FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243481. March 13, 2019.]
ROBINSONS BANK, petitioner, vs.SPOUSES BERNARD CHUA AND ANA BEATRICE CHUA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243481 — (Robinsons Bank v. Spouses Bernard Chua and Ana Beatrice Chua) — The petitioner's motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its September 20, 2018 Decision 1 and December 12, 2018 Resolution 2 in CA-G.R. CV No. 110191, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
The assignment of errors raised by Robinsons Bank (petitioner) requires a re-appreciation and re-examination of the evidence. Petitioner raised evidentiary and factual issues, which are outside the ambit of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Though the Court admits a few exceptions, 3 none are present in this case to warrant its dismissal.
In any case, the petition still fails for lack of merit.
Banking institutions are obliged to exercise the highest degree of diligence as well as to maintain high standards of integrity and performance in all its transactions, as well as in its selection of employees. A bank is liable to innocent third parties when its authorized representative betrays this trust by attempting, in the course of its business, to perpetrate fraud for his or her own benefit. Thus, in this case, petitioner is held responsible for the deceitful act of its employee upon the spouses Bernard Chua and Ana Beatrice Chua (respondents), who trustingly relied on its employee in their time deposit account transaction. As aptly pointed out by the CA, "whatever might have happened to the deposit, as the case of Prudential puts it, whether it was lost or stolen was not the concern of the depositor. It was the concern of the bank."4
Lastly, petitioner's stubborn refusal to return respondents' deposit despite knowledge of its employee's fraudulent act is in bad faith and thus warrants the award of damages. CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 35-45; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
2.Id. at pp. 47-48.
3.Sering v. Court of Appeals, et al., 422 Phil. 467, 471 (2001).
4.Rollo, p. 43.