9 [CARBONELL vs.
METROPOLITAN BANK] RELEVANT ISSUE1: W/N Metrobank’s offer of compromise in the form of
Admissions and Confessions | | J.
Nature of the Case:
Digest Maker: Justine
SUMMARY: Spouses Carbonell withdrew US$1,000 in US$100 notes from
their dollar account at Metrobank’s Pateros Branch before travelling to
Thailand. Unfortunately, the bills turned out to be counterfeited so upon their
return, they confronted Metrobank. BSP confirmed that the bills were indeed
counterfeit but the same were highly deceptive that it was very difficult to
detect. As an expression of sympathy for and regret over the trouble
experienced by its clients, Metrobank offered to reinstate US$500 in their
dollar account, and, in addition, to underwrite a round-trip all-expense-paid
trip to Hong Kong, but they were adamant, staged a walkout, and filed the
case. Anent the argument of admission of liability by making offers to the
spouses, the Court ruled that
DOCTRINE: In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of
liability, and is inadmissible as evidence against the offeror.
FACTS:
 The case is an action for damages filed by Spouses Carbonell against
Metrobank, alleging that prior to their travel to Thailand, they withdrew
US$1,000 in US$100 notes from their dollar account at Metrobank’s Pateros
Branch. But while in Bangkok, only 4/5 US$100 bills they exchanged for
Baht had been accepted as the fifth was no good.
 The fifth bill which was brought to a different bank to be exchanged was
confiscated by the teller and threatened to report the spouses to the police
should they insist on taking it back.
 Meanwhile, the spouses used their remaining US$100 bills to buy jewelry,
but the day after, the shop owner confronted them in their hotel lobby
because their US$100 bills turned out to be counterfeit and shouted at them
“You Filipinos, you are all cheaters”.
 This prompted the spouses to confront Metrobank Pateros Branch manager
upon their return. Upon examination by the BSP, it was certified that the
US$100 bills were near perfect genuine notes (hence, counterfeit but highly
deceptive that even the BSP found it difficult to detect).
 Metrobank expressed its sympathy but stressed that it could not absolutely
guarantee the genuineness of each and every foreign currency note that
passed through its system.
 Prior to filing this suit, Metrobank representatives, in the course of meetings
with the spouses, offered to reinstate US$500 in their dollar account, and, in
addition, to underwrite a round-trip all-expense-paid trip to Hong Kong, but
they were adamant and staged a walkout.
reinstatement of US$500 in Spouses Carbonell’s dollar account and of
underwriting a round-trip all-expense-paid trip to Hongkong as an expression
of their sympathy with and regret over the trouble experienced by the spouses,
is an admission of liability – NO.
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of liability, and is
inadmissible as evidence against the offeror: That Metrobank formally
apologized to them and even offered to reinstate the USD$500.00 in their
account as well as to give them the all-expense-paid round trip ticket to Hong
Kong as means to assuage their inconvenience did not necessarily mean it was
liable.
RULING: Decision appealed from is affirmed.
NOTES:
Anent the allegation of bad faith and misrepresentation, suffice it to say that:
 Metrobank was not in bad faith as the subject dollar notes were “highly
deceptive” inasmuch as the paper used for them were similar to that
used in the printing of the genuine notes; that the security fibers and
the printing were perfect except for some microscopic defects; and that
all lines were clear, sharp and well defined.
 In breach of contract, moral damages may be awarded only where the
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith [Art. 2220]2.
 The spouses had been satisfied with the services of the respondent for
about three years prior to the incident, which was but an isolated one.
 This is a case of damnum absque injuria because although the spouses
suffered humiliation resulting from their unwitting use of the
counterfeit US dollar bills, Metrobank, by virtue of its having observed
the proper protocols and procedure in handling the US dollar bills
involved, did not violate any legal duty towards them.
1
The case had an extensive discussion on the allegation of bad faith and gross negligence amounting
to bad faith on the part of Metrobank, but I focused on the discussion that’s relevant to Admission.
2
NCC Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if
the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule
applies to breaches of contract where defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.