G.R. No. 212362)
Facts:
Jose T. Ong Bun v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 212362, March 14, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jose T. Ong Bun sued respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for collection of P750,000 and damages, seeking payment for three Silver Custodian Certificates (CCs) originally issued in 1989 by Far East Bank & Trust Company (FEBTC) in the names of petitioner and his then-wife Ma. Lourdes Ong.In 1989 FEBTC issued three custodian certificates (Nos. 131157, 131200 and 224826) evidencing that FEBTC's Trust Investments Group held Silver Certificates of Deposit in custody for petitioner and/or his wife; the CCs stated that the custodian held the underlying certificates, that withdrawal required surrender or proper procedure, and that the instrument ceased to have force upon payment. About eleven years later FEBTC merged with BPI (circa 2000).
After Ma. Lourdes Ong died in December 2002, petitioner found the three CCs among her belongings and, on August 12, 2003, inquired with BPI on the procedure to claim the certificates. BPI replied that upon the merger there were no outstanding Silver Certificates of Deposit because the certificates had matured and been paid by 1991; subsequent correspondence and a final demand by petitioner did not obtain payment.
Petitioner filed suit on March 7, 2006 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Iloilo City (Civil Case No. 06-28822) for P750,000 (the face amounts), legal interest, P75,000 attorney’s fees, and moral and exemplary damages. BPI answered, contending the CCs matured in 1991 and were paid, that presentation/surrender was not a condition precedent to payment, and that petitioner’s claim prescribed under Article 1144 of the Civil Code; BPI counterclaimed for costs and damages.
After trial the RTC rendered judgment for petitioner, ordering BPI to pay the face amounts with interest, plus moral and exemplary damages and P75,000 attorney’s fees. BPI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, by Decision dated September 25, 2012, reversed and set aside the RTC judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that the custodian certificates alone did not prove outstanding deposit obligations and that possession of the CCs did not ipso facto establish nonpayment. The CA also discu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court revisit factual findings of the Court of Appeals in this Rule 45 petition?
- Do the custodian certificates in petitioner’s possession prove that FEBTC/BPI had outstanding Silver Certificates of Deposit and thus an unpaid obligation to petitioner?
- Were the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorn...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)