Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Gomez

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199601. July 25, 2016.]

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (now BDO UNIBANK, INC.), petitioner, vs. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 July 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 199601 [PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (now BDO UNIBANK, INC.), petitioner, v. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ, respondent.] — In our November 23, 2015 decision, 1 we affirmed the May 23, 2011 decision and the December 7, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV-H.C. No. 68288 in toto. In affirming the rulings of the courts a quo, we essentially held that petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank (now, BDO) abused its right when it unilaterally made deductions on Josephine D. Gomez's salary before the conclusion of the investigation on her negligence.

In its motion for reconsideration before us now, BDO urges this Court to reconsider our earlier decision and render a new one reversing and setting aside the rulings of the lower courts.

First, BDO argues that the award for damages in this case is inconsistent with the findings of negligence on the part of Josephine. Since she was found to be negligent in the performance of her work, Josephine must be made to pay for the resultant damages she caused.

In the present case, BDO incurred a loss of P50,600.00 as a result of her negligence in paying this amount to a person who was not a client of the bank. Assuming arguendo that BDO abused its right making deductions to Josephine's wage, the award of damages in her favor should be mitigated because of her negligence.

Second, BDO contends that there is no basis to award moral damages and attorney's fees because the lower courts merely concluded and inferred the existence of bad faith or malice.

Essentially, Josephine failed to prove bad faith and nothing in the factual findings of the lower courts indicate bad faith on its part. Although BDO committed an error in withholding a portion of her salary pending investigation, there was no showing of bad faith or that the deductions were motivated by ill-will or an intentional design to do a wrongful act.

Third, BDO points out that this Court committed a reversible error in affirming the award for actual damages of P5,007.06 earning twelve percent (12%) legal interest from the filing of the complaint. The bank maintains that since the award for actual damages neither represents a loan or forbearance of sum of money, the proper legal interest that should be applied is six percent (6%) per annum, pursuant to BSP-MB Circular No. 799.

In her comment/opposition, Josephine submits that the first two issues raised in BDO's motion for reconsideration have been adequately discussed and resolved by the lower courts and this Court in the assailed decision. Thus, it is clear that the concurring challenged rulings are in accordance with the evidence on record and the law as they squarely resolve each and every issue repeatedly raised by BDO.

To reiterate, Josephine asserts that she was left in the dark when BDO unilaterally deducted from her salary, without any due process or opportunity to explain her side. Worse, she was not even furnished a copy of BDO's decision finding her guilty of negligence.

With regards the third issue raised by BDO, Josephine avers that this issue is being brought up for the first time when the award was granted by the trial court in May 25, 1999 and BDO failed to raise this issue when he appealed the RTC decision before the CA. Regardless, Josephine posits that the twelve percent (12%) interest rate fixed by the RTC in its May 25, 1999 decision became final and executory as this was never raised as an error on appeal. HEITAD

Our Ruling

We find merit in partially granting BDO's motion for reconsideration.

The first two arguments raised by BDO in its motion for reconsideration reiterate those that were considered and ruled upon in the assailed decision.

In the assailed decision, we already said:

. . . While [BDO] has a right to penalize employees for acts of negligence, the right must not be exercised unjustly and illegally. In the instant case, [BDO] made deductions to Josephine's salary even if the investigation was still pending. Belatedly, [BDO] issued a memorandum finding Josephine grossly negligent and requiring her to pay the amount which the bank erroneously paid to Harrington's imposter. When Josephine asked for a legal and factual basis for the finding of negligence, PCIB refused to give any. Moreover, [BDO] continued to make deductions in Josephine's salary, allowances and bonuses.

The trial court and the CA also noted that while Josephine was penalized, other employees of the bank involved in the subject transactions were not. It was Josephine who was made solely responsible for the loss without giving any basis therefor. It was emphasized that the subject deposit could not have been received by the bank and entered in Harrington's savings account without the participation of the other bank employees. [BDO] could have exercised prudence before taking oppressive actions against Josephine. 2

For essentially raising the same arguments we already considered and deliberated upon, we, therefore, see no reason to reverse the conclusions we made in this case in so far as the first two issues are concerned.

However, we find merit in correcting the interest imposed on the actual damages awarded by the RTC, affirmed by the CA and this Court.

The fallo of the RTC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff as against defendant for the following amounts: actual damages in the amount of P5,007.06 plus 12% interest from filing of this complaint until fully paid, moral damages in the amount of P150,000.00, and attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00.

Cost against the defendant. 3 [emphasis ours]

While BDO's contention on the interest rate imposed on the award for actual damages was raised for the first time in the present motion for reconsideration, it is anchored on the ground that the decision or final order is contrary law and existing jurisprudence.

Moreover, it is a settled rule that an appeal throws the entire case open for review once accepted by this Court. We have the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as an error by the parties, if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case. 4

Prior to the issuance of BSP Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, 5 the imposition of compensatory interest was based on CB Circular No. 905 that took effect on January 1, 1983, which provides:

The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract as to such rate of interest, shall continue to be twelve percent (12%) per annum. [emphasis ours]

With the effectivity of BSP Circular No. 799 on July 1, 2013, however, the rate of interest imposed on an award for actual and compensatory damages shall be six percent (6%) per annum from the date of judicial demand. Pursuant to these changes, we have modified the guidelines in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 6 in the case of Dario Nacar v. Gallery Frames. 7

Thus, in Planters Development Bank v. Lopez, 8 we clarified that the compensatory interest awarded prior to July 1, 2013 shall be twelve percent (12%) per annum accruing from the date of judicial demand. From July 1, 2013 and until finality of the decision, the rate of interest shall be reduced to six percent (6%) per annum because BSP Circular No. 799 prospectively applies. 9

Based on this rule and ruling, the award for compensatory damages of P5,007.06 was based on the actual amount BDO unlawfully withheld from Josephine. We considered the withholding of this amount a forbearance of money because the bank refrained from giving Josephine what was due her.

Therefore, we find the need to correct the rate of interest imposed. Accordingly, the award for actual damages in the sum of P5,007.06 shall earn a compounding interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time the complaint was filed until June 30, 2013. From July 1, 2013, the award, as well as the accrued interest, shall earn a compounding interest of six percent (6%) per annum until the finality of this case.

Finally, also pursuant to BSP Circular No. 799, a six percent (6%) per annum rate of interest shall commence from the finality of this decision until the obligation is fully paid. ATICcS

WHEREFORE, premises considered, our November 23, 2015 decision affirming the May 23, 2011 decision and the December 7, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV-H.C. No. 68288 in toto is hereby SET ASIDE. The May 25, 1999 decision of the RTC, Branch 145, Makati City in Civil Case No. 12900 is MODIFIED to read as follows: Philippine Commercial International Bank (now, BDO Unibank, Inc.) is ordered to pay Josephine D. Gomez (1) FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN PESOS AND SIX CENTAVOS (P5,007.06) as actual and compensatory damages with 12% compensatory interest per annum commencing from the time the complaint was filed until June 30, 2013, 6% compensatory interest per annum commencing on July 1, 2013 until the finality of this decision, and 6% interest rate per annum commencing from the finality of this decision until fully paid; (2) ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00) as moral damages; (3) and FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) for attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO

Division Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

* Del Castillo, J., recused himself from the case due to close relationship with the counsel of a party; Velasco, Jr., J., designated additional member per Raffle dated May 18, 2016.

Footnotes

 

1. Rollo, pp. 184-191.

2. Id. at 190.

3. Id. at 27-28.

4. Aliling v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 186, 199, citing Sociedad Europea de Financiacion SA v. CA, G.R. No. 75787, January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 105, 114.

5. Which took effect on July 1, 2013.

6. G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78.

7. G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439. In this case, we said that when the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under the and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

8. G.R. No. 186332, October 23, 2013, 708 SCRA 481.

9. Id. at 503.