FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248736. October 6, 2021.]

BDO UNIBANK, INC., petitioner, vs. MAPUA INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY RETIREMENT FUND, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated October 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248736 (BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Mapua Institute of
Technology Retirement Fund, Inc.).  — After a judicious study of the
records, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition and AFFIRM the
Decision 1 dated December 11, 2018 and the Resolution 2 dated August 5,
2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104247 for failure of
petitioner BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO) to show that the CA committed
reversible error in finding that it failed to exercise the degree of diligence
required of it as a banking institution in handling the account of
respondent Mapua Institute of Technology Retirement Fund, Inc. (MITRFI).
It is well settled that banks are engaged in a business impressed
with public interest, and it is their duty to protect in return their many
clients and depositors who transact business with them. They have the
obligation to treat their client's account meticulously and with the highest
degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The
diligence required of banks, therefore, is more than that of a good father
of a family. 3 The appropriate diligence required of a bank must be a high
degree of diligence, if not utmost diligence. 4
In the present case, BDO failed to exercise the utmost diligence
required of it as a bank. The checks which indicated the payee as
"BIR/CASH" should have aroused suspicion on the part of BDO that the
transactions were irregular, considering that it is highly uncommon for a
corporation to make out checks payable to "CASH" for substantial
amounts, such as in this case. 5 As such, it should have made it a point to
verify the transactions with MITRFI's authorized signatories. Had it done
so, it would have discovered that the checks were really intended for
payment of taxes to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) by MITRFI only
and were altered to include the phrase "CASH." In allowing the
encashment of the altered checks by MITRFI's fund manager, Proceso
Palabrica III (Palabrica), BDO had been remiss in its duty to treat MITRFI's
account "meticulously and the highest degree of care." 6
BDO's witnesses testified that for checks in amounts of greater than
P200,000.00, it is the company's policy to call the authorized signatories of
the check to verify and confirm the encashment of the checks. 7 The RTC
and the CA found, however, that aside from the assertion of this company
policy, BDO failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that for the
checks subject of this case, its bank employees indeed called up the
authorized signatories of MITRFI to verify the unauthorized withdrawals.
A bank's disregard of its own banking policy amounts to gross
negligence, which is described as "negligence characterized by the want of
even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty
to act, not inadvertently but willfully and unintentionally with conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected." 8
Where the findings of fact of the trial courts are affirmed by the
[CA], the same are accorded the highest degree of respect and generally,
will not be disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and conclusive
on this Court. 9 Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to disturb the
findings of the CA, which affirmed the findings of the trial court, that BDO
was negligent in allowing the encashment of the subject checks by
Palabrica.
As a final point, the Court notes the RTC's finding that MITRFI is
guilty of contributory negligence and should bear a portion of the loss.
The records disclose that this conclusion was never questioned by MITRFI
by way of appeal before the CA. Insofar as MITRFI is concerned, therefore,
this finding is final and can no longer be passed upon by the Court in the
present petition.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The
Decision dated December 11, 2018 and the Resolution dated August 5,
2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104247, are
hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED." Carandang, J.,  designated Additional Member
vice  Lopez, M., J.,  per Raffle dated September 22, 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

By:
 MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
 
Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate

Justices Mario V. Lopez, Chairperson (now a member of this Court) and
Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring; rollo, pp. 34-44.
2. Id. at 47-48.
3. Bank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club, 611 Phil. 687, 697 (2009).
4. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Cabilzo, 539 Phil. 316, 330 (2006).
5. Bank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club, supra note 3, at 698.
6. Id. at 697.
7. Rollo, pp. 120; 122; 123; 125.
8. Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Cheah, 686 Phil. 760, 732 n (2012).
9. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Musni, et al., 806 Phil. 308, 323 (2017),
citing Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp., 512 Phil. 679, 706
(2005).
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.

  (BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Mapua Institute of Technology Retirement Fund, Inc., G.R.
|||

No. 248736 (Notice), [October 6, 2021])