BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Mapua Institute of Technology Retirement Fund, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248736. October 6, 2021.]

BDO UNIBANK, INC.,petitioner,vs. MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RETIREMENT FUND, INC.,respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248736 (BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Mapua Institute of Technology Retirement Fund, Inc.).— After a judicious study of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition and AFFIRM the Decision 1 dated December 11, 2018 and the Resolution 2 dated August 5, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104247 for failure of petitioner BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO) to show that the CA committed reversible error in finding that it failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of it as a banking institution in handling the account of respondent Mapua Institute of Technology Retirement Fund, Inc. (MITRFI).

It is well settled that banks are engaged in a business impressed with public interest, and it is their duty to protect in return their many clients and depositors who transact business with them. They have the obligation to treat their client's account meticulously and with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The diligence required of banks, therefore, is more than that of a good father of a family. 3 The appropriate diligence required of a bank must be a high degree of diligence, if not utmost diligence. 4

In the present case, BDO failed to exercise the utmost diligence required of it as a bank. The checks which indicated the payee as "BIR/CASH" should have aroused suspicion on the part of BDO that the transactions were irregular, considering that it is highly uncommon for a corporation to make out checks payable to "CASH" for substantial amounts, such as in this case. 5 As such, it should have made it a point to verify the transactions with MITRFI's authorized signatories. Had it done so, it would have discovered that the checks were really intended for payment of taxes to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) by MITRFI only and were altered to include the phrase "CASH." In allowing the encashment of the altered checks by MITRFI's fund manager, Proceso Palabrica III (Palabrica), BDO had been remiss in its duty to treat MITRFI's account "meticulously and the highest degree of care." 6

BDO's witnesses testified that for checks in amounts of greater than P200,000.00, it is the company's policy to call the authorized signatories of the check to verify and confirm the encashment of the checks. 7 The RTC and the CA found, however, that aside from the assertion of this company policy, BDO failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that for the checks subject of this case, its bank employees indeed called up the authorized signatories of MITRFI to verify the unauthorized withdrawals.

A bank's disregard of its own banking policy amounts to gross negligence, which is described as "negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and unintentionally with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected." 8

Where the findings of fact of the trial courts are affirmed by the [CA], the same are accorded the highest degree of respect and generally, will not be disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and conclusive on this Court. 9 Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the CA, which affirmed the findings of the trial court, that BDO was negligent in allowing the encashment of the subject checks by Palabrica.

As a final point, the Court notes the RTC's finding that MITRFI is guilty of contributory negligence and should bear a portion of the loss. The records disclose that this conclusion was never questioned by MITRFI by way of appeal before the CA. Insofar as MITRFI is concerned, therefore, this finding is final and can no longer be passed upon by the Court in the present petition.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.The Decision dated December 11, 2018 and the Resolution dated August 5, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104247, are hereby AFFIRMED.No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED."Carandang, J., designated Additional Member vice Lopez, M., J., per Raffle dated September 22, 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez, Chairperson (now a member of this Court) and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring; rollo, pp. 34-44.

2.Id. at 47-48.

3.Bank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club, 611 Phil. 687, 697 (2009).

4.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Cabilzo, 539 Phil. 316, 330 (2006).

5.Bank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club, supra note 3, at 698.

6.Id. at 697.

7.Rollo, pp. 120; 122; 123; 125.

8.Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Cheah, 686 Phil. 760, 732 n (2012).

9.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Musni, et al., 806 Phil. 308, 323 (2017), citing Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp., 512 Phil. 679, 706 (2005).

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.