Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 148582 January 16, 2002
FAR EAST BAN AN! TRUST COMPAN", petitioner,
vs.
ESTRE##A O. $UER%M%T, respondent.
MEN!O&A, J.
!his is a petition for revie" on certiorari see#in$ revie" of the decision, dated March %, &''(, and
resolution, dated )une (*, &''(, of the Court of +ppeals
(
in C+,-.R. CV No. %.(/., entitled 0Estrella
O. 1ueri2it v. 3ar East 4an# and !rust Co2pan5,0 "hich affir2ed "ith 2odification the decision of
the Re$ional !rial Court, 4ranch 67, Manila,
&
orderin$ petitioner 3ar East 4an# and !rust Co.
83E4!C9 to allo" respondent Estrella O. 1ueri2it to "ithdra" her ti2e deposit "ith the 3E4!C.
!he facts are as follo"s
Respondent Estrella O. 1ueri2it "or#ed as internal auditor of the Philippine Savin$s 4an# 8PS49 for
(* 5ears, fro2 (*%6 to (**&.
6
On Nove2ber &/, (*7%, she opened a dollar savin$s account in
petitioner:s ;arrison Pla<a branch,
/
for "hich she "as issued four 8/9 Certificates of Deposit 8Nos.
.*'&7, .*'&*, .*'6', and .*'6(9, each certificate representin$ the a2ount of =(>,'''.'', or a total
a2ount of =%','''.''. !he certificates "ere to 2ature in %' da5s, on )anuar5 &6, (*7., and "ere
pa5able to bearer at /.>? interest per annu2. !he certificates bore the "ord 0accrued,0 "hich 2eant
that if the5 "ere not presented for encash2ent or pre,ter2inated prior to 2aturit5, the 2one5
deposited "ith accrued interest "ould be 0rolled over0 b5 the ban# and annual interest "ould
accu2ulate auto2aticall5.
>
!he petitioner ban#:s 2ana$er assured respondent that her deposit
"ould be rene"ed and earn interest upon 2aturit5 even "ithout the surrender of the certificates if
these "ere not indorsed and "ithdra"n.
%
Respondent #ept her dollars in the ban# so that the5 "ould
earn interest and so that she could use the fund after she retired.
.
In (*7*, respondent acco2panied her husband Do2inador 1ueri2it to the @nited States for 2edical
treat2ent. She used her savin$s in the 4an# of the Philippine Islands 84PI9 to pa5 for the trip and for
her husband:s 2edical eApenses.
7
In )anuar5 (**6, her husband died and Estrella returned to the
Philippines. She "ent to petitioner 3E4!C to "ithdra" her deposit but, to her dis2a5, she "as told
that her husband had "ithdra"n the 2one5 in deposit.
*
!hrou$h counsel, respondent sent a de2and
letter to petitioner 3E4!C. In another letter, respondent reiterated her reBuest for updatin$ and
pa52ent of the certificates of deposit, includin$ interest earned.
('
+s petitioner 3E4!C refused
respondent:s de2ands, the latter filed a co2plaint, Coinin$ in the action Ed$ardo 3. 4lanco, 4ranch
Mana$er of 3E4!C ;arrison Pla<a 4ranch, and Octavio Espiritu, 3E4!C President.
((
Petitioner 3E4!C alle$ed that it had $iven respondent:s late husband Do2inador an
0acco22odation0 to allo" hi2 to "ithdra" Estrella:s deposit.
(&
Petitioner presented certified true
copies of docu2ents sho"in$ that pa52ent had been 2ade, to "it
(. 3our 3E4!C ;arrison Pla<a 4ranch Dollar De2and Drafts Nos. 77%%*/*'6, 77%%*/*'/,
77%%*/*'> and 77%%*/*'% for @S=(>,(('.*% each, alle$edl5 issued b5 petitioner to respondent:s
husband Do2inador after pa52ent on the certificates of depositD
(6
&. + letter of +licia de 4ustos, branch cashier of 3E4!C at ;arrison Pla<a, dated )anuar5 &6, (*7.,
"hich "as sent to Citiban#, N.+., Citiban# Center, Paseo de RoAas, Ma#ati, Metro Manila, infor2in$
the latter that 3E4!C had issued the four drafts and reBuestin$ Citiban# Ne" Eor# to debit fro2
petitioner:s account =%',//6.7/, the a$$re$ate value of the four draftsD
(/
6. 0Citicorp Re2ittance Service Dail5 Su22ar5 and Pa52ent Report0 dated )anuar5 &6, (*7.D
(>
/. Debit !ic#et dated )anuar5 &6, (*7., sho"in$ the debit of @S=%',//6.7/ or its eBuivalent at the
ti2e ofP(,&/',*(&.'/ fro2 the 3E4!C ;arrison Pla<a 4ranchD
(%
and
>. +n Interbranch !ransaction !ic#et Re$ister or Credit !ic#et dated )anuar5 &6, (*7. sho"in$ that
@S=%',//6.7/ or P(,&/',*(&.'/ "as credited to petitioner:s International Operation Division 8IOD9.
(.
On Ma5 %, &''', the trial court rendered Cud$2ent for respondent. !he dispositive portion of the
decision stated
F;ERE3ORE, Cud$2ent is hereb5 rendered in favor of plaintiff GEstrella O. 1ueri2itH and
a$ainst defendants G3E4!C et al.H
(. ORDERIN- defendants to allo" plaintiff to "ithdra" her @.S.= !i2e Deposit of
=%','''.'' plus accrued interestsD
&. ORDERIN- defendants to pa5 2oral da2a$es in the a2ount of P>','''.''D
6. ORDERIN- defendants to pa5 eAe2plar5 da2a$es in the a2ount of P>','''.''D
/. ORDERIN- defendants to pa5 attorne5:s fees in the a2ount of P('','''.''
plus P(','''.'' per appearance of counselD and
>. ORDERIN- defendants to pa5 the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.
(7
On Ma5 (>, &''', petitioner appealed to the Court of +ppeals "hich, on March %, &''(, affir2ed
throu$h its 3ourteenth Division the decision of the trial court, "ith the 2odification that 3E4!C "as
declared solel5 liable for the a2ounts adCud$ed in the decision of the trial court. !he appeals court
stated that petitioner 3E4!C failed to prove that the certificates of deposit had been paid out of its
funds, since 0the evidence b5 the GrespondentH stands unrebutted that the subCect certificates of
deposit until no" re2ain unindorsed, undelivered and un"ithdra"n b5 GherH.0
(*
4ut the Court of
+ppeals held that the individual defendants, Ed$ardo 3. 4lanco, 3E4!C,;arrison Pla<a 4ranch
Mana$er, and Octavio Espiritu, 3E4!C President, could not be held solidaril5 liable "ith the 3E4!C
because the latter has a personalit5 separate fro2 its officers and stoc#holders.
&'
;ence this appeal.
+s stated b5 the Court of +ppeals, the 2ain issue in this case is "hether the subCect certificates of
deposit have alread5 been paid b5 petitioner.
&(
Petitioner contends that,
I. Petitioner is not liable to respondent for the value of the four 8/9 Certificates of Deposit,
includin$ the interest thereon as "ell as 2oral and eAe2plar5 da2a$es, attorne5:s and
appearance fees.
II. !he a$$re$ate value , both principal and interest earned at 2aturit5 , of the four 8/9
certificates of deposit "as alread5 paid to or "ithdra"n at 2aturit5 b5 the late Do2inador
1ueri2it "ho "as the respondent:s deceased husband.
III. Respondent is $uilt5 of laches since the four 8/9 certificates of deposit "ere all issued on
&/ Nove2ber (*7% but she atte2pted to "ithdra" their a$$re$ate value on &* )ul5 (**%
onl5 on or after the lapse of 2ore than nine 8*9 5ears and ei$ht 879 2onths.
IV. Respondent is not liable to petitioner for attorne5:s fees.
&&
+fter revie"in$ the records, "e find the petition to be "ithout 2erit.
First. Petitioner ban# failed to prove that it had alread5 paid Estrella 1ueri2it, the bearer and la"ful
holder of the subCect certificates of deposit. !he findin$ of the trial court on this point, as affir2ed b5
the Court of +ppeals, is that petitioner did not pa5 either respondent Estrella or her husband the
a2ounts evidenced b5 the subCect certificates of deposit. !his Court is not a trier of facts and
$enerall5 does not "ei$h ane" the evidence alread5 passed upon b5 the Court of +ppeals.
&6
!he
findin$ of respondent court "hich sho"s that the subCect certificates of deposit are still in the
possession of Estrella 1ueri2it and have not been indorsed or delivered to petitioner 3E4!C is
substantiated b5 the record and should therefore stand.
&/
+ certificate of deposit is defined as a "ritten ac#no"led$2ent b5 a ban# or ban#er of the receipt of
a su2 of 2one5 on deposit "hich the ban# or ban#er pro2ises to pa5 to the depositor, to the order
of the depositor, or to so2e other person or his order, "hereb5 the relation of debtor and creditor
bet"een the ban# and the depositor is created. !he principles $overnin$ other t5pes of ban#
deposits are applicable to certificates of deposit,
&>
as are the rules $overnin$ pro2issor5 notes "hen
the5 contain an unconditional pro2ise to pa5 a su2 certain of 2one5 absolutel5.
&%
!he principle that
pa52ent, in order to dischar$e a debt, 2ust be 2ade to so2eone authori<ed to receive it is
applicable to the pa52ent of certificates of deposit. !hus, a ban# "ill be protected in 2a#in$
pa52ent to the holder of a certificate indorsed b5 the pa5ee, unless it has notice of the invalidit5 of
the indorse2ent or the holder:s "ant of title.
&.
+ ban# acts at its peril "hen it pa5s deposits
evidenced b5 a certificate of deposit, "ithout its production and surrender after proper
indorse2ent.
&7
+s a rule, one "ho pleads pa52ent has the burden of provin$ it. Even "here the
plaintiff 2ust alle$e non,pa52ent, the $eneral rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove
pa52ent, rather than on the plaintiff to prove pa52ent. !he debtor has the burden of sho"in$ "ith
le$al certaint5 that the obli$ation has been dischar$ed b5 pa52ent.
&*
In this case, the certificates of deposit "ere clearl5 2ar#ed pa5able to 0bearer,0 "hich 2eans, to
0GtHhe person in possession of an instru2ent, docu2ent of title or securit5 pa5able to bearer or
indorsed in blan#.0
6'
Petitioner should not have paid respondent:s husband or an5 third part5 "ithout
reBuirin$ the surrender of the certificates of deposit.
Petitioner clai2s that it did not de2and the surrender of the subCect certificates of deposit since
respondent:s husband, Do2inador 1ueri2it, "as one of the ban#:s senior 2ana$ers. 4ut even lon$
after respondent:s husband had alle$edl5 been paid respondent:s deposit and before his retire2ent
fro2 service, the 3E4!C never reBuired hi2 to deliver the certificates of deposit in
Buestion.
6(
Moreover, the acco22odation $iven to respondent:s husband "as 2ade in violation of
the ban#:s policies and procedures.
6&
Petitioner 3E4!C thus failed to eAercise that de$ree of dili$ence reBuired b5 the nature of its
business.
66
4ecause the business of ban#s is i2pressed "ith public interest, the de$ree of dili$ence
reBuired of ban#s is 2ore than that of a $ood father of the fa2il5 or of an ordinar5 business fir2. !he
fiduciar5 nature of their relationship "ith their depositors reBuires the2 to treat the accounts of their
clients "ith the hi$hest de$ree of care.
6/
+ ban# is under obli$ation to treat the accounts of its
depositors "ith 2eticulous care "hether such accounts consist onl5 of a fe" hundred pesos or of
2illions of pesos. Responsibilit5 arisin$ fro2 ne$li$ence in the perfor2ance of ever5 #ind of
obli$ation is de2andable.
6>
Petitioner failed to prove pa52ent of the subCect certificates of deposit
issued to the respondent and, therefore, re2ains liable for the value of the dollar deposits indicated
thereon "ith accrued interest.
Second. !he eBuitable principle of laches is not sufficient to defeat the ri$hts of respondent over the
subCect certificates of deposit.
Iaches is the failure or ne$lect, for an unreasonable len$th of ti2e, to do that "hich, b5 eAercisin$
due dili$ence, could or should have been done earlier. It is ne$li$ence or o2ission to assert a ri$ht
"ithin a reasonable ti2e, "arrantin$ a presu2ption that the part5 entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it or declined to assert it.
6%
!here is no absolute rule as to "hat constitutes laches or staleness of de2andD each case is to be
deter2ined accordin$ to its particular circu2stances. !he Buestion of laches is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court and, bein$ an eBuitable doctrine, its application is controlled b5
eBuitable considerations. It cannot be used to defeat Custice or perpetrate fraud and inCustice. Courts
"ill not be $uided or bound strictl5 b5 the statute of li2itations or the doctrine of laches "hen to do
so, 2anifest "ron$ or inCustice "ould result.
6.
In this case, it "ould be unCust to allo" the doctrine of laches to defeat the ri$ht of respondent to
recover her savin$s "hich she deposited "ith the petitioner. She did not "ithdra" her deposit even
after the 2aturit5 date of the certificates of deposit precisel5 because she "anted to set it aside for
her retire2ent. She relied on the ban#:s assurance, as reflected on the face of the instru2ents
the2selves, that interest "ould 0accrue0 or accu2ulate annuall5 even after their 2aturit5.
67
Third. Respondent is entitled to 2oral da2a$es because of the 2ental an$uish and hu2iliation she
suffered as a result of the "ron$ful refusal of the 3E4!C to pa5 her even after she had delivered the
certificates of deposit.
6*
In addition, petitioner 3E4!C should pa5 respondent eAe2plar5 da2a$es,
"hich the trial court i2posed b5 "a5 of eAa2ple or correction for the public $ood.
/'
3inall5,
respondent is entitled to attorne5:s fees since petitioner:s act or o2ission co2pelled her to incur
eApenses to protect her interest, 2a#in$ such a"ard Cust and eBuitable.
/(
;o"ever, "e find the a"ard
of attorne5:s fees to be eAcessive and accordin$l5 reduce it to P&','''.''.
/&
F;ERE3ORE, pre2ises considered, the present petition is hereb5 DENIED and the Decision in C+,
-.R. CV No. %.(/. +33IRMED, "ith the 2odification that the a"ard of attorne5:s fees is reduced
to P&','''.''.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr, JJ, concur.
Foo'no'(
(
Per +ssociate )ustice Martin S. Villanueva, )r. and concurred in b5 +ssociate )ustices
Conrado M. VasBue<, )r. and Perlita ). !ria !irona.
&
Per )ud$e Ieocadio ;. Ra2os, )r.
6
!SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, pp. /,>, Oct. 6, (**..
/
!d., pp. >,%D !SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, pp. %,(., No" /, (**7.
>
!SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, pp. %,((, Oct. 6, (**.D !SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, p. ((, No" /,
(**7D EAhs. +, 4, C, D 8Certificates of Deposit9.
%
!SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, p. (., Oct. 6, (**..
.
!SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, p. (7, Oct. 6, (**.D !SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, p. (>, No" /, (**..
7
!SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, pp. (7,&', No" /, (**..
*
!SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, p. ((, Oct. 6, (**.D !SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, pp. *,&&, No" /,
(**7.
('
!SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, pp. ((,(%, Oct. 6, (**.D Records, pp. 7,* 8Ietters of De2and
dated )ul5 &*, (**% and +u$. &, (**%9.
((
Records, pp. (,>.
(&
Petition, p. (>D Rollo, p. (.D !SN 8!o2as Silva9, pp. (/,&', Dec. /, (**..
(6
EAhs. (, &, 6, /, (', ((, (&, and (6.
(/
EAh. %.
(>
EAh. >.
(%
EAh. .D !SN 8Raoul Reniedo9, pp. 67,/', +pril 6', (**7.
(.
EAhs. 7, *D id., pp. /',>'.
(7
Records, pp. 6'>,6((.
(*
C+ Decision, pp. /,>D Rollo, pp. /6,//.
&'
!d., p. %D id., p. />.
&(
!d., p. /D id., p. /6.
&&
Petition, pp. ((,(&D id., pp. (6,(/.
&6
Prudential 4an# and !rust Co2pan5 v. Re5es, -.R. No. (/('*6, 3eb. &', &''(D Ian$#aan
Realt5 Develop2ent, Inc. " @nited Coconut Planters 4an#, -.R. No. (6*/6., Dec. 7, &'''D
P+I E2plo5ees Savin$s and Ioan +ssociation, Inc. v. NIRC, &%' SCR+ .>7 8(**%9.
&/
Fon$ v. Court of +ppeals, -.R. No. ((.7>., 3eb. &, &''(.
&>
(' +2 )ur &d J/>>.
&%
(' +2 )ur J/>..
&.
(' +2 )ur &d J/%(.
&7
Clar# v. Eoun$, &( So.&d 66( 8(*//9D Cohn,-ood2an Co. v. People:s Savin$ 4an# of
-rand ;aven, (%7 N.F. ('/& 8(*(79.
&*
Sevillana v. I.!. 8International9 Corp., -.R. No. **'/., +pril (%, &''(D Villar v. NIRC, 66(
SCR+ %7% 8&'''9D +udion Electric Co., Inc.. vs. NIRC, 6'7 SCR+ 6/' 8(***9D Ropali
!radin$ Corporation v. NIRC, &*% SCR+ 6'* 8(**79D Pacific Mariti2e Services Inc. v.
Rana5, &.> SCR+ .(. 8(**.9.
6'
4lac#:s Ia" Dictionar5 8>th ed., (*.*9, p. (/'.
6(
!SN 8+licia de 4ustos9, pp. ((,(>, )ul5 &6, (***.
6&
!SN 8!o2as de Silva9, pp. 66,6/, Dec. /, (**..
66
Civil Code, +rt. ((.6.
6/
Canlas v. Court of +ppeals, 6&% SCR+ /(> 8&'''9D Ibaan Rural 4an# v. Court of +ppeals,
6&( SCR+ 77 8(***9D Philippine 4an# of Co22erce v. Court of +ppeals, &%* SCR+ %*>
8(**.9D Metropolitan 4an# and !rust Co2pan5 v. Court of +ppeals, &6. SCR+ .%( 8(**/9D
4an# of the Philippine Islands v. Court of +ppeals, &(% SCR+ >( 8(**&9.
6>
Prudential 4an# v. Court of +ppeals, 6&7 SCR+ &%/ 8&'''9D Philippine National 4an# v.
Court of +ppeals, 6(> SCR+ 6'* 8(***9D Metropolitan 4an# and !rust Co2pan5 v. Court of
+ppeals, &6. SCR+ .%( 8(**/9D +raneta v. 4an# of +2erica, /' SCR+ (// 8(*.(9.
6%
3eli<ardo v. 3ernande<, -.R. No. (6.>'*, +u$. (>, &''(D -abion<a v. Court of +ppeals,
-.R. No. (/'6((, March 6', &''(D +visado v. Ru2bana, -.R. No. (6.6'%, March (&, &''(D
Republic v. Court of +ppeals, 6'( SCR+ 6%% 8(***9D P+I E2plo5ees Savin$s and Ioan
+ssociation, Inc. v. NIRC, &%' SCR+ .>7 8(**%9.
6.
Rosales v. Court of +ppeals, -.R. No. (6.>%%, 3eb. &7, &''(D Co2eta v. Court of +ppeals,
-.R. No. (/(7>>, 3eb. %, &''(D De Vera v. Court of +ppeals, 6'> SCR+ %&/ 8(***9.
67
!SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, pp. %,((, Oct. 6, (**.D !SN 8Estrella 1ueri2it9, p. ((, Nov. /,
(**7D EAhs. +, 4, C, D 8Certificates of Deposit9.
6*
Civil Code, +rts. &&(., &&(*.
/'
+rt. &&&*.
/(
Civil Code, +rts. &&'7.
/&
Catun$al v. ;ao, -.R. No. (6/*.&, March &&, &''(D 4atin$al v. Court of +ppeals, -.R. No.
(&7%6%, 3eb. (, &''(.