Case Summary (G.R. No. 157177)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner: Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)
Respondents: Jesusa P. Reyes and Conrado B. Reyes
Key Dates
• December 7, 1990 – Opening of newly created Express Teller account and disputed transactions
• May 6 and July 25, 1991 – First and second demand letters for return of missing ₱100,000
• August 12, 1994 – RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 91-3453
• October 29, 2002 – Court of Appeals Decision affirming with modification
• February 12, 2003 – CA Resolution denying motion for reconsideration
• February 11, 2008 – Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – basis for jurisdiction and banking regulation principles
• New Civil Code:
– Article 1962 (Definition of Deposit)
– Article 1972 (Obligation of Depositary)
• Rules of Court: Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari)
• Rules of Evidence: Rule 133, Section 1 (Preponderance of Evidence)
Factual Background
On December 7, 1990, Jesusa Reyes went to BPI Zapote Branch to open an ATM (Express Teller) account with an intended total deposit of ₱200,000—₱100,000 by fund transfer from her savings account No. 233243388 and ₱100,000 in cash. Capati prepared a withdrawal slip indicating ₱200,000, which Reyes signed. The teller’s computer repeatedly rejected the ₱200,000 withdrawal due to insufficient balance and “big amount” alerts. Ultimately, Reyes agreed to withdraw and transfer only ₱100,000. Capati then prepared a deposit slip for ₱200,000, stamped the duplicate for Reyes, but later altered the original to ₱100,000 and machine‐validated it. Reyes left believing ₱200,000 had been deposited. Upon her return in January 1991, she discovered only ₱100,000 credited to her new account and filed demand letters and this civil case. BPI contended that no cash deposit occurred, that the only transaction was a fund transfer of ₱100,000, and that Capati’s lie detector test exonerated him.
RTC Decision
The Regional Trial Court of Makati found in favor of the Reyeses, holding that BPI must account for the missing ₱100,000 as custodial deposit under Articles 1962 and 1972 of the Civil Code. The RTC ordered BPI to:
• Return ₱100,000 with 14% interest from December 7, 1990
• Pay ₱1,000,000 moral damages
• Pay ₱350,000 exemplary damages
• Pay ₱250,000 attorney’s fees
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA affirmed the RTC’s liability finding but modified awards:
• Interest reduced to 12% per annum from May 7, 1991
• Moral damages reduced to ₱50,000
• Exemplary damages deleted for absence of malice or bad faith
• Attorney’s fees reduced to ₱30,000
Issues on Review
- Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in upholding the finding of an initial deposit of ₱200,000.
- Whether the 12% interest award is contrary to law.
- Whether moral damages and attorney’s fees awards should be further adjusted.
Supreme Court Analysis
• Standard of Review: Factual findings of the RTC affirmed by the CA are generally conclusive absent exceptions (e.g., manifestly mistaken inferences; findings grounded on conjecture; misapprehension of facts; overlooked evidence).
• Exceptions Applied: The Court found the CA’s holding on factual issues fell under exceptions allowing review—specifically manifest mistakes, conjectures, and misapprehension of facts.
• Preponderance of Evidence: Reyes bore the burden of proving by preponderance that she deposited ₱200,000 (₱100,000 cash).
• Teller’s Tape and Testimony: The unchallenged teller’s tape and teller Torneros’s testimony estab
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 157177)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) before the Supreme Court.
- Challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 29, 2002 and its Resolution of February 12, 2003.
- CA had affirmed with modification the RTC of Makati, Branch 142, Decision in Civil Case No. 91-3453 ordering BPI to return ₱100,000 plus interest and damages to respondents.
- RTC Decision dated August 12, 1994 found in favor of Jesusa and Conrado Reyes.
- CA modified awards on interest, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Facts
- December 7, 1990: Jesusa Reyes and her daughter Joan visited BPI Zapote Branch to open an Express Teller (ATM) account with a promotional raffle ticket.
- Initial instruction: deposit ₱200,000 total—₱100,000 transfer from existing Savings Account No. 0233-2433-88 and ₱100,000 cash.
- Bank employee Cicero Capati prepared a withdrawal slip for ₱200,000; Jesusa signed it in good faith.
- Teller’s computer rejected ₱200,000 withdrawal for overdraft; Jesusa corrected slip to ₱100,000 and signed the alteration.
- Capati then prepared a deposit slip for ₱200,000 into new Express Teller Account No. 0235-0767-48; duplicate copy stamped and handed to Jesusa.
- Upon balance check after her U.S. trip, Jesusa discovered only ₱100,000 posted in her new account.
- Demand letters sent; bank investigated Capati (lie detector test) and denied additional cash deposit.
Parties’ Contentions
- Respondents (Jesusa & Conrado Reyes):
• Aside from ₱100,000 fund transfer, Jesusa made a separate ₱100,000 cash deposit.
• Duplicate deposit slip for ₱200,000 and testimony support their claim. - Petitioner (BPI):
• Only a ₱100,000 fund transfer occurred; no cash deposit was made.
• Withdrawal and deposit slips were altered by Capati