Title
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Custodio
Case
G.R. No. 173780
Decision Date
Mar 21, 2011
Metrobank sued employee Marina Custodio for a PhP600,000 cash shortage, but the Supreme Court ruled insufficient evidence linked her to the loss, citing procedural lapses by bank staff.
bank teller
cash shortage
lack of evidence

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173780)

Transaction Leading to the Cash Shortage

On 13 June 1995 at 8:18 a.m., Custodio reported for work at the Laoag City branch. At the start of the banking day, she received loose money (picos) for the business day and was assigned as Teller No. 3. During the day, she handled cash transactions with customers.

At 12:10 p.m., PhP200,000 was transferred to Custodio from Teller No. 1. Metrobank explained that such teller-to-teller transfers are usually made when a teller “needs money,” but it asserted that the transfer was unnecessary because Custodio already had sufficient cash to cover a withdrawal of the same amount. Custodio later took lunch at 12:25 p.m., returned at 1:12 p.m., and, at the time she went out, the branch security guard testified that she carried a shoulder bag and a paper bag, though he did not inspect their contents.

At the close of banking hours, Custodio balanced her transactions and turned over funds to the cash custodian, Ms. Marinel Castro, amounting to PhP2,113,500, after which Castro acknowledged receipt and signed a Cash Transfer Slip. The following events formed the basis of Metrobank’s allegation that a shortage occurred while Custodio had custody of cash.

Discovery of the Shortage and Immediate Bank Actions

Around 5:05 p.m., after all tellers turned over their cash, Castro discovered a shortage of PhP600,000. She informed Mr. Adriano Lucas, the branch manager. Lucas then instructed the cashier and accountant to review cash transactions to determine the cause of the shortage, but no transaction recording errors were found. Lucas then ordered a search of employee desks, drawers, and even personal bags, and instructed guards to search persons leaving the office. The money was not found.

Metrobank reported the vault cash as short by PhP600,000. Metrobank alleged that, later on, it recovered eight bill wrappers corresponding to four hundred thousand pesos (PhP400,000). These wrappers carried a rubber stamp “PEPT-3” for Teller No. 3, a fact Metrobank used to attribute the shortage to Custodio.

Custodio’s Employment Status and the Bank’s Investigations

After the incident, Metrobank alleged that Custodio was not the only suspect, but the record shows she continued to be allowed to perform teller duties. Specifically, Metrobank allowed her to continue rendering services from 14 June 1995 to 23 June 1995. Custodio argued that if she were truly found responsible, she would not have been permitted to continue handling funds on subsequent days.

Metrobank’s investigators—regional office investigators and internal affairs personnel—arrived on 15 June 1995 and confronted employees on a one-on-one basis. Castro allegedly admitted that she received and acknowledged cash bundles and signed the Cash Transfer Slip for funds turned over by Custodio. Then, on 16 June 1995, the other employees, except Custodio (who was eight months pregnant), took polygraph tests at the National Bureau of Investigation.

On 22 June 1995, Metrobank filed a Complaint for a sum of money with an ex-parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment, praying for payment of PhP600,000 plus attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court later granted the writ.

Service of Summons and Alleged Attempt to Remove Records

On 23 June 1995 at around 1:30 p.m., Custodio was served the summons and a copy of the Complaint, including the attachment writ. During the bank’s implementation of a body search for all employees leaving the office, Metrobank asserted that Custodio was caught bringing out a teller’s copy of the journal print transactions and related cash transfer slips for the banking day. These records were discovered in her dress pocket during the search.

Custodio explained that she mistakenly brought out the journal print transactions because she was no longer allowed to enter the teller’s cage to file the transaction journal after she was served with the summons and Complaint. She stated that she was confused by the accusations and placed the transaction journal in her right pocket.

Significantly, Metrobank’s branch manager admitted during trial that no cash shortage occurred on that day when the journal incident happened. After the incident, Custodio was relegated to a non-accountable position, and Lucas recommended preventive suspension because of the alleged attempt to surreptitiously bring out bank records.

Metrobank issued an inter-office letter requiring explanation for the alleged attempt, but after Custodio’s explanation, it suspended her from work for seven days without pay.

Custodio’s Demand for the Cash Transfer Slip and the Procedural History

Custodio requested, on 27 June 1995, a copy of the Cash Transfer Slip signed by Castro. Metrobank informed her that the request would be sent to the head office for approval, but it did not act on the request. Custodio later moved in the trial proceedings for the Cash Transfer Slip to be produced. Metrobank’s counsel manifested that the slip would be presented, but it was not entered into the records.

On 06 July 1995, Custodio filed her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, denying that she was responsible for the cash shortage and arguing that the shortage was incurred by Castro, the cash custodian, because the loss was discovered only after the funds and accountabilities were turned over to Castro.

After submission for decision, the RTC rendered judgment granting Metrobank’s Complaint, ordering Custodio to pay PhP600,000 plus interest at the legal rate of 12% per annum beginning June 13, 1995 until fully paid.

Custodio appealed. On 16 July 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and dismissed Metrobank’s complaint. Metrobank then sought review by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, within the extended time allowed by the Supreme Court.

Procedural Issues in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court first addressed procedural matters affecting the petition. It reiterated that in a Rule 45 petition, the issues that may be raised are limited to questions of law, and questions of fact are not reviewable. It nonetheless recognized exceptions where, among others, findings of fact are conflicting, grounded on misapprehension of facts, or where specific relevant evidence is overlooked.

Custodio argued that the petition raised factual issues. The Court held that while it was not a trier of facts and it did not review oral and documentary evidence de novo, it may review and reverse factual findings of lower courts when the trial and appellate courts’ findings conflict and the circumstances so warrant.

Custodio also challenged the separate Petition allegedly received through former counsel Atty. Oliver Cachapero. The Court declined to entertain it because the separate petition allegedly had no proof of proper filing and docketing, and because it had no bearing after Atty. Cachapero had already withdrawn. The Court proceeded only with the properly filed petition by Metrobank’s new counsel.

The Substantial Issue: Preponderance of Evidence of Custodio’s Liability

On the merits, the Supreme Court framed the decisive issue as whether Metrobank proved by a preponderance of evidence that Custodio incurred the PhP600,000 cash shortage at the close of the day and was therefore liable to pay Metrobank.

The Court stressed that in civil cases for a sum of money, Metrobank bore the burden of proof and had to establish its cause of action by preponderance of evidence, meaning evidence of greater weight or more convincing that creates a probability of truth.

The Court sustained the appellate court’s conclusion that Metrobank failed to discharge its burden. The Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that Custodio took the funds entrusted to her as a teller, since the core inquiry was whether she was the proximate or direct cause of the loss.

Cash Transfer Slip, Castro’s Signature, and Failure to Trace the Missing Cash

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that there was nothing in the record showing that missing bundles of one-thousand-peso and five-hundred-peso bills existed when Custodio turned over cash to Castro. The Court treated the Cash Transfer Slip as the best evidence of proper turnover, and it noted that while Metrobank did not introduce the Cash Transfer Slip in evidence, Castro admitted signing it and thus acknowledging receipt of the amounts turned over.

Given Castro’s acknowledgement, the Court reasoned that had there been a cash shortage at that moment, Castro could have refused to sign and Custodio could have been required to account for any missing funds. Instead, the signing of the slip supported the presumption that Castro found nothing out of order in the cash transfer and in the records of cash transactions.

The Court then examined Metrobank’s position that Castro’s failure to count before signing should not exonerate Custodio. It agreed with the CA that Castro’s procedural lapse contributed significantly to the loss. It further clarified that the highest degree of diligence discussed in relation to bank-depositor relations did not directly govern the internal relationship between bank and employees for damages. What mattered was whether Custodio failed to exercise the degree of diligence expected of a teller.

The Court held that Metrobank failed to prove such failure. It stated that if negligence existed among employees, the evidence suggested it lay with Castro, the cash custodian, who disregarded established procedures by signing without counting. It also noted that the security guard failed to inspect Custodio’s bags when she went out for lunch.

Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence Offered by Metrobank

Metrobank relied on several secondary circumstances, but the Supreme Court found them inadequate to establish, by preponderance, that Custodio took the missing money.

First, Metrobank emphasized the cash transfer of PhP200,000 to Custodio. The Court found that the transfer was not shown to be highly irregular, and the record did not conclusively

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms