SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238740. November 29, 2021.]
SPOUSES EDGARDO L. SILVA and MANUELA M. SILVA,petitioners, vs. BANK OF COMMERCE, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 238772. November 29, 2021.]
BANK OF COMMERCE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. SPOUSES EDGARDO L. SILVA and MANUELA M. SILVA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 November 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238740 (Spouses Edgardo L. Silva and Manuela M. Silva vs. Bank of Commerce, et al.)and G.R. No. 238772 (Bank of Commerce v. Spouses Edgardo L. Silva and Manuela M. Silva). — For the Court's consideration are two consolidated Petitions assailing the Decision 1 dated September 25, 2017 and the Resolution 2 dated April 4, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 105072.
In G.R. No. 238740, Spouses Edgardo L. Silva (Edgardo) and Manuela M. Silva (collectively, Spouses Silva) filed a Motion for Reconsideration 3 dated November 29, 2018 of the Court's Resolution 4 dated July 25, 2018 which denied their Petition for Partial Review 5 for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed CA Decision and Resolution as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
In G.R. No. 238772, Bank of Commerce (BOC) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari6 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court wherein it prayed that the assailed CA Decision and Resolution be reversed and set aside, and the Decision 7 dated February 10, 2015 and the Order 8 dated June 4, 2015 rendered by the Branch 31, Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Pedro City, Laguna in Civil Case No. SPL-1082 that dismissed Spouses Silva's complaint against BOC be reinstated.
The Antecedents
In January 2001, Spouses Silva, through Edgardo, transferred their deposits from other banks to BOC's Value First Time Deposit (Value First) that offered a higher interest on time deposits. Natividad G. Almodovar (Almodovar) was then BOC's Branch Manager in its San Pedro, Laguna Branch. Two months after Edgardo made his initial investment of P1,293,126.21 under Value First, he again transferred funds in the amount of P1,356,074.48 to BOC, this time, under the product called Platinum Fund Placement (Platinum fund) for a higher interest than the one offered in Value First. 9
In one of Edgardo's visits to the bank, Almodovar induced Edgardo to invest in another transaction that would allegedly earn him interest over and above what he earned in Platinum Fund at three percent (3%) per month. Under the new arrangement, as Almodovar explained, there would be bank borrowers whose loans would not be immediately released. Thus, bank depositors were now invited to lend their deposits to the borrowers with a guaranteed return of 3% interest per month. 10
With Almodovar's representations and assurances that BOC would guarantee Spouses Silva's invested capital, coupled with the personal affirmation that she would not stake her 15 years as a Bank Manager, just for monkey business, Edgardo finally agreed to make the investment. Almodovar emphasized that because the transaction would be between the bank and the borrowers, Edgardo need not sign any documents. Still, she required Edgardo to open a Value First account wherein the amounts lent to the bank's borrowers, plus its accrued interest, would be reflected. She also required Edgardo to open another savings deposit account wherein the amount to be loaned by the bank's borrowers would be withdrawn. Lastly, she told Edgardo that the custody of the accounts' passbooks would remain with BOC. 11 CAIHTE
Under the latest arrangement, Edgardo made an initial investment of P1,244,465.00. Eventually, Edgardo also invested his dollar deposits in the lending scheme. To comply with the requirements per Almodovar's advice, Edgardo opened a Value First savings deposit account and an ordinary savings account. Edgardo also endorsed the custody of the passbooks of the accounts to BOC. 12
From March 2001 until November 2001, Almodovar assisted Edgardo in every transaction under the lending scheme. From time to time, Almodovar would ask Edgardo as to how much he would be investing on a particular day, and she would, in turn, give him a blank withdrawal slip. Edgardo would then affix his signature on the withdrawal slip and leave blank the space for the amount to be withdrawn. After the completion of each transaction, Almodovar would inform Edgardo that the photocopies of the Value First passbook reflecting the transactions would later be available for him. 13
Edgardo averred that the total aggregate investment he made under the lending scheme amounted to P2.25 million and the interest earned from the placement already amounted to "more than half a million pesos." 14
In December 2001, Edgardo asked Almodovar if he needed to make another placement. Almodovar, however, answered in the negative considering that there were no borrowers at the time. 15
In January 2002, Edgardo returned to BOC's Branch in San Pedro, Laguna. Herminio Vivo (Vivo), as then Acting Branch Manager, met with him and informed him that Almodovar already left the bank and could no longer be located. Vivo then asked Edgardo if he had outstanding loans with the bank, but Edgardo said he had none. Edgardo was then shocked to learn from Vivo that apparently, he had acquired loans from BOC. It was then that Edgardo realized that Almodovar engaged him in a fraudulent bank scheme. 16
Vivo advised Edgardo to talk with some BOC officers at its Bicutan Branch and execute an affidavit denying the loans he allegedly obtained from the latter. The affidavit would then be submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for identification and verification of Edgardo's signature. 17
Edgardo tried to locate Almodovar in the latter's residence, but to no avail. Thus, he went to BOC's Bicutan Branch to talk to its officers. Edgardo reiterated that he did not obtain any loans from the bank and demanded the return of his deposits from Vivo, Dante Ilas (Ilas), who was the bank's Officer-in-Charge, and a certain "Nids." However, BOC's officers insisted that Edgardo should execute an affidavit refuting the loans under his name. Ilas and Edgardo went to BOC's main branch in Makati City and there, the latter saw the documents executed under his name with his signatures. Even so, Edgardo consistently denied having obtained loans from BOC. 18
Thereafter, Edgardo, through his counsel, sent letters to BOC demanding the release of all his deposits with the bank. However, despite repeated demands, BOC refused to comply. 19
Hence, Spouses Silva filed a Complaint 20 for Sum of Money with Damages against BOC and Almodovar, among others. They prayed that BOC and the other defendants be ordered to pay or restore: (a) the amount of P2,143,354.81 under their Value First account plus its accrued interest; and (b) the amount of US$14,149.38 constituting Edgardo's dollar time deposit, with interest to be reckoned from the time of demand until fully paid. Notably, Spouses Silva also prayed that they be awarded moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and cost of suit.
In their Answer Ad Cautelam, 21 BOC and the other defendants alleged that from March 2001 to November 2001, Edgardo took several loans from the bank. BOC asserted that following the usual banking practice, all transactions with them are covered by documents, but in Edgardo's case, he failed to present any document showing that his transactions with Almodovar were indeed authorized by the bank. BOC maintained that what happened between Edgardo and Almodovar was a private agreement that is not binding on the bank and the other defendants. Also, BOC relied on the findings of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory showing that Edgardo's signatures appearing in the loan documents were made by one and the same person. 22
Ruling of the RTC
On February 10, 2015, the RTC rendered a Decision 23 in favor of BOC. It ruled that: (1) the promissory notes and deeds of assignment were not falsified considering the PNP Crime Laboratory's findings that the signatures on the loan documents and signature card were written by one and the same person; (2) the loan documents enjoyed the presumption of regularity; (3) BOC was justified in withholding Spouses Silva's deposits because compensation had already set in; and (4) BOC could not be held liable for the unauthorized acts of Almodovar because Edgardo failed to show that the bank and the other defendants had direct knowledge of or participation in the fraudulent transactions. DETACa
Spouses Silva filed a motion for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it in an Order 24 dated June 4, 2015. Aggrieved, Spouses Silva appealed the case to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On September 25, 2017, the CA rendered the assailed Decision 25 granting the appeal and reversing the RTC Decision and Order. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The February 10, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro City, Laguna, and its June 4, 2015 Order, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The loan documents and deeds of assignment purportedly executed by Edgardo L. Silva are declared NULL and VOID. Defendant-appellee Bank of Commerce is ORDERED to release plaintiffs-appellants Edgardo L. Silva's and Manuela M. Silva's deposits in the amounts of P2,143,354.81 and US$14,149.38 subject to the following rates:
1. legal interest of 12% per annum from date of extrajudicial demand on January 28, 2002 until June 30, 2013; and
2. legal interest of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED. 26
Spouses Silva, BOC, and the other defendants respectively moved for reconsideration of the CA Decision.
For their part, Spouses Silva sought for partial reconsideration of the CA Decision and questioned the absence of the awards of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. They asserted that the award of moral damages was justified owing to the mental anguish, wounded feelings, and sleepless nights that they experienced because of fear that their hard-earned money and lifetime savings might have gone to waste. They further alleged that BOC's bad faith was evident when: (1) Almodovar manipulated their deposits under the very noses of the bank's personnel; and (2) the bank itself refused upon demand to release their deposits. 27
On the other hand, BOC and the other defendants sought reconsideration of the CA Decision and Resolution and alleged the following grounds therefor: (1) Almodovar had no apparent authority to appropriate the deposits of Spouses Silva; and (2) Almodovar's acts were personal to him, and thus, he should be held solely liable for the fraudulent transactions. They reiterated the RTC's conclusion that Almodovar was not acting pursuant to the orders and tasks given to him by the bank; that the primary cause of Spouses Silva's injury or damage was their misplaced trust in Almodovar; that as between the parties, it is Spouses Silva who must bear the loss; and that BOC had the right to "set-off" the deposits against the loans allegedly obtained by Spouses Silva. 28
On April 4, 2018, the CA rendered the assailed Resolution 29 denying both motions.
Hence, Spouses Silva filed a Petition for Partial Review 30 dated May 7, 2018 with the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 238740. They prayed that they be awarded: (a) moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P300,000.00; (b) attorney's fees in the amount of P200,000,00; and (c) a contingency rate of 30% of the total monetary award. 31
On July 25, 2018, the Court issued a Resolution 32 denying the petition for failure of Spouses Silva "to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction." 33
Spouses Silva then filed the present Motion for Reconsideration 34 dated November 29, 2018 wherein they prayed that the Court's Resolution be reconsidered and set aside, and the reliefs prayed for in the petition be granted in their favor. 35
Meanwhile, BOC also filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari36 before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 238772. They prayed that the CA Decision and Resolution be reversed and set aside, and the RTC Decision and Order be reinstated and declared as valid. 37
In its Resolution 38 dated August 20, 2018 per recommendation of the Clerk of Court, the Court consolidated the cases considering that the subject cases involved the same parties, assailed the same CA rulings, and arose from one and the same subject matter.
The Court's Ruling
After a careful review of these consolidated cases, the Court grants the Motion for Reconsideration of Spouses Silva, but denies the Petition for Review on Certiorari of BOC for lack of merit.
In G.R. No. 238740
Upon a second look, the Court agrees with Spouses Silva that awards of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, are warranted under the peculiar circumstances surrounding the case.
In Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, 39 the Court explained the liability of a bank for the wrongful acts of its officers as follows:
A bank is liable for wrongful acts of its officers done in the interests of the bank or in the course of dealings of the officers in their authority. A bank holding out its officers and agents as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds they may thus be enabled to perpetuate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor will it be permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds, even though no benefit may accrue to the bank therefrom. Accordingly, a banking corporation is liable to innocent third persons, where the representation is made in the course of its business by an agent acting within the general scope of his authority even though, in the particular case, the agent is secretly abusing his, authority and attempting to perpetuate a fraud upon his principal or some other person, for his ultimate benefit. 40 (Italics supplied.)
Simply put, "[a] bank is liable to innocent third persons where representation is made in the course of its normal business by an agent x x x even though such agent is abusing his authority." 41 This is because persons dealing with such agent could not be blamed for believing that he was indeed authorized to enter into business transactions for and on behalf of the bank. 42 aDSIHc
As the CA aptly pointed out, Almodovar, being then a Branch Manager of BOC, was clothed with authority to transact and enter into contracts with the bank's clients like Spouses Silva within its premises. In the case, Edgardo had transacted with Almodovar multiple times within a period of 10 months inside the bank's premises. In fact, Almodovar himself made various representations and assurances that Edgardo would be investing in a legitimate banking scheme. 43
Given the circumstances, BOC cannot evade liability just because Almodovar acted beyond the scope of his authority when he induced Spouses Silva to "invest" in a lending scheme that was later discovered to be fraudulent. In other words, BOC remains liable to Spouses Silva even though no benefit may have accrued to the bank because of such fraudulent transactions.
In Citystate Savings Bank v. Tobias, et al., 44 the Court emphasized the obligation of banking institutions to exercise the highest degree of diligence in all their transactions, viz.:
The business of banking is one imbued with public interest. As such, banking institutions are obliged to exercise the highest degree of diligence as well as high standards of integrity and performance in all its transactions.
The law expressly imposes upon the banks a fiduciary duty towards its clients and to treat in this regard the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care.
The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan or mutuum, with the bank as the debtor and the depositor as the creditor.
In light of these, banking institutions may be held liable for damages for failure to exercise the diligence required of it resulting to contractual breach or where the act or omission complained of constitutes an actionable tort. 45 (Italics supplied.)
To stress, failure on the part of the banking institutions to exercise the highest degree of diligence in their dealings with clients will make them liable for damages on the ground of contractual breach.
Here, Spouses Silva are depositors of BOC; hence, their relationship is likened to that of a creditor and debtor, respectively. It follows therefrom that by receiving the deposits from Edgardo, the bank impliedly agreed to pay on demand and only upon the depositor's order. 46
Contrary to BOC's claim, the two transactions involved in the case are: first, the transactions by and between Spouses Silva and BOC, through Almodovar, concerning the deposits of P1,293,126.21 under the Value First arrangement and P1,356,074.48 under the Platinum Fund Placement (deposit transactions); and second, the transactions, which unfortunately turned out to be loans, that were supposedly obtained by Edgardo in his honest belief that the new bank product offered by Almodovar was a legitimate banking scheme based on the latter's representations (loan transactions).
A review of BOC's position shows that it justified its act of "holding on"47 to the deposits of Spouses Silva because of the unpaid loan transactions supposedly obtained by Edgardo from the bank. BOC asserts that it had the right to apply these deposits as payment for the loan transactions on the basis of compensation as found by the RTC. 48
The Court disagrees.
As the CA correctly ruled, the loan documents under Edgardo's name are void based on the following grounds:
First, BOC had clearly disregarded pertinent banking policies and internal control procedures 49 considering that the bank automatically granted the questioned loans by Edgardo's purported signing of promissory notes and the corresponding deeds of assignment — he did not even need to fill out application forms for the loans. 50 In fact, BOC's own witness, Rogelio De Leon (Rogelio), further declared that Edgardo was not asked to submit the documents required under Section 40 51 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8791, 52 or the General Banking Law of 2000, for the grant of loans. 53 This, in itself, is against the mandate of Section 39 54 of the same law requiring the grant of loans and other credit accommodations to be consistent with safe and sound banking practices. 55
Second, the lending scheme offered by Almodovar was undoubtedly a product of his fraudulent machinations given that Edgardo was granted loans consecutively for 10 months from March to November 2001 for amounts in excess of the value of the security therefor. 56
Third, BOC had failed to establish that Edgardo indeed executed the loan documents. For one thing, no one saw Edgardo actually sign the documents. 57 For another, Rogelio also admitted that he was not a handwriting expert, and he only referred to the signature's similarities with the signature appearing on the signature cards. 58
And fourth, the findings of defense witness Alex Battles, a handwriting expert, that the loan documents were signed by Edgardo deserved scant consideration in view of the latter's vehement protestations and the fact that banking policies and internal control procedures had been disregarded in order to grant the subject loans. After all, opinions of handwriting experts, like signature analyses of the PNP, are not conclusive upon courts or tribunals on the issue of authenticity of signatures. 59
Therefore, BOC's continued possession of Spouses Silva's deposits on the ground that these were used as a security for the subject loan transactions is without basis. Undeniably, this makes the bank liable for contractual breach for its failure to deliver the deposits upon demand based on the contract of loan or mutuum. ETHIDa
"By the contract of loan or mutuum, one party delivers money to another upon the condition that the same be paid in return, with or without interest. Hence, a contract of loan contemplates two separate obligations — the debtor's obligation to deliver money to the borrower, and the borrower's corresponding obligation to return the money in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon." 60
Under the circumstances, there is no question that BOC's banking practices were clearly conducted in an unsafe and unsound manner. Having been proved to be grossly negligent, BOC is thus liable for damages under Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which provides that those who, in the performance of their obligations, are guilty of negligence, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable therefor.
Well-settled is the rule that "moral damages may be recovered if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations." 61 As to the award of exemplary damages, it may be imposed by way of example or a correction for the public good, in additionto moral damages, among others, 62 and is awarded "if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner." 63
Thus, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court awards in favor of Spouses Silva the amounts of P100,000.00 and P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, respectively, as well as 10% of the amount due as and for attorney's fees plus the cost of suit 64 pursuant to paragraph 1, Article 2208 65 of the Civil Code.
In G.R. No. 238772
From the above disquisitions, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by BOC, docketed as G.R. No. 238772, is denied for failure of the bank to show that the CA had committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision and Resolution dated September 25, 2017 and April 4, 2018, respectively, as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 238740 filed by petitioners Spouses Edgardo L. Silva and Manuela M. Silva is GRANTED. The Court's Resolution dated July 25, 2018 is hereby SET ASIDE. The Decision dated September 25, 2017 and the Resolution dated April 4, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105072 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accordingly, petitioner Bank of Commerce is ORDERED to:
1) RELEASE the deposits of petitioners Spouses Edgardo L. Silva and Manuela M. Silva in the amounts of P2,143,354.81 and US$14,149.38, subject to interest at the rates of: (a) twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of extrajudicial demand on January 28, 2002 until June 30, 2013; and (b) six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction thereof; and
2) PAY petitioners Spouses Edgardo L. Silva and Manuela M. Silva the amounts of P100,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and attorney's fees at 10% of the total monetary award plus the costs of suit.
Moreover, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Bank of Commerce in G.R. No. 238772 is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (G.R. No. 238772), pp. 59-83; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Florito S. Macalino, concurring.
2.Id. at 85-89; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, with Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring.
3.Rollo (G.R. No. 238740), pp. 72-77.
4.Id. at 71.
5.Id. at 3-17.
6.Rollo (G.R. No. 238772), pp. 10-55.
7.Id. at 442-455, penned by Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano.
8.Id. at 456.
9.Id. at 60-61.
10.Id. at 61.
11.Id. at 61-62.
12.Id. at 62.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 62-63.
15.Id. at 63.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 63-64.
19.Id. at 64.
20.Id. at 90-101.
21.Id. at 113-125.
22.Id. at 118-123.
23.Id. at 442-455.
24.Id. at 456.
25.Id. at 59-83.
26.Id. at 82.
27.Id. at 86-87.
28.Id. at 87.
29.Id. at 85-89.
30.Rollo (G.R. No. 238740), pp. 3-17.
31.Id. at 14.
32.Id. at 71.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 72-77.
35.Id. at 75.
36.Rollo (G.R. No. 238772), pp. 10-55.
37.Id. at 50.
38.Rollo (G.R. No. 238740), p. 88.
39. 295 Phil. 399 (1993).
40.Id. at 408-409. Citations omitted.
41.Games and Garments Developers, Inc. v. Allied Banking Corporation, 763 Phil. 573, 604 (2015).
42.Id., citing Rural Bank of Milaor (Camarines Sur) v. Ocfemia, 381 Phil. 911, 924 (2000).
43.Rollo (G.R. No. 238740), pp. 73-74.
44. 827 Phil. 430 (2018).
45.Id. at 438-439.
46.Id.
47.Rollo (G.R. No. 238772), p. 37.
48.Id. at 451-452.
49.Id. at 81.
50.Id. at 78.
51. Section 40 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8791 provides:
SECTION 40. Requirement for Grant of Loans or Other Credit Accommodations. — Before granting a loan or other credit accommodation, a bank must ascertain that the debtor is capable of fulfilling his commitments to the bank.
Toward this end, a bank may demand from its credit applicants a statement of their assets and liabilities and of their income and expenditures and such information as may be prescribed by law or by rules and regulations of Monetary Board to enable the bank to properly evaluate the credit application which includes the corresponding financial statements submitted for taxation purposes to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Should such statements prove to be false or incorrect in any material detail, the bank may terminate any loan or other credit accommodation granted on the basis of said statements and shall have the right to demand immediate repayment or liquidation of the obligation.
In formulating rules and regulations under this Section, the Monetary Board shall recognize the peculiar characteristics of microfinancing, such as cash flow-based lending to the basic sectors that are not covered by traditional collateral.
52. Approved on May 23, 2000.
53.Rollo (G.R. No. 238772), p. 78.
54. Section 39 of RA 8791 provides:
SECTION 39. Grant and Purpose of Loans and Other Credit Accommodations. — A bank shall grant loans and other credit accommodations only in amounts and for the periods of time essential for the effective completion of the operations to be financed. Such grant of loans and other credit accommodations shall be consistent with safe and sound banking practices.
The purpose of all loans and other credit accommodations shall be stated in the application and in the contract between the bank and the borrower. If the bank finds that the proceeds of the loan or other credit accommodation have been employed, without its approval, for purposes other than those agreed upon with the bank, it shall have the right to terminate the loan or other credit accommodation and demand immediate repayment of the obligation. (Italics supplied.)
55.Rollo (G.R. No. 238772), p. 78.
56.Id. at 77.
57.Id. at 80.
58.Id.
59.Id. at 80-81, citing Mercado v. Commission on Higher Education, 699 Phil. 419, 439-440 (2012).
60. See Separate Opinion of Justice Caguioa in Citystate Savings Bank v. Tobias, supra note 44 at 455.
61.The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Rosales, et al., 724 Phil. 66, 78-79 (2014).
62.Id. at 79.
63.Id.
64. See Citystate Savings Bank v. Tobias, supra note 44 and The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Rosales, et al., supra.
65. Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
xxx xxx xxx