PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORTATION VS COURT OF APPEALS AND ordering PBC to return the time deposit in the sum of P764,897.
deposit in the sum of P764,897.67 with
LEONILO MARCOS
G.R. No. 127469, January 15, 2004
Facts:
Leonilo Marcos filed in court a complaint for sum of money with damages
against Phil. Banking Corporation (PBC). Marcos allegedly made a time
deposit in 2 occasions the amt. of P664,897.67 and P764,897.67 through the
persuasion of his friend Pagsaligan, one of the banks officials. The bank
issued receipt for the first deposit while a letter-certification was issued for his
second deposit by Pagsaligan. Pagsaligan kept the various time deposit
certificates. Marcos claimed that from the time of the deposit, he had not
received the principal amount or its interest.
When Marcos wanted to withdraw his time deposit and its accumulated
interest Pagsaligan convinced him to keep his time deposits intact and
instead to open several letters of credit to the bank by executing 3 trust
receipts agreement. Since Marcos trusted the Bank and Pagsaligan, he
signed blank forms for domestic letter of credits, trust receipts agreements
and promissory notes. He was required to deposit 30% of the total amount of
credit and his time deposit will secure the remaining 70% of the letters of
credit.
He is now accusing the bank for unjustly collecting payment without
deducting the 30% of his down payment and charging him with accumulating
interests since his time deposit serves as collateral for his remaining
obligation. He further denied making a loan of P500,000 with 25% interest
per annum covered by a promissory note produced by the bank. The bank
explained that the promissory notes he executed are distinct from the trust
receipt agreement and denied falsifying the promissory note covering for the
loan of P500,000. The evidence presented on the promissory note however
is merely a machine copy of the document. The said loan was already paid
by offsetting it from his time deposit.
The Trial Court ruled in favor of Marcos and directed the PBC to return his
time deposit in the sum of 971, 2922.49 with interest thereon at the legal rate
until fully restituted. The trial court noted the Banks defective documentation
of its transaction and attributed the Banks lapses to Pagsaligans scheme to
defraud Marcos of his time deposit.
The Court of Appeals, however, differed with the finding of the trial court as to
the amount of time deposits since the certification letter issued was the
aggregate or total amount of the time deposits of Marcos as of that date. CA
modified the decision of the trial court and a new judgment is rendered
interest. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the bank failed to take a proper account on Marcos deposits
and payment of his loans.
Held: YES
The SC held that the Bank is liable for offsetting the time deposit of Marcos
to the fictitious promissory note for the 500,000 loan. The court upheld the
findings of the lower court on the discrepancies shown by the machine copy
of the duplicate of the promissory note and the suspicious claim of the bank
that it could not produce the original copy thereof. The mere machine copy of
the document has no evidentiary value before the court. The court held that
the Bank did not forge the promissory note. Pagsaligan did to cover up his
failure to give the proper account of Marcos time deposits. This however
does not excuse the Bank to return to Marcos the correct amount of his time
deposit with interest. Bank has the fiduciary duty before its clients. The
fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree higher
than that of a good father of a family. Thus, the banks fiduciary duty
imposes upon it a higher level of accountability than that expected of
depositor. Its duty is to observe the highest standards of integrity and
performance. The business of banking is imbued with public interest. The
stability of banks largely depends on the confidence of the people in the
honesty and efficiency of banks. By the nature of its business, the Bank
should have had in its possession the copies of the disputed promissory note
and the records and ledgers evidencing the offsetting of the loan with the
time deposits of Marcos. The Bank inexplicably failed to produce the original
copies of these documents. Clearly, the Bank failed to treat the account of
Marcos with meticulous care.
Assuming Pagsaligan is responsible for the spurious promissory note the
court held that a Bank is liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. 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 secretly
abusing his authority and attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon his principal
or some other person.
The SC affirmed the decision of the CA with modification. The court made the to him the same plus moral and exemplary damages.
proper account of the total amount due to Marcos ordering the bank to give