Antonino vs. Banco De Oro Universal Bank, Inc.

In an action for payment of a time deposit, the depositor’s possession of the original certificate of time deposit — which under the bank’s own terms and conditions must be surrendered upon redemption — creates a strong evidentiary presumption that the deposit has not been withdrawn; this presumption is not overcome by the bank’s self-serving internal computer records or a disputed demand draft, particularly when the depositor presents clear public documentary proof that the person who allegedly redeemed the deposit was physically absent from the country on the redemption date. Moreover, the bank’s failure to exercise the highest degree of diligence expected of banking institutions justifies awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

On December 10, 1998, Remedios A. Antonino and her daughter Angelita A. Antonino made a time deposit placement of USD 50,007.71 with BDO’s San Lorenzo Branch, covered by Time Deposit Certificate (TDC) No. 00846962 and Official Receipt No. 538828. They subsequently made two further placements: a USD 50,000.70 time deposit on July 26, 2000 (TDC No. 1117687) payable after 30 days, and three TDCs on February 26, 2001 totaling USD 50,000.70 (TDC Nos. 1193123, 1193124, 1193125), also with 30-day terms. The Antoninos, who held green cards and spent most of their time in the United States, claimed an oral agreement with the branch manager for automatic roll-over of unclaimed placements. The original TDCs were kept in a safety deposit box at Banco Filipino, Paseo de Roxas, which later went into receivership. BDO San Lorenzo ceased operations and closed without notifying the depositors. After retrieving their TDCs from the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Antoninos went to the nearest BDO branch in March 2014 and demanded payment. BDO initially requested time to verify records, then in July 2015 claimed the three February 2001 TDCs had been redeemed on May 28, 2001.

• The Time Deposit Placements: Remedios and Angelita Antonino made the following placements at BDO San Lorenzo: (a) on December 10, 1998, USD 50,007.71 covered by TDC No. 00846962 and Official Receipt No. 538828, for 46 days at 6.26% p.a.; (b) on July 26, 2000, USD 50,000.70 covered by TDC No. 1117687, for 30 days at 6.375% p.a.; (c) on February 26, 2001, three TDCs — No. 1193123 (USD 25,000.00), No. 1193124 (USD 15,000.00), No. 1193125 (USD 10,000.00) — totaling USD 50,000.70, for 30 days at 5.625% p.a. The Antoninos averred an oral agreement with the branch manager for automatic roll-over with accrued interest if unredeemed at maturity.

• Safekeeping and Inability to Claim: The original TDCs were stored in a safety deposit box at Banco Filipino, Paseo de Roxas. Apolinar Antonino’s prolonged hospitalization at Makati Medical Center preoccupied the depositors. Banco Filipino was later placed under receivership by the PDIC, delaying retrieval of the TDCs until after 2011.

• BDO San Lorenzo Closure and Demand: BDO San Lorenzo closed without notice to the depositors. On March 14, 2014, the Antoninos inquired at a nearby BDO branch and were told verification was needed. A formal demand letter was sent on April 29, 2015. BDO requested additional time, then in a July 22, 2015 letter claimed the three February 2001 TDCs had been redeemed on May 28, 2001.

• BDO’s Defense and Evidence: BDO asserted that only one investment existed, which was rolled over several times from July 26, 2000 until May 28, 2001. It presented computer-printed history data showing multiple roll-overs breaking the amount into three accounts ultimately bearing TDC Nos. 304601259456, 304601259457, and 304601259458. It also submitted a Demand Draft dated May 28, 2001 allegedly bearing Angelita’s signature for the redemption of those three accounts.

• Depositors’ Contrary Evidence: Angelita denied signing the Demand Draft and proved she departed the Philippines on November 20, 2000 and returned only on June 9, 2003 via a Bureau of Immigration Certification and passport entries. Hence, she could not have redeemed the deposits on May 28, 2001. A PNP handwriting expert opined that the signature on the carbon-copy Demand Draft and Angelita’s standard signatures showed dissimilarities in execution, spacing, and alignment, suggesting they were not made by the same person, though no definite conclusion could be reached due to the carbon-copy quality.

• TDC Terms: Paragraph 9 of the TDC terms and conditions required the certificate to be surrendered to the bank upon redemption. The original TDCs for Nos. 1117687, 1193123, 1193124, and 1193125 remained in the Antoninos’ possession.

BDO’s Arguments (G.R. No. 273493):

• Single Investment and Payment: BDO maintained that the evidence on record proved there was only one investment, which had been rolled over and was already redeemed by Angelita on May 28, 2001, as shown by its computer-printed history data and the Demand Draft.
• Laches: BDO argued that the Antoninos were guilty of laches for failing to assert their claim within a reasonable time, given the 14-year lapse since the maturity of the TDCs.
• No Basis for Damages: BDO contended that since the TDCs had been redeemed, the awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees had no legal or factual basis.

Remedios and Angelita Antonino’s Arguments (G.R. No. 273446):

• Proof of First Time Deposit: The Antoninos insisted they satisfactorily established their claim for the first time deposit covered by TDC No. 00846962 and that Official Receipt No. 538828 sufficed to prove its existence and the bank’s obligation.

• Evidentiary Weight: Whether the Antoninos proved by preponderance of evidence their entitlement to the proceeds of TDC Nos. 1117687, 1193123, 1193124, and 1193125, or whether BDO’s computer-printed history data and Demand Draft established that the deposits had been redeemed.
• Laches: Whether the Antoninos were barred by laches from claiming the time deposit proceeds after more than 14 years from maturity.
• First Time Deposit: Whether Official Receipt No. 538828 was sufficient evidence to prove the existence of TDC No. 00846962 and BDO’s liability thereunder.
• Damages: What awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were proper under the circumstances, particularly in light of the ambiguous CA disposition on moral damages.

• Evidentiary Weight: Preponderance of evidence supported the Antoninos’ claim. Their possession of the original TDCs for Nos. 1117687, 1193123, 1193124, and 1193125 was a strong indication that the deposits had not been redeemed, especially because paragraph 9 of the TDCs’ terms required surrender of the certificate upon redemption. The bank’s own former officer-in-charge confirmed the standard operating procedure that TDCs must be surrendered, or an Affidavit of Loss executed, before redemption. BDO’s computer-printed history data were internal documents with codes and abbreviations that carried less persuasive weight than the original TDCs in the depositors’ hands. The Demand Draft was rebutted by the BOI Certification and passport entries proving Angelita was abroad on May 28, 2001. The BOI Certification is a public document and constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts stated; BDO offered mere speculation that the BOI database might be incomplete, which was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity.

• Laches: Laches did not apply. The essence of laches — unreasonable and unexplained delay causing prejudice — was absent. The TDC terms themselves provided that if not redeemed at maturity, the deposit shall automatically earn interest as a savings deposit, and BSP regulations (Section 261, 2019 Manual of Regulations for Banks) treat an unwithdrawn time deposit as a savings deposit payable on demand. The automatic roll-over arrangement meant the funds continued to accrue interest and remained beneficial to the depositors, negating any inference of abandonment or neglect.

• First Time Deposit: Official Receipt No. 538828 was insufficient. It proved, at most, that a payment of USD 50,007.71 was made to BDO San Lorenzo on December 10, 1998, but it did not establish the continuing existence of TDC No. 00846962, much less that the deposit remained unpaid. A receipt is merely an acknowledgment of payment; it is not interchangeable with a certificate of deposit, which is a written promise to pay creating a debtor-creditor relationship. The Antoninos failed to account for the absence of the original TDC or to offer other proof that the deposit had not been redeemed.

• Damages: The CA’s discussion in the body of its decision indicating entitlement to moral damages, while the dispositive portion merely affirmed the RTC in toto without explicitly awarding moral damages, created an ambiguity that required clarification. Banks are bound to observe a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a family due to the fiduciary nature of their business. BDO’s failure to exercise the highest degree of diligence was demonstrated by: (a) its inability to verify properly the identity and authority of the person who redeemed the deposits, given the BOI Certification and expert opinion casting doubt on the Demand Draft signature; and (b) its failure to preserve or produce critical supporting documents like the Affidavit of Loss it allegedly required, citing the passage of time. These shortcomings caused mental anguish and serious anxiety to the Antoninos, who were deprived of the use of their investments. Moral damages were thus warranted and reasonably fixed at PHP 100,000.00. Exemplary damages of PHP 300,000.00 were sustained to set an example for the public good, given banking’s public-interest character. Attorney’s fees of PHP 150,000.00 were upheld because the Antoninos were compelled to litigate to protect their rights. Legal interest of 6% per annum on the total judgment award was imposed from finality of the Decision until full payment.

• Possession of Certificate of Time Deposit as Evidence of Non-Redemption — Where the certificate of time deposit’s terms require its surrender upon redemption, the depositor’s continued possession of the original certificate is a strong indication that payment has not been made. It is unlikely that a bank would release funds without first requiring its surrender. (Ong Bun v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 828 Phil. 152 (2018))

• Highest Degree of Diligence of Banks — Banks are mandated to observe a degree of prudence and diligence higher than that of a good father of a family, owing to the fiduciary nature of their business and their significant role in commercial transactions and the economy. Failure to exercise this standard in verifying the identity and authority of a person redeeming a deposit warrants the imposition of moral and exemplary damages. (Poole-Blunden v. Union Bank of the Philippines, 821 Phil. 915 (2017); Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Caguimbal, 930 Phil. 1015 (2022))

• Preponderance of Evidence — The plaintiff must prove his case by a preponderance of evidence, i.e., evidence of greater weight or more convincing than that offered in opposition, where the proposition is more likely true than not true. Once the plaintiff discharges this burden, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to establish a defense. (De Leon v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 721 Phil. 839; Estella v. Perez, 911 Phil. 570 (2021))

• Public Document as Prima Facie Evidence — A certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration is a public document. Under Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated. The presumption of regularity stands unless overcome by clear and convincing evidence. (Republic v. Unabia, 846 Phil. 656 (2019))

• Laches — Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, through due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, giving rise to a presumption of abandonment or declination to assert the right. It does not apply where the investment automatically converted to a savings deposit and continued to earn interest, thus remaining beneficial to the depositor. (Philippine Ports Authority v. Pambansang Tinig at Lakas ng Pantalan, 931 Phil. 748 (2022))

• Exemplary Damages against Banks — Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. The banking sector, being affected with public interest, must maintain a high level of meticulousness; initial carelessness compounded by lack of promptness in repairing error justifies exemplary damages. (Banta v. Equitable Bank, Inc., 896 Phil. 541 (2021))

• Moral Damages for Bank Negligence — Even absent malice or bad faith, a depositor may recover reasonable moral damages if they suffer mental anguish, serious anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation as a proximate result of the bank’s failure to exercise the highest degree of diligence. (Gonzales v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank, 659 Phil. 244 (2011))

• “[T]he possession by Remedios and Angelita of the original copies of TDC Nos. 1117687, 1193123, 1193124, and 1193125 strongly supports the proposition that they have not yet redeemed their investments, in view of paragraph 9 of the terms and conditions imposed by BDO itself, that the TDC’s should be surrendered upon redemption of the account.”

• “The Court has previously acknowledged that the possession of a certificate of time deposit is a key indication that payment has not yet been made, as it is unlikely that a bank would release funds without first requiring its surrender.”

• “It is axiomatic that a public official enjoys the presumption of regularity in the discharge of one’s official duties and functions. The certification issued by the BOI is a public document, … as such, it constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.”

• “The essence of laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, through due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it had either abandoned or declined to assert it. … Considering the terms and conditions of the TDCs, as well as the BSP regulations, it is a considerable stretch to assert that Remedios and Angelita were guilty of laches. The proceeds of the TDCs were automatically converted into savings deposits, which continued to accrue interest and thus remained beneficial to them.”

• “The business of a bank is affected with public interest; thus, it makes a sworn profession of diligence and meticulousness in giving irreproachable service. … The banking sector must at all times maintain a high level of meticulousness.”

• Ong Bun v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 828 Phil. 152 (2018) — Followed; the Court invoked this precedent for the principle that possession of a certificate of time deposit indicates non-payment, as banks require its surrender before releasing funds.
• Bank of Commerce v. Spouses San Pablo, Jr., 550 Phil. 805 (2007) — Followed; cited to support the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against a bank that failed to observe the required degree of diligence.
• Banta v. Equitable Bank, Inc., 896 Phil. 541 (2021) — Followed; relied upon for the standard of high diligence required of banks and the justification for exemplary damages to correct bank carelessness and serve the public good.
• Republic v. Unabia, 846 Phil. 656 (2019) — Followed; used to affirm that a public document like a BOI certification is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary.
• Gonzales v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank, 659 Phil. 244 (2011) — Followed; cited for the rule that a depositor may recover moral damages for mental anguish caused by a bank’s lack of diligence, even without proof of malice or bad faith.
• Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Caguimbal, 930 Phil. 1015 (2022) — Followed; invoked for the standard of high integrity, performance, and diligence required of banking institutions.

• Section 261, 2019 Manual of Regulations for Banks (BSP) — Provides that a time deposit not withdrawn or renewed on its due date shall be treated as a savings deposit and shall earn interest from maturity to the date of actual withdrawal or renewal. Applied to negate laches because the deposits automatically converted to savings deposits, continuing to earn interest for the benefit of the depositors.
• Article 2217, Civil Code — Defines moral damages as including physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Applied to justify the award of moral damages for the anxiety suffered by the depositors.
• Article 2229, Civil Code — Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. Applied to sustain the award of exemplary damages against BDO.
• Article 2208, Civil Code — Attorney’s fees may be recovered when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. Applied to justify the award of attorney’s fees.
• Section 23, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Applied to accord prima facie evidentiary weight to the Bure a u of Immigration Certification.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred. Singh, J., on leave.