FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240250. October 3, 2018.]
BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., petitioner, vs.BENEDICT A. FERNANDEZ AND JOCELYN ROSARIO-FERNANDEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 3, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240250 — Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc., Petitioner, v. Benedict A. Fernandez and Jocelyn Rosario-Fernandez, Respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
After a judicious review of petitioner's averments and allegations, the Court further resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in rendering the assailed Decision 1 and the Resolution dated January 25, 2018 and June 11, 2018, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 148469. AaCTcI
Petitioner essentially beseeches the Court to re-assess and re-examine the evidence presented before the courts below. Petitioner insists that the disputed withdrawals were successfully made by and paid to the account of the holder, respondent Benedict Fernandez (Benedict), based on the following competent evidence: (1) the Automated Teller Machine (ATM) transactions were made from the account of respondent; (2) the questioned withdrawals were made with the use of respondent Benedict's ATM Card Number linked to his Savings Account and with the use of the legitimate ATM Personal Identification Number (PIN) which was exclusive and known only to respondent Benedict; (3) the ATM withdrawals were all valid and regular; and (4) the ATM card was in respondent Benedict's possession at the time the disputed withdrawals were made. Stated otherwise, it is petitioner's stance that the ATM transactions in question would not have been processed unless the PIN, which was known only to respondent Benedict as the cardholder, had been correctly entered, an indication that it was his ATM card that had been used and that all the transactions had been processed successfully by petitioner with the use of the correct PIN.
Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the Court in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to a review of errors of law, and does extend to a review of errors of fact. The findings of fact and legal conclusions of the trial courts, especially when affirmed by the CA as the intermediate reviewing court, are conclusive upon this Court unless the said verdicts of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the CA are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment of the CA was based on a gross misapprehension of facts. Here, no such exceptional circumstances obtain, and this Court finds no reason to disagree with the assailed CA Decision.
In any case, the factual arguments raised in the present petition, are wanting in persuasion. As correctly found by the CA, the totality of evidence submitted by petitioner was inadequate to establish the crucial facts that would justify a judgment in its favor. We are in complete agreement with the CA that granting that it was respondent Benedict's ATM card number and PIN that were the ones used for the withdrawals, there is no clear showing that it was he in fact who made the withdrawals. Moreover, being a banking institution impressed with public interest, petitioner has the duty and responsibility to ensure the safety of the funds it is holding in trust for its depositors. Thus, petitioner cannot evade responsibility because, as testified by its own witness, the Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage on the ATM terminal revealed that the person making the withdrawals was neither respondent Benedict nor his wife.
Be that as it may, in keeping with the Court's ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 2 it is necessary to modify the legal interest rate imposed and the reckoning point thereof. Thus, petitioner must be ordered to pay respondents: (a) P150,000.00 representing the amount withdrawn from the latter's savings account; (b) P20,000.00 attorney's fees; and (c) the legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the total monetary awards, computed from October 31, 2012 to June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until their full satisfaction.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the assailed Decision and Resolution dated January 25, 2018 and June 11, 2018, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 148469. Petitioner is hereby ordered to pay respondents: SDHTEC
(a) P150,000.00 representing the amount withdrawn from the latter's savings account;
(b) P20,000.00 attorney's fees; and
(c) the legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the total monetary awards, computed from October 31, 2012 to June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until their full satisfaction.
The Court of Appeals is DROPPED as party-respondent pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. HSAcaE
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., on official travel.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and concurred in by Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Ronaldo B. Martin.
2. G.R. No. 189871, 716 Phil. 267, 281 (2013).