Page 1 of 29

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 257151. February 13, 2023.]

[Formerly UDK 16942]

BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, INC., [1] VIVIAN

DULDULAO, [2] and CHRISTINE [3] NAKANISHI, petitioners, vs.
LIZA A. SEASTRES [4] and ANNABELLE [5] N. BENAJE,
respondents.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari [6] (Petition) under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court filed by petitioners Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. (BDO), Vivian
Duldulao (Duldulao) and Christine T. Nakanishi (Nakanishi) (collectively,
petitioners) assailing the Decision [7] dated September 30, 2020 and the Resolution
[8] dated February 16, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
110142, which affirmed with modification the Decision [9] dated March 10, 2017 of
the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 70 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 72161-
TG finding petitioners jointly and severally liable to respondent Liza A. Seastres
(Seastres).
The Facts
The CA narrates the antecedents as follows:
[Respondent Seastres] is a depositor of [petitioner BDO] maintaining
various personal and corporate accounts in two of its branches, BDO People
Support Branch and BDO Rufino Branch, in Makati City. CHTAIc

Sometime in October 2008, Nella Zablan [(Zablan)], the Finance

Officer of Seastres['] business [named] Las Management and General
Services, Inc. [10] (Las Management), called BDO People Support Branch
and requested for a transaction history with respect to Account No. 20800471,
as Seastres suspected that several unauthorized withdrawals were made from
April to September 2008. Acting on said request, BDO immediately provided
Seastres with her account history. [Petitioner Nakanishi], the Branch Head of
BDO People Support Branch, personally called Seastres to inform her that all
the withdrawals were made by [respondent] Anabelle Benaje (Benaje),
Seastres['] long-time friend and the Chief Operating Officer of Las
 Page 2 of 29

Management. An investigation was made but nothing irregular was

discovered.
Nakanishi then reported the matter to BDO management and likewise
informed [petitioner Duldulao], the Branch Head of BDO Rufino Branch,
where Seastres likewise maintained an account. BDO Rufino Branch
conducted its own investigation and like the BDO People Support Branch, no
anomalous transactions were found.
Particularly, Seastres discovered that there were several unauthorized
withdrawals from her accounts without her knowledge, instruction, and
authority [(hereinafter, the "subject withdrawal slips")], to wit:
From BDO People Support Branch under Account No. 20800471:

Transaction and date: Amount:

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated August 1, 2008 P128,000.

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated May 9, 2008 P130,000.

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated July 11, 2008 P437,200.

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated July 16, 2008 P282,000.

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated July 4, 2008 P54,000.

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated May 2, 2008 P300,000.

From BDO Rufino Branch under Account No. 5420-015499:

Transaction and Date: Amount:

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated September 18, 2008 P180,000.

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated September 9, 2008 P345,000.

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated August 29, 2008 P381,000.

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated July 24, 2008 P503,000.

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated September 12, 2008 P222,600.

 Page 3 of 29

DO] Withdrawal Slip dated July 2, 2008 P646,000.

She also discovered that the following manager's checks were

encashed without her knowledge, consent, and authority [(hereinafter, the
"subject manager's checks")]: ITAaHc

Check [Number] and Date: Amount:

anager's Check No. 0001466 dated May 23, 2008 P2,500,000.

anager's Check No. 0001549 dated June 23, 2008 P508,072.

anager's Check No. 0001346 dated April 8, 2008 P1,505,066.

The total amount of the unauthorized transactions was P8,121,939.59.

Seastres sought the assistance of BDO in reconciling her accounts. All
relevant withdrawal slips as well as pertinent bank documents were provided
to her. BDO, for its part, conducted its own investigation.
It was discovered that all these transactions were facilitated and made
by Benaje. As usual practice, Seastres rarely went to BDO and simply allowed
her authorized representatives, particularly Benaje, to process her personal
and corporate transactions for her. Whenever the bank would make
confirmatory calls to Seastres['] office regarding the transactions, the calls
would always be referred to Benaje for confirmation or Benaje would be the
one to answer the call. If the bank would insist on talking to Seastres, Benaje
would say that Seastres is out of the office, in a meeting or is busy. Thus, the
confirmation would still be made by Benaje.
As regards the [subject] [m]anager's [c]hecks, the same were encashed
because Benaje presented application forms bearing the signatures of Seastres.
She also furnished the bank the documents showing that Seastres had special
instructions to partially roll over the Special Deposit Account with the amount
withdrawn from said account to be partially deposited to another account and
the rest to be encashed.
In all these transactions, BDO, through its employees including
Duldulao and Nakanishi, all verified the signatures of Seastres on the [subject]
withdrawal slips and manager's checks, and found the same to be genuine.
Meanwhile, a meeting was held where Benaje admitted that she made
all the questioned withdrawals. Benaje likewise voluntarily surrendered two
 Page 4 of 29

(2) rubber stamps bearing the signature of Seastres, which the former used for
the transactions. She also promised to return the money to Seastres.
Accordingly, Seastres filed a criminal case against Benaje before the
Makati City Prosecutor's Office but the same was dismissed for lack of
probable cause. Seastres did not appeal this finding. Instead, she filed the
instant case for collection of sum of money against [petitioners]. Benaje was
included as defendant when Seastres filed a Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint, which was granted by the RTC in an Order dated April
17, 2012. [11]cTDaEH

Ruling of the RTC

In its Decision [12] dated March 10, 2017, the RTC held that BDO, through its
employees, reneged in its obligation to treat the accounts of its customers, particularly
Seastres, with meticulous care and extraordinary diligence, [13] to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered:
1. [Seastres'] prayer for actual and moral damages including the attorney's fees
and costs of suit is hereby GRANTED. [Petitioners] are hereby ordered
to be jointly and severally liable to [Seastres] in the following damages
and amounts:
a. The actual damages in the amount of Eight Million Sixty[-]Seven
Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty[-]Nine Pesos and Fifty[-]Nine
Centavos (Php8,067,939.59);
b. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) as moral damages;
c. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) as attorney's fees; and
d. Costs of suit.
2. [Seastres'] prayer for exemplary damages is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit.
3. [Petitioners'] Counterclaim against the [Seastres] is hereby DENIED for lack
of merit.
4. [Respondent] Benaje is hereby ordered to indemnify and pay [petitioners]
BDO, Duldulao and Nakanishi:
a. Any and all damages, costs and expenses that BDO, Duldulao and
Nakanishi may be required to pay [Seastres] under the Amended
Complaint;
b. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) each for moral
damages;
c. Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) each for exemplary damages;
and
d. Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000) for attorney's fees.
 Page 5 of 29

SO ORDERED. [14]
According to the RTC, the lack of information provided in the withdrawal
through representative should have caught the attention of the bank, and BDO should
have taken precautions to avoid the unauthorized transactions. [15] BDO failed to see
to it that the required details for withdrawals were correctly filled out and the
procedures for confirming the transactions with the account owner were not followed.
[16]
The RTC also ruled that the doctrine of apparent authority does not apply in
the instant case because the Special Power of Attorney as well as the Authorization
relied upon by BDO shows that it only pertains to the delivery to and/or receipt from
the bank of any and all papers, documents, checks, statements and other related papers
pertaining to any and/or all transactions of Seastres, but it does not include the
authority to withdraw from Seastres' account and encash Seastres' checks. [17]
Aggrieved, petitioners then filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration [18]
dated May 18, 2017, which was denied by the RTC in an Order [19] dated September
22, 2017. Thereafter, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal [20] dated October 11, 2017
to the CA. ASEcHI

Ruling of the CA
In its Decision [21] dated September 30, 2020, the CA partly granted
petitioners' appeal. Although the CA affirmed the RTC's findings that petitioners
failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of banking institutions and that the
doctrine of apparent authority is not applicable in the instant case, the CA held that
Seastres is guilty of contributory negligence and therefore should be made to shoulder
part of the damages she sustained, [22] particularly forty percent (40%) of the total
liability, while petitioners should be accountable for the remaining sixty percent
(60%). [23]
The CA also modified the amount of actual damages on the ground that
Seastres was not able to formally offer the BDO Withdrawal Slip dated July 2, 2008
in the amount of P646,000.00. Thus, the said amount should be reduced from the total
amount of actual damages. [24] Further, the CA held that the award of moral damages
and attorney's fees in favor of Seastres should be deleted since there is neither basis
nor any legal, factual or equitable justification for such awards. [25]
The dispositive portion of the Decision dated September 30, 2020 states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision
dated March 10, 2017 issued by the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, Branch 70, Taguig City, in Civil Case No. 72161-TG, is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as follows:
[Petitioners] Banco de Oro, Vivian Duldulao, and
Christine Nakanishi are jointly and severally liable to
[respondent] Liza A. Seastres [for] actual damages in the
 Page 6 of 29

amount of P4,453,163.75. The award of moral damages and

attorney's fees are hereby deleted. Costs of suit to be borne by
the parties.
SO ORDERED. [26]
Both petitioners and Seastres moved for reconsideration, but both were denied
by the CA in a Resolution [27] dated February 16, 2021.
Thereafter, BDO, Duldulao and Nakanishi filed this present Petition. Seastres,
on the other hand, no longer sought a review.
Issues
The issues presented before the Court are: (a) whether the CA correctly found
that petitioners failed to exercise the diligence expected from banking institutions in
handling Seastres' bank accounts; and (b) if so, whether Seastres can be found guilty
of contributory negligence in handling her personal bank accounts, which would
justify the reduction of petitioners' total liability to Seastres.
TCAScE

The Court's Ruling

The Petition is without merit.
At the outset, the Court is not a trier of facts. Cases which would require a re-
evaluation of the evidence are inappropriate under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court since
the jurisdiction of the Court is limited only to errors of law. [28] However, this rule
admits of exceptions, such as: (1) where the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely
on speculation, surmise, and conjectures; (2) where the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) where the judgment is
based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are premised on the
absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. [29]
Here, the CA's finding that Seastres is liable for 40% of the total amount of
actual damages on the finding of contributory negligence is clearly based on a
misapprehension of facts. Upon an exhaustive review of the records, the Court is
compelled to yield to the factual findings made by the trial court that BDO totally
failed to comply with its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in taking care of
Seastres' bank accounts. For this, BDO should be liable for the full amount of the
actual damages suffered by Seastres.
Banks are expected and required to
exercise extraordinary diligence in
their business dealings, particularly
in handling their clients' accounts
Based on current jurisprudence, banks are required to exercise the highest
standard of diligence. As explained in Philippine Commercial International Bank v.
Court of Appeals, [30] the banking business is one affected with public interest so that
banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence: [31]
 Page 7 of 29

Time and again, we have stressed that banking business is so

impressed with public interest where the trust and confidence of the public in
general is of paramount importance such that the appropriate standard of
diligence must be very high, if not the highest, degree of diligence. A bank's
liability as obligor is not merely vicarious but primary, wherein the defense of
exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees is
of no moment.
Banks handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos. By the
very nature of their work the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness
expected of their employees and officials is far greater than those of ordinary
clerks and employees. Banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of
diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. [32]
Taking into consideration the fiduciary nature of a bank's relationship with its
depositors, banks are duty bound to treat the accounts of their clients with the highest
degree of care. Thus, in Simex International (Manila), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [33]
the Court emphatically held: ICHDca

In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with
the utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos
or of millions. The bank must record every single transaction accurately,
down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be done if
the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money the depositor
can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to
whomever he directs. A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the dishonor
of a check without good reason, can cause the depositor not a little
embarrassment if not also financial loss and perhaps even civil and criminal
litigation. [34]
As a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its
functions, banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with
meticulous care always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. [35]
Here, BDO was duty bound to exercise the highest degree of diligence in
handling Seastres' bank accounts and in ascertaining that the signatures in the subject
withdrawal slips and manager's checks were made by Seastres and not by anybody
else.
The records show, however, that BDO did not practice the highest degree of
diligence required of it in taking care of Seastres' bank accounts.
Primarily, BDO actually failed to comply with its own rules and regulations
regarding withdrawals made through a representative. Specifically, BDO allowed
Benaje to personally transact the unauthorized withdrawals without confirming from
Seastres the authority of Benaje and without the latter accomplishing the authority for
withdrawal through representative as indicated in the subject withdrawal slips. [36]
Records also show that the spaces provided for withdrawal through representative in
the subject withdrawal slips were not filled out at all, [37] to wit:
 Page 8 of 29

Q Ms. Witness, you will agree with me that it is the rule of BDO that all
withdrawals must be made by depositor by properly filling-out a
withdrawal slip and presenting it together with the passbook to the bank
teller?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q You will also agree with me that withdrawals made by a person other than the
depositor himself may be allowed only upon the depositor's written
authorization which shall be verified by the bank teller?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And you will also agree with me that such written authorization is written on
the withdrawal slip itself on the space provided for that purpose?
A Yes, Ma'am. TAIaHE

Q By the way, Ms. Witness, am I also correct to state that any withdrawal
transactions made by representatives, is it not that x x x the policy of the
BDO that the withdrawal must first be confirmed with the depositor
before the money will be administered to the representative?
A Yes[,] that is the best effort of the bank.
Q Let's go back to your Exhibits "7" to "11". For September 18, 2008, you will
agree with me that BDO Ayala Rufino Branch allowed Annabelle
Benaje to withdraw the amount of One Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos
(PhP180,000.00) from the personal savings account of Ms. Sea[s]tres
despite that (sic) the authorization provided for that purpose was
not filled-up (sic)?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And this withdrawal was not also confirmed with Ms. Liza Sea[s]tres?
A To my knowledge, they were confirmed.
Q There was confirmation with Ms. Sea[s]tres?
A Yes.
Q Do you have proof of that?
A No.
Q In your Exhibit "A", you will also agree with me that Ms. Annabelle Benaje
was allowed to withdraw the amount of Three [Hundred] Forty-Five
Thousand Pesos (PhP345,000.00) from the personal savings account of
Liza Sea[s]tres despite that (sic) no written authorization was filled-
out in this particular withdrawal slip?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And this withdrawal transaction was not confirmed also, will you agree with
me, with Ms. Liza Sea[s]tres?
 Page 9 of 29

A No. Can I say because this were transact (sic), for assess by other (sic), but to
my knowledge they were confirmed with Ms. Sea[s]tres.
Q Do you have proof that there was confirmation?
A None.
Q For your Exhibit "9", you will also agree with me that on August 29, 2008,
Ms. Annabelle Benaje, herself was allowed to withdraw the amount of
Three Hundred Eighty-One Thousand from the personal savings account
of Liza A. Sea[s]tres despite the fact that the authorization form
provided on the withdrawal slip was not filled-up (sic)?
A Yes.
Q And this was also confirmed with —
A Yes, to my knowledge also confirmed by the officers. caITAC

xxx xxx xxx

Q For Exhibit "10", you will also agree with me that on July 24, 2008, Ms.
Annabelle Benaje was allowed to withdraw in the amount of Five
Hundred Three Thousand Pesos (PhP503,000.00) from the personal
account of Ms. Liza A. Sea[s]tres despite the fact that the
authorization form provided on the withdrawal slip was not filled-
up (sic)?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And this was confirmed?
A To my knowledge, yes.
Q But no proof?
A No proof.
Q And lastly, for your Exhibit "11", you will also agree with me that on
September 12, 2008, Ms. Annabelle Benaje [was again] allowed to
withdraw in the amount of Two Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Six
Hundred from the personal account of Ms. Liza A. Sea[s]tres despite
the fact that the authorization provided for that purpose on the
withdrawal slip was not also filled-up (sic)?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And to your knowledge again, there was confirmation?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q But no proof?
A Yes, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. ROXAS —
 Page 10 of 29

By the way, Ms. Witness, let's refer to your Exhibit "35"[,] the rules and
regulations of BDO with regard to opening of accounts, withdrawals,
and deposits. You mentioned in your Judicial Affidavit, Ms. Witness,
that the bank allowed Ms. Annabelle Benaje to withdraw from the
personal savings account of Ms. Liza Sea[s]tres despite the fact that
authorization was not provided, [and] was not properly filled-up
(sic) because of practice. Do you affirm this?
THE WITNESS —
Yes, Ma'am. AcICHD

Q I am showing to you, can you refer to your Exhibit "35"[,] which is one of the
documents you have presented and identified. Can you please point out
to the Honorable Court which part of the regulations and policies of
BDO that [that] practice is allowed in withdrawal transactions? The
practice that you were referring to, Ms. Witness.
A It is not stated here, Ma'am. [38] (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear from the foregoing testimony of Duldulao, that had it not been for
BDO's failure to abide by its own rules and regulations, the unauthorized transactions
from Seastres' bank account would not have happened.
As regards the subject withdrawal slips bearing the alleged signature of
Seastres, BDO was also negligent when it still processed the transactions even if it
was Seastres' representative Benaje, and not Seastres, who presented the subject
withdrawal slips. As earlier discussed, there was no proof of authority, even a
confirmation, from Seastres that Benaje was her authorized representative.
It should be noted that the Authorization of Account Name Liza A. Seastres
(Exhibit "24" [39] of the records), which was claimed by petitioners to be the alleged
authorization from Seastres in favor of Benaje, plainly shows that the power of
Seastres' authorized representative is only to make deposits, account inquiry, pick up
bank statements, print outs, checkbooks and other documents pertinent to Seastres'
accounts. [40] There is absolutely nothing in the authorization which authorized
Benaje to make any withdrawals. The Authorization of Account Name Liza A.
Seastres reads:

CCOUNT NAME : LIZA A. SEASTRES

CCOUNT NUMBER/S : ________________

AUTHORIZATION
The following representative/s whose signature appears below is/are hereby
authorized to transact business with you but limited only to making deposits,
 Page 11 of 29

account inquiry, pick up bank statements, print outs, checkbooks and other
documents pertinent to my/our deposit accounts or fund placements with you
and other transactions.
This authority is to remain in full force and in effect until revoked by me/us in
writing.HESIcT

AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES

LIZA A. SEASTRES [signature]

xxx xxx xxx

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES

NAMES SIGNATURES

ANNABELLE N. BENAJE [signature]

xxx xxx xxx [41]

Moreover, BDO violated its contractual duty and obligation to Seastres by
allowing the encashment of the subject manager's checks despite the fact that the
payee in the said checks was Seastres, but the person encashing the same was Benaje.
This lapse on the part of BDO was emphasized in the testimony of Nakanishi:
Q Ms. Witness, will you agree with me that BDO has this particular policy on
checks that only if the check is in the name of a specific payee, only
that specific payee is authorized or allowed to encash the said check
including the manager's check?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q In other words, Ms. Witness, am I correct to say that in the event that a
check, including a manager's check, if it's in the name of a specific
payee, it cannot, in any way, be encashed by another person or a
representative?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q Let's go to your attachments, Ms. Witness, of your Judicial Affidavit. You
attached hereof as Exhibits "12", "13", and "14", the manager's check
(sic). For Exhibit "12", Ms. Witness, am I correct to say that since Ms.
Liza Aguilar is the payee of this manager's check dated May
23,2008, it is only Ms. Liza Aguilar who is able or allowed to encash
this manager's check and no other?
 Page 12 of 29

A Yes, Ma'am.
Q Am I correct to say, Ms. Witness, that for your Judicial Affidavit, if I
understand it right, that this manager's check also was encashed by
Ms. Annabelle Benaje?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q For this Exhibit "13", manager's check dated June 23, 2008, since the payee
of this particular manager's check is also Ms. Liza M. Aguilar, am I
also correct to say that it should have been Liza Aguilar only that is
allowed to have encashed this particular manager's check?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And no other?
A These are the procedures.
Q Am I correct to say, Ms. Witness, if I understand your Judicial Affidavit,
[that] this particular manager's check was also encashed by Ms.
Annabelle Benaje?
A Yes, Ma'am. AScHCD

Q And for this manager's check dated April 8, 2008 which is marked as Exhibit
"14", since it is also in the name of Liza M. Aguilar as the payee, am
I also correct to say that it should have been only Liza Aguilar that
could have encashed this manager's check?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And if I also understand it right from your Judicial Affidavit, am I correct
also to state that this particular manager's check also was encashed
by Ms. Annabelle Benaje?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q x x x You have identified in your answer No. 34 Equitable PCI Bank
authorization form. Am I correct to say, Ms. Witness, that this Equitable
PCI Bank authorization form[,] which has been previously marked as
Exhibit "21"[,] is not binding insofar as BDO is concerned?
A Yes.
Q You also identified Exhibit "24", Ms. Witness, in your Judicial Affidavit,
which is an authorization. Please go over the same. Am I correct to say,
Ms. Witness, that this Exhibit "24", [the] authorization, pertains only to
safety deposit box? Excuse me, excuse me. Am I correct to say that this
authorization does not include withdrawals?
A Yes.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And may I also know, Ms. Witness, if you know, what is the authority of the
bank to have made this transfer to this particular bank account number?
 Page 13 of 29

A It is being instructed by client to transfer.

Q Where is the instruction, Ms. Witness, if you have it?
A As I have said, this is what we are doing as a procedure. HSAcaE

Q Am I correct to say that it was just a presumption on your part that this
particular 208, that the transfer to bank account No. 208004813 was
to be made?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q Would you agree with me that there was no written authorization made
by Liza Aguilar or Liza Seastres to make this transfer?
A Yes, as far as I can remember.
Q Am I also correct to say, M[s]. Witness, that for Exhibit "28", the transfer like
(sic) to the same bank account number, am I correct to say that Ms.
Liza Seastres likewise has not executed any written authorization to
make such transfer?
A Yes, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And also with regard to encashment, Ms. Witness, am I also correct to say
that there is no written authorization whatsoever executed by Ms.
Liza Seastres or Liza Aguilar in favor of Annabelle Benaje to make
[a] withdrawal transaction with BDO?
A Yes, Ma'am. [42] (Emphasis supplied)
BDO had existing rules and regulations for the withdrawal and encashment of
checks through a representative. Based on the foregoing testimony, these were not
followed at all. To be sure, the procedure for withdrawal and encashment by a
representative is a very basic and uncomplicated banking procedure. Safeguards are
imbedded in BDO's procedures for the protection of the depositor and payee.
Accordingly, BDO's blatant disregard of its own procedures, as admitted by BDO's
own officers, constitutes a clear violation of the bank's fiduciary obligation to its
depositor and account holder.
Seastres is not guilty of contributory
negligence
Considering that the bank itself is the one who violated its own rules, the Court
rules that Seastres is not guilty of any contributory negligence and should not be made
to shoulder any liability.
While it is true that Seastres dealt with the bank through Benaje, this cannot be
considered contributory negligence because she did so within the parameters set by
BDO itself in transactions through a representative. Again, Exhibit "24" of the
records, the alleged authorization from Seastres in favor of Benaje, shows the limited
 Page 14 of 29

powers of Benaje as Seastres' authorized representative — i.e., Benaje was allowed

only to make deposits, account inquiry, pick up bank statements, print outs,
checkbooks and other documents pertinent to Seastres' accounts. [43] Nothing in the
authorization declared that Benaje was authorized to make any withdrawals.
Thus, when BDO violated its own procedures, and totally disregarded the
limits of Benaje's authority as representative of Seastres, then it is evident that this
was done to accommodate Benaje — and contrary to the interests of its depositor,
Seastres, to whom it owed the fiduciary duty of treating her accounts with the highest
degree of care. Stated differently, the "practice" adverted to by BDO of transacting
with Seastres through Benaje [44] was a practice it had with Benaje, not Seastres. This
"practice" does not detract from or diminish the obligation of BDO to exercise
extraordinary diligence in taking care of Seastres' accounts.
Simply put, BDO should not have allowed such "practice" that was violative of
its own rules and procedures. SDHTEC

To be sure, what the records show is Seastres' vigilance. After being informed
by her company's accountant, Ms. Zablan, regarding the suspicious withdrawals,
Seastres immediately conducted an investigation on her bank accounts and caused the
production of new passbooks and account print outs when Benaje, as the Chief
Operating Officer of Las Management, failed to promptly deliver the passbooks as
demanded by Seastres. [45]
BDO is liable to Seastres in the
full amount of P7,421,939.59
In assailing the CA Decision, petitioners argue that the actual damages
awarded by the CA in the amount of P7,421,939.59 should be further reduced because
Seastres failed to prove forgery in the subject withdrawal slips and manager's checks.
[46] According to petitioners, Jennifer B. Dominguez (Dominguez), the National
Bureau of Investigation Expert Witness who examined the signatures on the subject
withdrawal slips and manager's checks, neither assessed nor rendered an opinion with
regard to Seastres' signatures on four (4) out of the eleven (11) subject withdrawal
slips. [47] Moreover, the testimony of Dominguez also did not cover any of the three
(3) subject manager's checks. [48] Thus, the total amount of P5,574,139.59
representing the value of the unexamined subject withdrawal slips and manager's
checks should be deducted from the actual damages of P7,421,939.59. Petitioners
posit that without the examination and assessment on the genuineness of Seastres'
signatures on the four (4) subject withdrawal slips and three (3) manager's checks,
there is no credible evidence to prove Seastres' claim that her signatures thereon were
forged. [49]
The Court is not convinced.
As pointed out by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh during the Court
deliberations, Seastres' failure to prove the forgery of her signature on the subject
 Page 15 of 29

withdrawal slips and manager's checks is irrelevant to the negligence of BDO in

fulfilling its obligations to Seastres as its depositor.
To reiterate, banks are required to exercise the highest degree of diligence,
along with high standards of integrity and performance in view of its significant role
in commercial transactions. [50] Since their business and industry are imbued with
public interest, banks are required to exercise extraordinary diligence in handling their
transactions. [51] Anything that falls short of this required standard of care constitutes
negligence in the performance of the banks' obligations to their depositors.
As previously discussed, the negligence of BDO in handling Seastres' accounts
is undisputed. Accordingly, the bank should be held liable for the damages that
Seastres incurred without regard to whether Seastres proved that her signature was
forged. Based on the records, the negligence of BDO lies not in the forgery of
Seastres' signature but on the fact that the bank allowed withdrawals on Seastres'
account even though such withdrawals were made in violation of its own rules and
regulations. The negligence in this case consists not in allowing the withdrawals by
virtue of a forged signature, but in acceding to such withdrawals despite being
violative of the bank's own policies and procedures. EcTCAD

Stated differently, even assuming that the signatures of Seastres on the subject
withdrawal slips and manager's checks were genuine, these documents could still not
have been used by Benaje to withdraw the amounts indicated therein without Seastres'
written authorization because to allow Benaje to do such withdrawals was against the
policies of the bank.
Moreover, Article 1207 of the Civil Code states that, "x x x [t]here is a solidary
liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of
the obligation requires solidarity." An examination of the rulings of the lower courts
show that Duldulao and Nakanishi, as bank employees, were held liable to Seastres as
joint tortfeasors. However, based on the facts, it is evident that what BDO breached
was its contractual obligations to Seastres by its own failure to follow its own rules.
Accordingly, the Court finds it proper to hold BDO solely liable to Seastres. Having
BDO's contractual breach as the basis for liability, Duldulao and Nakanishi, who are
merely employees or agents of BDO, should not be held jointly and severally liable to
Seastres.
In light of the foregoing, the liability of BDO should not be reduced in spite of
Seastres' failure to establish the forgery of her signature on the subject withdrawal
slips and the manager's checks. BDO is liable to Seastres in the full amount of
P7,421,939.59, broken down as follows: acEHCD

BDO Withdrawal Slips Amount

DO Withdrawal Slip dated August 1, 2008 (Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "1") P128,000.
 Page 16 of 29

DO Withdrawal Slip dated May 9, 2008 (Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "2") P130,000.

DO Withdrawal Slip dated July 11, 2008 (Exhibit "C" and Exhibit "3") P437,200.

DO Withdrawal Slip dated July 16, 2008 (Exhibit "D" and Exhibit "4") P282,000.

DO Withdrawal Slip dated May 2, 2008 (Exhibit "F" and Exhibit "6") P300,000.

DO Withdrawal Slip dated September 18, 2008 (Exhibit "G" and Exhibit "7") P180,000.

DO Withdrawal Slip dated September 9, 2008 (Exhibit "H" and Exhibit "8") P345,000.

DO Withdrawal Slip dated August 29, 2008 (Exhibit "I" and Exhibit "9") P381,000.

DO Withdrawal Slip dated July 24, 2008 (Exhibit "J" and Exhibit "10") P503,000.

DO Withdrawal Slip dated September 12, 2008 (Exhibit "K" and Exhibit "11") P222,600.

Manager's Checks Amount

anager's Check No. 0001466 dated May 23, 2008 (Exhibit "L" and Exhibit "12") P2,500,000.

anager's Check No. 0001549 dated June 23, 2008 (Exhibit "M" and Exhibit "13") P508,072.

anager's Check No. 0001346 dated April 8, 2008 (Exhibit "N" and Exhibit "14") P1,505,066.67 [5

BDO is liable to Seastres for moral

damages and attorney's fees
The Court also finds it proper to reinstate the award of moral damages in favor
of Seastres.
Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code, "[w]illful 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 the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith." In Philippine
National Bank v. Vila, [53] the Court held that "moral damages are not awarded to
penalize the defendant but to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries he may have
suffered. 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." [54]
 Page 17 of 29

Here, the wanton and repeated disregard by BDO of its own bank rules and
procedures, which by their very nature are basic and primary, constitutes bad faith on
its part. Clearly, BDO breached its contractual obligations to Seastres when it failed to
exercise the highest degree of diligence required of banks. The lack of the required
care and caution allowed the unauthorized withdrawals of huge amounts from
Seastres' account without her consent and to the latter's detriment and loss. [55]
Hence, the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages is warranted.
In addition, the Court affirms the finding of the trial court that the award of
attorney's fees is proper since Seastres was compelled to engage the services of a
lawyer and incurred expenses to protect her interest.
Considering that the culpability of BDO was already established because of its
failure to exercise extraordinary diligence in handling Seastres' accounts, and that the
damages and attorney's fees awarded to Seastres is based on prevailing jurisprudence,
the Court finds that the other issues raised in the Petition need not be belabored.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the instant Petition and AFFIRMS with
MODIFICATION the Decision dated September 30, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 110142. Petitioner Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. is solely
liable to respondent Liza A. Seastres for: AaCTcI

a. The full amount of Seven Million Four Hundred Twenty-One Thousand

Nine Hundred Thirty-Nine Pesos and Fifty-Nine Centavos
(P7,421,939.59) as actual damages, with interest of six percent (6%) per
annum from March 3, 2009 or the date when extrajudicial demand was
made until finality of judgment;
b. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages;
c. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as attorney's fees; and
d. Costs of suit. AIDSTE

The amount of the aforementioned damages shall earn legal interest of six
percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Inting and Singh, JJ., concur.
Gaerlan, J., with dissenting opinion.
Dimaampao, J., I join J. Gaerlan's dissent.
Separate Opinions
GAERLAN, J., dissenting:

I disagree with the conclusion of the ponencia that Liza A. Seastres (Seastres)
was not guilty of contributory negligence.
 Page 18 of 29

I adhere to the settled doctrine that banks assume a degree of prudence and
diligence higher than that of a good father of a family, because their business is
imbued with public interest and is inherently fiduciary. Thus, banks have the
obligation to treat the accounts of their clients meticulously and with the highest
degree of care. [1]
As earlier settled, Banco de Oro Universal Bank (BDO), through its employees
Vivian Duldulao (Duldulao) and Christina Nakanishi (Nakanishi) (collectively,
petitioners), were negligent on account of their failure to properly handle Seastres'
accounts. This is shown in the following established facts:
First, BDO failed to comply with its own rules and regulations
regarding withdrawal through a representative. It allowed the withdrawals
despite the fact that it was Benaje who made the same and without Seastres
accomplishing the authority for withdrawal through a representative as
indicated in the said forms.
Second, regarding the withdrawal slips bearing the signature of
Seastres, and indicating therein that the same slips were duly accomplished by
Seastres herself, BDO still processed the transaction even if it was her
representative Benaje, and not Seastres, who presented the same.
Third, BDO allowed the encashment of the manager's checks despite
the fact that the payee in the said checks is Seastres, but the person encashing
the same is Benaje. [2]cSEDTC

Seastres, however, was guilty of contributory negligence.

Contributory negligence is defined as the conduct on the part of the injured
party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. [3] It is an act or
omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which,
concurring with the defendant's negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. [4]
Seastres entrusted all her banking transactions to Anabelle Benaje (Benaje).
This is a fact. She gave full access to her accounts, gave Benaje her passbooks, and
allowed her to transact with the banks on her behalf. [5] While the authorization
submitted to petitioners shows limited power granted in favor of Benaje, i.e., Benaje
was only allowed to make deposits, account inquiry, pick up bank statements, print
outs, checkbooks, and other documents pertinent to Seastres' accounts, the records of
the case, however, show otherwise. [6] It is evident that it became an established
practice between petitioners and Seastres that all transactions made by Benaje on
behalf of Seastres were with Seastres' full consent and authority. [7]
This is proven by the established fact that way before Benaje committed the
irregular withdrawals from Seastres' account and encashment of several manager's
checks, Benaje had been representing Seastres in all transactions with petitioners. The
respective Judicial Affidavits of Nakanishi, Fajardo, Duldulao, and Paglinawan are
consistent, thus:
 Page 19 of 29

Nakanishi
Q22: You said that Liza (Plaintiff) has been your long time client, even when
you are still with Equitable PCI Bank. How often did you see Liza at the
bank when you were still with Equitable PCI Bank Rufino Branch?
A22: Very rarely, maybe once or twice during the entire time I was assigned to
that Branch.
Q23: What about when you transferred to BDO Ayala Avenue — People
Support Branch, how often did you see Liza transact?
A23: I do not remember seeing her there.
Q24: You previously stated that you have a close relationship with Liza but you
also said that you seldom see her at Equitable PCI Bank and never saw
her at BDO Ayala Avenue — People Support Branch, how did you
establish a close relationship with Liza?
A24: Although I don't get to see Liza at the bank premises, I sometimes go to
the office of her company, Las Management, where Liza is the
President. Because of those visits. we developed a close relationship. HTcADC

xxx xxx xxx

Q26: You said that you do not remember seeing Liza make transaction with the
bank, how does she make the transactions if she is not physically present
in the bank?
A26: Liza always transacts through Ms. Annabelle N. Benaje ("Arm").
Fajardo
Q20: How did you know that she (Benaje) is the authorized and trusted
representative of Plaintiff?
A20: When I started working at the Branch, I was acquainted with such fact the
moment the account of Plaintiff was introduced to me. It was always
Ms. Benaje who transacted on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff herself
confirmed that she trusted defendant Annabelle N. Benaje when I and
other BDO employees helped her reconcile her accounts later, pursuant
to her request, when Plaintiff allegedly discovered the subject
transactions that she disputes in this case.
Q21: How often did defendant Annabelle N. Benaje transact on behalf of
Plaintiff?
A21: All the time. As far as I remember, before Plaintiff questioned the alleged
unauthorized transactions, all transaction relating to Plaintiff's accounts
were made by Ms. Benaje on her behalf.
Duldulao
Q26: How did you know that Ms. Benaje is a very close and trusted friend of
Plaintiff?
 Page 20 of 29

A26: When I star[t]ed working at the Branch, Plaintiff was already a valued
client. I was introduced to Ms. Benaje who, I was advised and, as I later
saw, almost always transacted on behalf of Plaintiff.
Q27: Why else do you know that Benaje is a very close and trusted friend of
Plaintiff?
A27: Later, when I was finally introduced to Plaintiff, she confirmed this. Also,
when the alleged disputed withdrawals were discovered, and I and other
BDO employees helped Plaintiff reconcile her accounts pursuant to her
request, Plaintiff again mentioned that she had trusted Ms. Benaje.
Paglinawan
Q28: You also said that Ms. Benaje is the authorized representative of Plaintiff
for both her personal and company accounts, how did you know this?
A28: As I have mentioned earlier, Ms. Benaje has been the one transacting on
behalf of Plaintiff. In fact, prior to the disputed transactions, I never saw
Ms. Seastres transact with the bank directly. It was always Ms. Benaje
who transacted on Plaintiffs behalf not only with respect to her personal
accounts, but also with respect to the bank accounts of her company Las
Management, and her joint accounts with other persons. [8] ETHIDa

During cross-examination, Nakanishi further testified that it has been the

practice of Benaje to transact with petitioners on behalf of Seastres for the past 12
years, to wit:
Q: Why then did the bank allow the representative, Annabelle Benaje, process
this withdrawal slips despite the fact that the space for authorization was
not filled-up?
A: It has been the practice of Anabelle [Benaje] and Liza Seastres to do such
transaction for the past twelve years when they were banking with
Equitable PCI Bank because I was also a branch head of Rufino Ayala.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And, however, in this case, for the disputed manager's checks, although
plaintiff is the payee of these checks, the bank allowed Anabelle Benaje
to encash them?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Why did the bank allowed the encashment of these checks by Anabelle
Benaje?
A: As I have said, in accordance being stated in my Judicial Affidavit, it was
really the practice of Annabelle Benaje and Liza Seastres because she
has been a trusted person of Liza Seastres. [9]
Furthermore, Benaje's full authority to represent Seastres was in full display
whenever BDO's tellers and branch officers made confirmatory calls to Seastres'
office regarding transactions involving a large amount of money. In all these
 Page 21 of 29

instances, the calls were always referred to Benaje for the latter to make the
confirmation. [10] Likewise, when the bank employees tried to get confirmation from
Seastres after withdrawals had been processed, even Seastres' employees would
always forward the call to Benaje for confirmation. [11]
Clearly, Benaje's actual authority and power to transact with petitioners on
behalf of Seastres is more than what the authorization submitted to petitioners grants
her.
While petitioners should not have allowed this kind of practice, it could have
been prevented had Seastres been more hands-on with her finances. Not that she
should herself do all these banking transactions, but she should have, at the very least,
made sure that Benaje acted within the authority granted her from the very start. By
allowing her to go beyond the authority granted her, Seastres has given Benaje full
authority over all her bank accounts. It is, therefore, beyond cavil that Seastres failed
to observe caution in giving Benaje full trust which led her to be swindled. ATICcS

Moreover, as found by the CA, Seastres regularly receives her bank statements.
Had she only checked the statements, she could have easily discovered Benaje's
unauthorized transactions and prevented her from further making unauthorized
transactions and robbing her of her hard-earned money. This, however, was not the
case herein. She failed to check her bank statements and it was only when Ms. Nella
Zablan called Seastres' attention regarding suspicious transactions on her account that
she investigated and made the necessary vigilance to protect her finances. Again, this
only shows that she gave Benaje her full trust and confidence to such an extent that
she no longer finds it necessary to check and review her bank statements.
It bears stressing at this point that even Seastres admitted giving Benaje her full
trust and confidence. In her Complaint-Affidavit filed against Benaje for Falsification
of Commercial Document, Seastres admitted:
5. As the COO of the firm, the Respondent (Benaje) enjoys my trust and
confidence to the point that she could enter my office freely, she can
gain access with the Firm's financial records and is privy to the Firm's
account and my personal accounts in the bank; [12]
Seastres' actions and/or omissions prior to and immediately before the
discovery of the irregularities clearly show want of ordinary care which, concurring
with the petitioners' negligence, is the proximate cause of the damages she incurred.
She failed to exercise due diligence to protect her very own welfare. This is the very
definition of contributory negligence. Verily, if only Seastres had exercised due
diligence which is required of her, this could not have happened. If she did not give
full trust and confidence to Benaje, this could have been prevented. Needless to state,
Seastres' credulousness is also blameworthy.
It is worth noting of the Court's pronouncement in the case of Philippine
National Bank v. Spouses Cheah [13] which, though not on all fours with the case,
 Page 22 of 29

may be applied analogously herein. In that case, the Court ruled that while Philippine
National Bank's act of releasing the proceeds of the check prior to the lapse of the 15-
day clearing period was the proximate cause of the loss, it found Spouses Cheah
guilty of contributory negligence after they gave their full trust in accommodating a
complete stranger, which led them to be swindled. [14]
The CA is, therefore, correct when it ruled that Seastres must shoulder 40% of
the actual damages, and petitioners must pay the remaining 60%. This is pursuant to
the ruling in a series of cases [15] where the 60-40 ratio was adopted.
I further disagree with the ponencia that BDO is liable to Seastres in the full
amount of P7,421,939.59. [16] HEITAD

In the ponencia, it is pointed out that Seastres' failure to prove the forgery of
her signatures on the subject withdrawal slips and manager's checks is irrelevant to
the negligence of BDO in fulfilling its obligations to Seastres as its depositor. [17]
Otherwise stated, even assuming that the signatures of Seastres appearing on the
subject withdrawal slips and manager's checks were genuine, these documents could
still not have been used by Benaje to withdraw the amounts indicated therein without
written authorization from Seastres because to allow Benaje to do such withdrawals
was against the policies of the bank. This, however, is only true if Seastres was not
guilty of contributory negligence.
Needless to state, the ponencia is premised on the notion that only petitioners
are grossly negligent; and that Seastres was not guilty of contributory negligence. [18]
However, as I have above discussed, though petitioners were negligent in their
dealing with Seastres' bank accounts, Seastres was also guilty of contributory
negligence after she gave her full trust and confidence to Benaje, which proved to be
prejudicial to her. Thus, there is a need to prove the alleged forgery committed by
Benaje. Otherwise, it cannot be said that these transactions were unauthorized and that
Seastres was prejudiced by these transactions.
In the instant case, to prove that the transactions were unauthorized, hence,
illegal, Seastres sought the expertise of Jennifer B. Dominguez (Dominguez), a
National Bureau of Investigation document examiner. She examined the alleged
signatures of Seastres on several withdrawal slips. After which, Dominguez
concluded that these signatures were all just facsimile signature stamps, hence, not
genuine. Her findings were contained in two document reports: (i) Questioned
Document Report No. 392-811 (A), [19] and (ii) Questioned Document Report No.
392-811 (B). [20] Based on Dominguez's Judicial Affidavit [21] and these document
reports, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the CA found that Seastres' signatures on
the withdrawal slips and the dorsal portion of the manager's checks were all forged;
hence, Seastres did not authorize the transactions.
 Page 23 of 29

However, the records reveal that not all of the withdrawal slips, and not even
one of the manager's checks were actually evaluated by Dominguez for possible
forgery.
Of the 10 withdrawal slips offered as evidence, only seven were examined by
Dominguez. Based on her reports, [22] she examined:

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated July 11, 2008 P437,200.

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated July 16, 2008 P282,000.

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated September 18, 2008 P180,000.

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated September 9, 2008 P345,000.

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated August 29, 2008 P381,000.

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated July 24, 2008 P503,000.

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated September 12, 2008 P222,600.

Dominguez, however, failed to examine these withdrawal slips: DETACa

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated August 1, 2008 P128,000.

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated May 9, 2008 P130,000.

nco de Oro Withdrawal slip dated May 2, 2008 P300,000.00 [2

Moreover, the signatures on the dorsal portion of the manager's checks which
Benaje were able to encash were not subjected to scrutiny. These manager's checks
and their corresponding amounts are as follows:

anager's Check No. 0001466 dated May 23, 2008 P2,500,000.

anager's Check No. 0001549 dated June 23, 2008 P508,072.

anager's Check No. 0001346 dated April 8, 2008 P1,505,066.

 Page 24 of 29

The total amount corresponding to these unexamined withdrawal slips and

manager's checks is P5,071,139.59 (P558,000.00-withdrawal slips PLUS
P4,513,139.59-manager's checks). This amount should be deducted from the total
amount awarded by the RTC, as modified by the CA, because without Dominguez's
examination and assessment of Seastres' alleged signatures thereon, there is no
credible evidence that her signatures were indeed forged.
Settled is the rule that forgery cannot be presumed, and must be proved by
clear, positive and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging
forgery. [24] Accordingly, it was incumbent upon Seastres to prove the fact of
forgery.
As discussed above, however, except for the signatures appearing on the seven
withdrawal slips which were proven by an expert witness to be a mere forgery,
Seastres failed to prove that her signatures on the manager's checks and the three
remaining withdrawal slips were forged. Seastres' testimony that her signatures
appearing on these unexamined withdrawal slips and manager's checks were forged,
standing alone, is not credible. Worse, no other witnesses, expert or not, testified on
her allegation of forgery. Without any clear and convincing proof, this allegation
remains as such, a mere allegation that is bare and self-serving. It bears stressing that
mere allegations are not legally compelling unless proved. [25]
In addition, Seastres failed to make even a bare denial of the genuineness of
her signatures appearing on the Investment Management Account (IMA) forms and
application forms for the issuance of managers' checks.
Petitioners offered as evidence IMA Forms [26] and application forms [27] for
the issuance of manager's checks signed by Seastres (signing in her maiden name —
Liza Aguilar). The IMA forms were offered as evidence to prove that Seastres
consented to the transaction and duly authorized the same. [28] Meanwhile, the
application forms for the issuance of manager's checks were offered as evidence to
prove that Seastres acknowledged the receipt of the proceeds of the IMA Form and
consented to the transaction, and duly authorized the same. [29] CAIHTE

By her failure to deny and refute the genuineness of her signatures appearing
thereon, she impliedly admitted that she executed these forms, authorized these
transactions, and received the proceeds thereof. This further bolsters her non-
entitlement to the recovery of the amounts covered by these manager's checks.
It is important to note that her averment that her signatures on these documents
were forged, standing alone, lacks credibility considering that Seastres even admitted
during her meeting with the officers and personnel of the bank after the discovery of
the alleged unauthorized transaction, that she could not identify with certainty which
of these transactions were indeed unauthorized. [30] Moreover, after the investigation
conducted by BDO, it was concluded that the signatures on the questioned documents
 Page 25 of 29

were genuine. [31] Furthermore, the need to prove forgery on the questioned
withdrawal slips and checks arises on account of the dismissal of the criminal
complaint for qualified theft and falsification of commercial documents against
Benaje due to lack of probable cause as the signatures thereon appeared to be genuine.
[32]
It bears stressing that if her signatures were indeed forged, Seastres could have
easily proven them as fake as what she had done in the other withdrawal slips and
manager's checks where her signatures appeared.
Corollarily, if I were to adhere to the ponencia, then how can the Court know if
the transactions made by Benaje, allegedly on behalf of Seastres, were indeed
unauthorized if her signatures appearing on the questioned withdrawal slips and
checks were not proven to be mere forgeries? How can the Court know if Seastres
was indeed prejudiced by these transactions? Otherwise stated, since there is no
evidence to prove that Seastres' signatures thereon were forged, the Court cannot say,
for sure, that the transactions involving these withdrawal slips and manager's checks
were without her consent and authority and that she was prejudiced by these
transactions.
I, therefore, conclude that the amount of actual damages to be awarded to
Seastres needs to be modified. From the total amount of P7,421,939.59 awarded by
the CA, the amount of P5,071,139.59, corresponding to the total amount of the
unexamined withdrawal slips and manager's checks, should be deducted on account of
Seastres' failure to prove that her signatures thereon appearing were not genuine.
Accordingly, Seastres is entitled to actual damages in the amount of P2,350,800.00.
Of the said amount, petitioners should pay 60% or the amount of P1,410,480.00. On
the other hand, Seastres, on account of her contributory negligence, should shoulder
the remaining 40% or P940,320.00. HTcADC

From the foregoing, I vote to PARTIALLY GRANT the instant Petition for
Review on Certiorari.

Footnotes

1. Now BDO Unibank, Inc.

2. Also appears as "Olimpia Vivian Duldulao" in some parts of the rollo.

3. Also appears as "Christina" in some parts of the rollo.

4. Also referred to as "Liza M. Aguilar" in some parts of the rollo.

5. Also spelled as "Anabelle" in some parts of the rollo.

6. Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 13-89.

 Page 26 of 29

7. Id. at 90-108. Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Pario, with Associate
Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Walter S. Ong concurring.

8. Id. at 109-111.

9. Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 1451-1472. Penned by Presiding Judge Louis P. Acosta.

10. Also "LAS MGSI" and "LAS Management and Manpower" in some parts of the rollo.

11. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 91-94.

12. Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 1451-1472.

13. Id. at 1466.

14. Id. at 1471-1472.

15. Id. at 1466.

16. Id. at 1466-1467.

17. Id. at 1467.

18. Id. at 1473-1506.

19. Id. at 1575-1576.

20. Id. at 1577-1581.

21. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 90-108.

22. Id. at 104-105.

23. Id. at 106.

24. Id. at 105.

25. Id. at 106-107.

26. Id. at 107-108.

27. Id. at 109-111.

28. Lopez v. Salado, Jr., G.R. No. 233775, September 15, 2021, p. 5.
 Page 27 of 29

29. Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172, 178-179
(2017).

30. 403 Phil. 361 (2001).

31. Id. at 388.

32. Id. at 388-389. Citations omitted.

33. 262 Phil. 387 (1990).

34. Id. at 396, quoted in Citytrust Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 302 Phil.
593, 598 (1994).

35. BPI Family Bank v. Franco, 563 Phil. 495, 509 (2007), quoting Simex International
(Manila), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 33, at 396.

36. See rollo, Vol. III, pp. 1803-1814.

37. See id. at 1803 and 1821-1823.

38. TSN, April 24, 2015, pp. 28-33; rollo, Vol. II, pp. 789-794.

39. Rollo, Vol. II, p. 992.

40. Id.

41. Id.

42. TSN, December 5, 2014, pp. 37-43 and 47; id. at 731-737 and 741.

43. Rollo, Vol. II, p. 992.

44. See rollo, Vol. III, p. 1821.

45. Id. at 1827-1829.

46. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 70-73.

47. Id. at 70.

48. Id. at 70-71.

49. Id. at 71.

 Page 28 of 29

50. Banta v. Equitable Bank, Inc. (now BDO Unibank, Inc.), G.R. No. 223694, February 10,
2021, p. 5, citing Philippine National Bank v. Vila, 792 Phil. 86, 98-99 (2016).

51. Id., citing Philippine National Bank v. Raymundo, 802 Phil. 617, 631 (2016).

52. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 530-539 and 541-544.

53. Supra note 50.

54. Id. at 99-100. Citations omitted.

55. See Oliver v. Philippine Savings Bank, 783 Phil. 687, 710 (2016).

GAERLAN, J., dissenting:

1. See Oliver v. Philippine Savings Bank, 783 Phil. 687, 704 (2016).

2. Rollo, p. 100.

3. Dela Cruz v. Capt. Octaviano, 814 Phil. 891, 910 (2017).

4. Phil. National Railways Corp. v. Vizcara, 682 Phil. 343, 355 (2012).

5. Rollo, p. 104.

6. Id. at 103.

7. Id. at 104.

8. Id. at 125-127.

9. Id. at 738-739.

10. Id. at 30.

11. Id. at 104.

12. Id. at 1092.

13. 686 Phil. 760 (2012).

14. Id. at 770-774.

15. Central Bank of the Philippines v. Citytrust Banking Corporation, 597 Phil. 609 (2009);
Bank of America NT and SA v. Philippine Racing Club, 611 Phil. 687 (2009); The
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 457 Phil. 688 (2003);
 Page 29 of 29

Philippine Bank of Commerce, now absorbed by Philippine Commercial International

Bank v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 667 (1997).

16. Ponencia, p. 14.

17. Id. at 15.

18. Id. at 13.

19. Rollo, pp. 628-629.

20. Id. at 634-635.

21. Id. at 560-577.

22. Id. at 628-629; 634-635.

23. Id. at 26.

24. Spouses Yabut v. Nachbaur, G.R. No. 243470, January 12, 2021.

25. Pacific Royal Basic Foods, Inc. v. Noche, G.R. No. 202392, October 4, 2021.

26. Rollo, pp. 996-997.

27. Id. at 993-995.

28. Id. at 969-970.

29. Id. at 968-969.

30. Id. at 1062.

31. Id.

32. Id. at 1127-1128.

(Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc. v. Seastres, G.R. No. 257151, (13 February 2023))