Professional Documents
Culture Documents
02-Bank of The Philippine Islands v. Spouses Quiaoit
02-Bank of The Philippine Islands v. Spouses Quiaoit
DECISION
CARPIO, J : p
The Case
On 21 May 1999, while the spouses Quiaoit were still abroad, they
asked their daughter Maria Isabel, who was employed with BPI Makati, to
relay their predicament to BPI Greenhills. However, Ana C. Gonzales 5
(Gonzales), branch manager of BPI Greenhills, failed to resolve their concern
or give them a return call. When the spouses Quiaoit returned, they
personally complained to Gonzales who went to Fernando's office with three
bank personnel. Gonzales took from Fernando the remaining 44 dollar bills
worth US$4,400 and affixed her signature on the photocopy of the bills,
acknowledging that she received them. Chito Bautista (Bautista), a bank
representative, and another bank employee informed the spouses Quiaoit
that an investigation would be conducted but they were not furnished any
report. They gathered from a telephone conversation with Clemente Banson
(Banson), the bank-designated investigator, that the dollar bills came from
BPI Vira Mall and were marked with "chapa" by the BPI Greenhills. On 9 June
1999, Fernando tried to submit to Banson the five US$100 bills returned by
Galan but Banson refused to accept them because they were counterfeit. On
18 August 1999, Gonzales informed Fernando that the absence of the
identification mark ("chapa") on the dollar bills meant they came from other
sources and not from BPI Greenhills.
On 7 July 1999, Fernando withdrew the remaining balance of his
account through his representative, Henry Mainot (Mainot). The dollar bills
withdrawn by Mainot were marked and the serial numbers were listed. On 7
July 1999, Fernando's brother Edgardo encashed a US$500 check from BPI
San Juan Branch and while the dollar bills were not marked, the serial
numbers thereof were listed.
The spouses Quiaoit alleged that Nora Cayetano, area manager of BPI
San Juan, called up Fernando and promised to do something about the
refund of the US$4,400 they surrendered to Gonzales. On 17 January 2000,
the spouses Quiaoit demanded in writing for the refund of the US$4,400 from
Gonzales. On 9 February 2000, BPI sent its written refusal to refund or
reimburse the US$4,400.
The spouses Quiaoit alleged that BPI failed in its duty to ensure that
the foreign currency bills it furnishes its clients are genuine. According to
them, they suffered public embarrassment, humiliation, and possible
imprisonment in a foreign country due to BPI's negligence and bad faith.
BPI countered that it is the bank's standing policy and part of its
internal control to mark all dollar bills with "chapa" bearing the code of the
branch when a foreign currency bill is exchanged or withdrawn. BPI alleged
that any local or foreign currency bill deposited or withdrawn from the bank
undergoes careful and meticulous scrutiny by highly-trained and
experienced personnel for genuineness and authenticity. BPI alleged that the
US$20,000 in US$100 bills encashed by Fernando through Lambayong were
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
inspected, counted, personally examined, and subjected to a counterfeit
detector machine by the bank teller under Gonzales' direct supervision.
Gonzales also personally inspected and "piece-counted" the dollar bills which
bore the identifying "chapa" and examined their genuineness and
authenticity. BPI alleged that after its investigation, it was established that
the 44 US$100 bills surrendered by the spouses Quiaoit were not the same
as the dollar bills disbursed to Lambayong. The dollar bills did not bear the
identifying "chapa" from BPI Greenhills and as such, they came from another
source.
In its 15 May 2009 Decision, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 100 (trial court), ruled in favor of the spouses Quiaoit. The dispositive
portion of the trial court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. HEITAD
The Issues
Footnotes
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2630 dated 18 December
2018.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Cheah , 686 Phil. 760 (2012).
13. Id.
14. Id.