Case Summary (G.R. No. 169975)
Petitioners and Respondents
Petitioners: Bank of the Philippine Islands and Ana C. Gonzales
Respondents: Spouses Fernando V. Quiaoit and Nora L. Quiaoit
Key Dates
• April 19–20, 1999: Issuance and encashment of the US$20,000 check
• April 22–May 21, 1999: Quiaoits’ travel abroad and reports of counterfeit bills
• June 9, 1999: Bank’s refusal to accept returned bills
• January 17, 2000: Written demand for refund of US$4,400
• May 15, 2009: Regional Trial Court decision in favor of the Quiaoits
• September 22, 2011: Court of Appeals decision affirming the RTC
• November 29, 2011: CA resolution denying reconsideration
• January 16, 2019: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (banking integrity and public trust)
• Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court (petition for review on certiorari)
• General Banking Act of 2000 (highest standards of integrity and performance)
• Jurisprudential doctrines on bank diligence and last clear chance
Antecedent Facts
Fernando instructed BPI to prepare US$20,000 for withdrawal. On April 20, 1999, Lambayong received two sealed bundles totaling US$20,000, but was not informed of identifying “chapa” marks or given a serial-number listing. The Quiaoits used part of the funds abroad, and Nora faced repeated refusals and threats in Madrid when banks and merchants deemed the US$100 bills counterfeit. Returning to the Philippines, they surrendered 44 suspect bills (US$4,400) to Gonzales, who acknowledged receipt but supplied no investigatory report. Subsequent withdrawals by Fernando and his brother were properly marked and serial-numbered.
Procedural Posture
The Quiaoits sued BPI for negligence and bad faith. The RTC awarded actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding BPI negligent for failing to list serial numbers and invoking the doctrine of last clear chance. BPI’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.
Issues Presented
- Whether the counterfeit bills originated from BPI
- Whether BPI exercised due diligence in the withdrawal transaction
- Whether BPI is liable for damages under the circumstances
Supreme Court Ruling on Due Diligence
Citing Spouses Carbonell v. Metrobank, the Court reiterated that banks owe depositors the highest degree of diligence—beyond that of a prudent homeowner. BPI had five days to prepare the withdrawal and could easily have recorded the serial numbers to dispel any doubt about the source of the returned bills. By failing to list them and by not informing Lambayong of the “chapa” markings, BPI fell below the required standard, exposing both itself and its clients to harm. The absence of a serial-number log made it impossible to prove or disprove BPI’s liability, and this lapse constituted the proximate cause of the Quiaoits’ loss.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
Even assuming contributory negligence by the Quiaoi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 169975)
Antecedent Facts
- Fernando V. Quiaoit maintained peso and dollar accounts at BPI Greenhills-Crossroads Branch.
- On 20 April 1999, Fernando, through his representative Merlyn Lambayong, encashed BPI Check No. 003434 dated 19 April 1999 for US$20,000.
- The bank placed the US dollars in a Manila envelope; Lambayong did not count the bills, unaware of any identifying “chapa” marks or serial number listing.
- Lambayong delivered the withdrawn bills in US$100 denomination, bundled at US$10,000 each, to the spouses Quiaoit.
- Mrs. Quiaoit used part of the funds to purchase plane tickets worth US$13,100; the couple departed for Jerusalem and Europe on 22 April 1999.
- During the tour, several banks in Madrid and other contacts refused to accept some US$100 bills as they were counterfeit; Nora Quiaoit also faced threats of police involvement for attempting to use the bills.
- Friends and relatives abroad confirmed the bills’ counterfeit nature; their aunt, returning five suspect bills via DHL, reported foreign banks’ refusal to deposit them.
- On 21 May 1999, while still abroad, the spouses asked their daughter Maria Isabel (a BPI Makati employee) to notify BPI Greenhills. Branch manager Ana C. Gonzales failed to respond or resolve the issue.
- Upon return, Fernando personally complained; Gonzales and bank personnel retrieved 44 bills (US$4,400) from him, signed a photocopy acknowledgment, but did not furnish an investigation report.
- The bank-designated investigator, Clemente Banson, refused to accept the five bills returned by the aunt, deeming them counterfeit.
- On 18 August 1999, Gonzales claimed absence of branch “chapa” marks proved the bills did not originate from BPI Greenhills.
- Meanwhile, on 7 July 1999, Fernando’s representative withdrew the remaining account balance; those bills w