TL;DR
The Supreme Court ruled against Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for breaching its contractual obligations and acting in bad faith by releasing funds from joint “AND/OR” accounts to one co-depositor without requiring the presentation of the certificates of deposit. This decision underscores that banks have a high fiduciary duty to depositors, especially in joint accounts, and must strictly adhere to deposit agreement terms, including requiring certificate presentation for withdrawals. Banks cannot prioritize one depositor over others or facilitate fund withdrawals based on questionable claims of lost certificates, especially when they have actual knowledge of the certificates’ location.
Banking on Bad Faith: BPI’s Betrayal of Deposit Agreement in Fernandez Case
This case revolves around the contentious pre-termination of joint “AND/OR” deposit accounts at Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). Tarcila Fernandez, along with her estranged husband Manuel and their children, opened several deposit accounts with BPI. These accounts were explicitly designated as “AND/OR,” meaning any named depositor could transact. Crucially, the terms of these deposits mandated that pre-termination required the “endorsement and presentation of the Certificate of Deposit.” The conflict ignited when Tarcila attempted to pre-terminate these accounts but was refused by BPI, who insisted on contacting her husband, Manuel. Shortly after, Manuel, claiming to have lost the certificates (which Tarcila actually possessed), successfully pre-terminated the accounts with BPI’s cooperation. BPI facilitated this transaction despite knowing Tarcila had the certificates, releasing the funds to Manuel based on a mere affidavit of loss and an indemnity agreement involving Manuel’s son-in-law, Dalmiro Sian. This series of events led Tarcila to sue BPI for damages, claiming the bank acted in bad faith by releasing her share of the deposits to Manuel without proper procedure.
The core legal issue is whether BPI breached its obligations to Tarcila by allowing Manuel to pre-terminate the joint accounts without requiring the certificates of deposit, and if BPI acted in bad faith. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both ruled in favor of Tarcila, finding BPI liable. BPI appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that it had discretion in pre-termination, the funds were conjugal property, and it did not act in bad faith. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing the contractual obligations stipulated in the certificates of deposit. The Court highlighted that a certificate of deposit establishes a debtor-creditor relationship between the bank and depositor, and its terms are binding. The explicit condition requiring certificate presentation for termination was not a mere formality but a crucial protective mechanism for all co-depositors.
The Supreme Court underscored BPI’s breach of contract. By allowing pre-termination based on a dubious affidavit of loss, especially after Tarcila had presented the actual certificates, BPI disregarded its own stipulated procedures. The Court cited FEBTC v. Querimit, reiterating that a bank acts at its peril when it pays deposits evidenced by a certificate without its production. This principle places the burden on the bank to ensure proper procedures are followed before releasing funds, particularly when certificates of deposit are involved. BPI’s argument about the conjugal nature of the funds was deemed a distraction, as the primary issue was the bank’s breach of its contractual duty, not the ownership of the deposited funds. The Court pointed to the orchestrated nature of the transactions, noting how funds were quickly funneled through Sian’s account and withdrawn by Manuel, suggesting a deliberate attempt to conceal the transactions and deprive Tarcila of her share.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of bad faith against BPI. Bad faith, in this context, implies a dishonest purpose or conscious wrongdoing, a breach of a known duty motivated by self-interest or ill will. The evidence presented, including the branch manager’s testimony revealing a bias towards Manuel as the “primary depositor” and the bank’s awareness that Tarcila possessed the certificates, strongly indicated bad faith. BPI’s insistence on contacting Manuel initially, only to readily accept his affidavit of loss minutes after Tarcila’s attempt to withdraw with the certificates, exposed a clear bias and a departure from standard banking procedures. The Court was particularly critical of BPI’s willingness to accept a known falsehood—the affidavit of loss—and facilitate the swift transfer of funds to Manuel, effectively circumventing the certificate requirement and prejudicing Tarcila.
Regarding the Indemnity Agreement, while the Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s finding of vitiated consent on Sian’s part, it ultimately ruled that BPI could not invoke the agreement based on the principle of in pari delicto. This doctrine prevents courts from assisting parties who base their claims on their own immoral or illegal acts. The Court found both BPI and Sian complicit in the scheme to allow Manuel to withdraw the funds irregularly. BPI, knowing the certificates were not lost and yet proceeding with the affidavit of loss, and Sian, by allowing his account to be used to channel the funds, were deemed equally at fault. Therefore, BPI, having acted with “unclean hands,” could not seek relief from Sian through the Indemnity Agreement. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, deeming them justified given BPI’s bad faith and the need to deter similar misconduct by banking institutions. The Court sternly reminded banks of their fiduciary duty and the public interest nature of their business, emphasizing the need for the highest standards of integrity, care, and respect in dealing with depositors.
FAQs
| What is an “AND/OR” bank account? | An “AND/OR” account is a joint bank account where any of the named account holders can deposit, withdraw, or manage the funds independently. Each account holder has solidary creditor rights against the bank. |
| What is a Certificate of Deposit and why was it important in this case? | A Certificate of Deposit (CD) is a document issued by a bank acknowledging a deposit for a fixed term at a specific interest rate. In this case, the CDs explicitly required presentation and endorsement for pre-termination, acting as a security measure for all co-depositors. |
| Why did the Supreme Court rule against BPI? | The Court ruled against BPI because it breached its contract with depositors by allowing pre-termination without requiring the certificates of deposit, and because the bank acted in bad faith by favoring one co-depositor (Manuel) over another (Tarcila) despite knowing Tarcila possessed the certificates. |
| What is the legal principle of in pari delicto and how was it applied? | In pari delicto is a legal doctrine meaning “in equal fault.” It prevents courts from providing relief to parties who are equally at fault in an illegal or wrongful act. The Court applied it to prevent BPI from enforcing the Indemnity Agreement against Sian because both were deemed complicit in the irregular fund withdrawal scheme. |
| What are the implications of this ruling for banks in the Philippines? | This ruling reinforces the high fiduciary duty of banks to their depositors and emphasizes the importance of strictly adhering to the terms of deposit agreements, especially concerning security measures like certificate of deposit presentation. Banks must act with impartiality and good faith towards all co-depositors in joint accounts. |
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: BPI v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 173134, September 02, 2015
Leave a Reply