Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, - versus - ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA and
ROLANDO N. RAMOS, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 158143
Present: VELASCO, JR.,* J., BRION,**
Acting Chairperson, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: September
21, 2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on
certiorari,[1] filed by the Philippine Commercial
International Bank[2] (Bank or PCIB), to reverse and set aside the decision[3]
dated April 29, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69955.
The CA overturned the September 22, 2000 decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of P895,000.00.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
On September 10, 1993, PCIB filed an
action for recovery of sum of money with damages before the RTC against Antonio
Balmaceda, the Branch Manager of its Sta. Cruz, Manila branch. In its
complaint, PCIB alleged that between 1991 and 1993, Balmaceda, by taking
advantage of his position as branch manager, fraudulently obtained and encashed
31 Managers checks in the total amount of Ten Million Seven Hundred Eighty Two
Thousand One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P10,782,150.00).
On
February 28, 1994, PCIB moved to be allowed to file an amended complaint to
implead Rolando Ramos as one of the recipients of a portion of the proceeds
from Balmacedas alleged fraud. PCIB also increased the number of fraudulently
obtained and encashed Managers checks to 34, in the total amount of Eleven
Million Nine Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P11,937,150.00). The RTC granted
this motion.
Since
Balmaceda did not file an Answer, he was declared in default. On the other
hand, Ramos filed an Answer denying any knowledge of Balmacedas scheme.
According to Ramos, he is a reputable businessman engaged in the business of
buying and selling fighting cocks, and Balmaceda was one of his clients. Ramos
admitted receiving money from Balmaceda as payment for the fighting cocks that
he sold to Balmaceda, but maintained that he had no knowledge of the source of
Balmacedas money.
THE RTC DECISION
On
September 22, 2000, the RTC issued a decision in favor of PCIB, with the
following dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as follows:
1.
Ordering defendant Antonio Balmaceda to pay the amount of P11,042,150.00 with interest
thereon at the legal rate from [the] date of his misappropriation of the said
amount until full restitution shall have been made[.]
2. Ordering
defendant Rolando Ramos to pay the amount of P895,000.00 with interest at the legal rate from the date of
misappropriation of the said amount until full restitution shall have been made[.]
3. Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff
moral damages in the sum of P500,000.00
and attorneys fees in the amount of ten (10%) percent of the total
misappropriated amounts sought to be recovered.
4. Plus costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[4]
From the evidence presented, the RTC found that Balmaceda, by taking undue advantage of his position and authority as branch manager of the Sta. Cruz, Manila branch of PCIB, successfully obtained and misappropriated the banks funds by falsifying several commercial documents. He accomplished this by claiming that he had been instructed by one of the Banks corporate clients to purchase Managers checks on its behalf, with the value of the checks to be debited from the clients corporate bank account. First, he would instruct the Bank staff to prepare the application forms for the purchase of Managers checks, payable to several persons. Then, he would forge the signature of the clients authorized representative on these forms and sign the forms as PCIBs approving officer. Finally, he would have an authorized officer of PCIB issue the Managers checks. Balmaceda would subsequently ask his subordinates to release the Managers checks to him, claiming that the client had requested that he deliver the checks.[5] After receiving the Managers checks, he encashed them by forging the signatures of the payees on the checks.
In ruling that Ramos acted in
collusion with Balmaceda, the RTC noted that although the Managers checks
payable to Ramos were crossed checks, Balmaceda was still able to encash the
checks.[6]
After Balmaceda encashed three of these Managers checks, he deposited most of the
money into Ramos account.[7]
The RTC concluded that from the P11,937,150.00
that Balmaceda misappropriated from PCIB, P895,000.00 actually went to Ramos. Since the RTC
disbelieved Ramos allegation that the sum of money deposited into his Savings
Account (PCIB, Pasig branch) were proceeds from the sale of fighting cocks, it
held Ramos liable to pay PCIB the amount of P895,000.00.
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
On
appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint against Ramos, holding that no sufficient
evidence existed to prove that Ramos colluded with Balmaceda in the latters
fraudulent manipulations.[8]
According
to the CA, the mere fact that Balmaceda made Ramos the payee in some of the
Managers checks does not suffice to prove that Ramos was complicit in
Balmacedas fraudulent scheme. It observed that other persons were also named
as payees in the checks that Balmaceda acquired and encashed, and PCIB only
chose to go after Ramos. With PCIBs failure to prove Ramos actual
participation in Balmacedas fraud, no legal and factual basis exists to hold
him liable.
The CA also found that PCIB acted
illegally in freezing and debiting P251,910.96
from Ramos bank account. The CA thus decreed:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is granted. The Decision of the trial court rendered on September 22, 2000[,] insofar as appellant Ramos is concerned, is SET ASIDE, and the complaint below against him is DISMISSED.
Appellee is hereby ordered to
release the amount of P251,910.96
to appellant Ramos plus interest at [the] legal rate computed from September
30, 1993 until appellee shall have fully complied therewith.
Appellee is likewise ordered to pay appellant Ramos the following:
a)
P50,000.00
as moral damages
b)
P50,000.00
as exemplary damages, and
c)
P20,000.00
as attorneys fees.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.[9]
THE PETITION
In
the present petition, PCIB avers that:
I
THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO HOLD THAT RESPONDENT RAMOS ACTED IN COMPLICITY WITH
RESPONDENT BALMACEDA
II
THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE
PETITIONER TO RELEASE THE AMOUNT OF P251,910.96
TO RESPONDENT RAMOS AND TO PAY THE LATTER MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEYS FEES[10]
PCIB contends that the circumstantial
evidence shows that Ramos had knowledge of, and acted in complicity with
Balmaceda in, the perpetuation of the fraud. Ramos explanation that he is a
businessman and that he received the Managers checks as payment for the
fighting cocks he sold to Balmaceda is unconvincing, given the large sum of
money involved. While Ramos presented evidence that he is a reputable
businessman, this evidence does not explain why the Managers checks were made
payable to him in the first place.
PCIB maintains that it had the right
to freeze and debit the amount of P251,910.96
from Ramos bank account, even without his consent, since legal compensation
had taken place between them by operation of law. PCIB debited Ramos bank account,
believing in good faith that Ramos was not entitled to the proceeds of the
Managers checks and was actually privy to the fraud perpetrated by Balmaceda. PCIB cannot thus be held liable for moral and
exemplary damages.
OUR RULING
We partly
grant the petition.
At the outset, we observe that the petition raises mainly
questions of fact whose resolution requires the re-examination of the evidence
on record. As a general rule, petitions for review on certiorari only involve questions of law.[11]
By way of exception, however, we can delve into evidence and the factual
circumstance of the case when the findings of fact in the tribunals below (in
this case between those of the CA and of the RTC) are
conflicting. When the exception applies, we are given latitude to review the
evidence on record to decide the case with finality.[12]
Ramos
participation in Balmacedas scheme not proven
From the testimonial and documentary
evidence presented, we find it beyond question that Balmaceda, by taking
advantage of his position as branch manager of PCIBs Sta. Cruz, Manila branch,
was able to apply for and obtain Managers checks drawn against the bank
account of one of PCIBs clients. The unsettled question is whether Ramos, who
received a portion of the money that Balmaceda took from PCIB, should also be
held liable for the return of this money to the Bank.
PCIB
insists that it presented sufficient evidence to establish that Ramos colluded
with Balmaceda in the scheme to fraudulently secure Managers checks and to
misappropriate their proceeds. Since Ramos defense anchored on mere denial
of any participation in Balmacedas wrongdoing is an intrinsically weak
defense, it was error for the CA to exonerate Ramos from any liability.
In civil
cases, the party carrying the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence, or evidence which, to the court, is more worthy of
belief than the evidence offered in opposition.[13]
This Court, in Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc.,[14] defined preponderance of evidence in the
following manner:
"Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
The party, whether the plaintiff or the defendant, who asserts the affirmative of an issue has the onus to prove his assertion in order to obtain a favorable judgment, subject to the overriding rule that the burden to prove his cause of action never leaves the plaintiff. For the defendant, an affirmative defense is one that is not merely a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff's cause of action, but one which, if established, will constitute an "avoidance" of the claim.[15]
Thus, PCIB,
as plaintiff, had to prove, by preponderance of evidence, its positive
assertion that Ramos conspired with Balmaceda in perpetrating the latters scheme
to defraud the Bank. In PCIBs estimation, it successfully accomplished this
through the submission of the following evidence:
[1] Exhibits
A, D, PPPP, QQQQ, and RRRR and their submarkings, the application
forms for MCs, show that [these MCs were applied for in favor of Ramos;]
[2] Exhibits
K, N, SSSS, TTTT, and UUUU and their submarkings prove that the MCs
were issued in favor of x x x Ramos[; and]
[3] [T]estimonies
of the witness for [PCIB].[16]
We cannot
accept these submitted pieces of evidence as sufficient to satisfy the burden
of proof that PCIB carries as plaintiff.
On its
face, all that PCIBs evidence proves is that Balmaceda used Ramos name as a
payee when he filled up the application forms for the Managers checks. But, as
the CA correctly observed, the mere fact that Balmaceda made Ramos the payee on
some of the Managers checks is not enough basis to conclude that Ramos was
complicit in Balmacedas fraud; a number of other people were made payees on
the other Managers checks yet PCIB never alleged them to be liable, nor did
the Bank adduce any other evidence pointing to Ramos participation that would
justify his separate treatment from the others.
Also, while Ramos is Balmacedas brother-in-law, their relationship is
not sufficient, by itself, to render Ramos liable, absent concrete proof of his
actual participation in the fraudulent scheme.
Moreover,
the evidence on record clearly shows that Balmaceda acted on his own when he
applied for the Managers checks against the bank account of one of PCIBs
clients, as well as when he encashed the fraudulently acquired Managers
checks.
Mrs.
Elizabeth Costes, the Area Manager of PCIB at the time of the relevant events, testified that Balmaceda
committed all the acts necessary to obtain the unauthorized Managers checks
from filling up the application form by forging the signature of the clients
representative, to forging the signatures of the payees in order to encash the
checks. As Mrs. Costes stated in her testimony:
Q: I am going into [these] particular instances where you said that Mr. Balmaceda [has] been making unauthorized withdrawals from particular account of a client or a client of yours at Sta. Cruz branch. Would you tell us how he effected his unauthorized withdrawals?
A: He prevailed upon the domestic remittance clerk to prepare the application of a Managers check which [has] been debited to a clients account. This particular Managers check will be payable to a certain individual thru his account as the instruction of the client.
Q: What was your findings in so far as the particular alleged instruction of a client is concerned?
A: We found out that he forged the signature of the client.
Q: On that particular application?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Showing to you several applications for Managers Check previously attached as Annexes A, B, C, D and E[] of the complaint. Could you please tell us where is that particular alleged signature of a client applying for the Managers check which you claimed to have been forged by Mr. Balmaceda?
A: Here sir.
x x x x
Q: After the accomplishment of this application form as you stated Mrs. witness, do you know what happened to the application form?
A: Before that
application form is processed it goes to several stages. Here for example this
was signed supposed to be by the client and his signature representing that, he certified the signature based on their
records to be authentic.
Q: When you said he to whom are you referring to?
A: Mr. Balmaceda. And at the same time he approved the transaction.
x x x x
Q: Do you know if the corresponding checks applied for in the application forms were issued?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Could you
please show us where these checks are now, the one applied for in Exhibit A
which is in the amount of P150,000.00,
where is the corresponding check?
A: Rolando Ramos dated December 26, 1991 and one of the signatories with higher authority, this is Mr. Balmacedas signature.
Q: In other words
he is likewise approving signatory to
the Managers check?
A: Yes sir. This is an authority that the check [has] been encashed.
Q: In other words this check issued to Rolando Ramos dated December 26, 1991 is a cross check but nonetheless he allowed to encash by granting it.
Could you please show us?
ATTY. PACES: Witness pointing to an initial of the defendant Antonio Balmaceda, the notation cross check.
A: And this is his signature.
x x x x
Q: How about the
check corresponding to Exhibit E-2 which is an application for P125,000.00 for a certain Rolando
Ramos. Do you have the check?
A: Yes sir.
ATTY. PACES: Witness producing a check dated December 19,
1991 the amount of P125,000.00
payable to certain Rolando Ramos.
Q: Can you tell us whether the same modus operandi was ad[o]pted by Mr. Balmaceda in so far as he is concerned?
A: Yes sir he is also the right signer and he authorized the cancellation of the cross check.[17] (emphasis ours)
x x x x
Q: These particular checks [Mrs.] witness in your findings, do you know if Mr. Balmaceda [has] again any participation in these checks?
A: He is also the right signer and approved officer and he was authorized to debit on file.
x x x x
Q: And do you know if these particular checks marked as Exhibit G-2 to triple FFF were subsequently encashed?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Were you able to find out who encashed?
A: Mr. Balmaceda himself and besides he
approved the encashment because of the signature that he allowed the encashment
of the check.
x x x x
Q: Do you know if this particular person having in fact withdraw of received the proceeds of [these] particular checks, the payee?
A: No sir.
Q: It was all Mr. Balmaceda dealing with you?
A: Yes sir.
Q: In other words it would be possible that Mr. Balmaceda himself gotten the proceeds of the checks by forging the payees signature?
A: Yes sir.[18] (emphases ours)
Mrs.
Nilda Laforteza, the Commercial Account Officer of PCIBs Sta. Cruz, Manila
branch at the time the events of this case occurred, confirmed Mrs. Costes
testimony by stating that it was
Balmaceda who forged Ramos signature on the Managers checks where Ramos was
the payee, so as to encash the amounts indicated on the checks.[19]
Mrs. Laforteza also testified that Ramos never went to the PCIB, Sta. Cruz,
Q: Mrs.
Laforteza, these checks that were applied for by Mr. Balmaceda, did you ever
see my client go to the bank to encash these checks?
A: No
it is Balmaceda who is depositing in his behalf.
Q: Did my client ever call up the bank concerning this amount?
A: Yes he is not
going to call PCIBank Sta. Cruz branch because his account is maintained at
Q: So Mr. Balmaceda was the one who just remitted or transmitted the amount that you claimed [was sent] to the account of my client?
A: Yes.[20] (emphases ours)
Even Mrs. Rodelia Nario, presented by
PCIB as its rebuttal witness to prove that Ramos encashed a Managers check for
P480,000.00, could only
testify that the money was deposited into Ramos PCIB bank account. She could
not attest that Ramos himself presented the Managers check for deposit in his
bank account.[21] These
testimonies clearly dispute PCIBs
theory that Ramos was instrumental in the encashment of the Managers checks.
We also find no reason to doubt
Ramos claim that Balmaceda deposited these large sums of money into his bank
account as payment for the fighting cocks that Balmaceda purchased from him.
Ramos presented two witnesses Vicente Cosculluela and Crispin Gadapan who
testified that Ramos previously engaged in the business of buying and selling
fighting cocks, and that Balmaceda was one of Ramos biggest clients.
Quoting
from the RTC decision, PCIB stresses that Ramos own witness and business
partner, Cosculluela, testified that the biggest net profit he and Ramos earned
from a single transaction with Balmaceda amounted to no more than P100,000.00, for the sale of
approximately 45 fighting cocks.[22]
In PCIBs view, this testimony directly contradicts Ramos assertion that he
received approximately P400,000.00
from his biggest transaction with Balmaceda. To PCIB, the testimony also
renders questionable Ramos assertion that Balmaceda deposited large amounts of
money into his bank account as payment for the fighting cocks.
On this point, we find that PCIB
misunderstood Cosculluelas testimony. A review of the testimony shows that
Cosculluela specifically referred to the net profit that they earned from the
sale of the fighting cocks;[23] PCIB
apparently did not take into account the capital, transportation and other
expenses that are components of these transactions. Obviously, in sales
transactions, the buyer has to pay not only for the value of the thing sold,
but also for the shipping costs and other incidental costs that accompany the
acquisition of the thing sold. Thus, while the biggest net profit that Ramos
and Cosculluela earned in a single transaction amounted to no more than P100,000.00,[24]
the inclusion of the actual acquisition costs of the fighting cocks, the
transportation expenses (i.e.,
airplane tickets from Bacolod or Zamboanga to Manila) and other attendant
expenses could account for the P400,000.00
that Balmaceda deposited into Ramos bank account.
Given that PCIB failed to establish Ramos participation in Balmacedas scheme, it was not even necessary for Ramos to provide an explanation for the money he received from Balmaceda. Even if the evidence adduced by the plaintiff appears stronger than that presented by the defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in the plaintiffs favor if his evidence still does not suffice to sustain his cause of action;[25] to reiterate, a preponderance of evidence as defined must be established to achieve this result.
PCIB itself at fault as employer
In
considering this case, one point that cannot be disregarded is the significant
role that PCIB played which contributed to the perpetration of the fraud. We
cannot ignore that Balmaceda managed to carry out his fraudulent scheme
primarily because other PCIB employees failed to carry out their assigned tasks
flaws imputable to PCIB itself as the employer.
Ms. Analiza
Vega, an accounting clerk, teller and domestic remittance clerk working at the PCIB,
Sta. Cruz, Manila branch at the time of the incident, testified that Balmaceda
broke the Banks protocol when he ordered the Banks employees to fill up the
application forms for the Managers checks, to be debited from the bank account
of one of the banks clients, without providing the necessary Authority to
Debit from the client.[26]
PCIB also admitted that these Managers checks were subsequently released to
Balmaceda, and not to the clients representative, based solely on Balmacedas
word that the client had tasked him to deliver these checks.[27]
Despite Balmacedas
gross violations of bank procedures mainly in the processing of the applications
for Managers checks and in the releasing of the Managers checks Balmacedas
co-employees not only turned a blind eye to his actions, but actually complied
with his instructions. In this way, PCIBs own employees were unwitting accomplices in Balmacedas
fraud.
Another telling indicator of PCIBs
negligence is the fact that it allowed
Balmaceda to encash the Managers checks that were plainly crossed checks. A crossed check is one where two parallel
lines are drawn across its face or across its corner.[28]
Based on jurisprudence, the crossing of a check has the following effects: (a) the check may not be encashed but only
deposited in the bank; (b) the check may be negotiated only once to the one
who has an account with the bank; and (c) the act of crossing the check serves
as a warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a definite
purpose and he must inquire if he received the check pursuant to this purpose; otherwise,
he is not a holder in due course.[29]
In other words, the crossing of a check is a warning that the check should be
deposited only in the account of the payee. When a check is crossed, it
is the duty of the collecting bank to ascertain that the check is only deposited
to the payees account.[30]
In complete disregard of this duty, PCIBs systems allowed Balmaceda to encash
26 Managers checks which were all crossed checks, or checks payable to the
payees account only.
The General Banking Law of 2000[31]
requires of banks the highest standards of integrity and performance. The
banking business is impressed with public interest. Of paramount importance is
the trust and confidence of the public in general in the banking industry.
Consequently, the diligence required of banks is more than that of a Roman pater
familias or a good father of a family.[32]
The highest degree of diligence is expected.[33]
While we appreciate that Balmaceda took advantage of his authority and
position as the branch manager to commit these acts, this circumstance cannot
be used to excuse the manner the Bank through its employees handled its clients
bank accounts and thereby ignored established bank procedures at the branch
managers mere order. This lapse is made all the more glaring by Balmacedas
repetition of his modus operandi 33 more
times in a period of over one year by the Banks own estimation. With this kind of record, blame must be
imputed on the Bank itself and its systems, not solely on the weakness or
lapses of individual employees.
Principle of
unjust enrichment not applicable
PCIB maintains that even if Ramos did not collude with Balmaceda, it still has the right to recover the amounts unjustly received by Ramos pursuant to the principle of unjust enrichment. This principle is embodied in Article 22 of the Civil Code which provides:
Article
22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other
means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the
latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
To have a
cause of action based on unjust enrichment, we explained in University of the Philippines v. Philab
Industries, Inc.[34]
that:
Unjust
enrichment claims do not lie simply because one party benefits from the efforts
or obligations of others, but instead it must be shown that a party was
unjustly enriched in the sense that the term unjustly could mean illegally or
unlawfully.
Moreover,
to substantiate a claim for unjust enrichment, the claimant must
unequivocally prove that another party knowingly received something of value to
which he was not entitled and that the state of affairs are such
that it would be unjust for the person to keep the benefit. Unjust
enrichment is a term used to depict result or effect of failure to make
remuneration of or for property or benefits received under circumstances that
give rise to legal or equitable obligation to account for them; to be entitled
to remuneration, one must confer benefit by mistake, fraud, coercion, or
request. Unjust enrichment is not itself a theory of reconvey. Rather, it is a
prerequisite for the enforcement of the doctrine of restitution.[35] (emphasis ours)
Ramos cannot be held liable to PCIB on
account of unjust enrichment simply because he received payments out of money
secured by fraud from PCIB. To hold Ramos accountable, it is necessary to prove
that he received the money from Balmaceda, knowing that he (Ramos) was not
entitled to it. PCIB must also prove that Ramos, at the time that he received
the money from Balmaceda, knew that the money was acquired through fraud.
Knowledge of the fraud is the link between Ramos and PCIB that would obligate
Ramos to return the money based on the principle of unjust enrichment.
However, as the evidence on record indicates, Ramos accepted the deposits
that Balmaceda made directly into his bank account, believing that these
deposits were payments for the fighting cocks that Balmaceda had purchased.
Significantly, PCIB has not presented any evidence proving that Ramos
participated in, or that he even knew of, the fraudulent sources of Balmacedas
funds.
PCIB illegally froze and debited Ramos
assets
We also find
that PCIB acted illegally in freezing and debiting Ramos bank account. In BPI Family Bank v. Franco,[36]
we cautioned against the unilateral freezing of bank accounts by banks, noting
that:
More importantly, [BPI Family Bank] does not
have a unilateral right to freeze the accounts of Franco based on its mere
suspicion that the funds therein were proceeds of the multi-million peso scam
Franco was allegedly involved in. To grant [BPI Family Bank], or any bank for
that matter, the right to take whatever action it pleases on deposits which it
supposes are derived from shady transactions, would open the floodgates of
public distrust in the banking industry.[37]
We see no legal merit in PCIBs claim
that legal compensation took place between it and Ramos, thereby warranting the
automatic deduction from Ramos bank account. For legal compensation to take
place, two persons, in their own right, must
first be creditors and debtors of each other.[38]
While PCIB, as the depositary bank, is Ramos debtor in the amount of his
deposits, Ramos is not PCIBs debtor under the evidence the PCIB adduced. PCIB
thus had no basis, in fact or in law, to automatically debit from Ramos bank
account.
On the award
of damages
Although
PCIBs act of freezing and debiting Ramos account is unlawful, we cannot hold
PCIB liable for moral and exemplary damages. Since a contractual
relationship existed between Ramos and PCIB as the depositor and the depositary
bank, respectively, the award of moral damages depends on the applicability of Article
2220 of the Civil Code, which provides:
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 the
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. [emphasis ours]
Bad faith does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious commission of a wrong; it partakes of the nature of fraud.[39]
As the
facts of this case bear out, PCIB did not act out of malice or bad faith when
it froze Ramos bank account and subsequently debited the amount of P251,910.96 therefrom. While PCIB
may have acted hastily and without regard to its primary duty to treat the
accounts of its depositors with meticulous care and utmost fidelity,[40]
we find that its actions were propelled more by the need to protect itself, and
not out of malevolence or ill will. One may err, but error alone is not a ground for granting
moral damages.[41]
We also disallow the award of
exemplary damages. Article 2234 of the Civil Code requires a party to
first prove that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages
before he can be awarded exemplary damages. Since no reason exists to award
moral damages, so too can there be no reason to award exemplary damages.
We deem it just and equitable,
however, to uphold the award of attorneys fees in Ramos favor. Taking into
consideration the time and efforts involved that went into this case, we
increase the award of attorneys fees from P20,000.00 to P75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. We AFFIRM the decision of the
Court of Appeals dated April 29, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 69955 with the MODIFICATION
that the award of moral and exemplary damages in favor of Rolando N. Ramos is
DELETED, while the award of attorneys fees is INCREASED to P75,000.00. Costs against the Philippine Commercial
International Bank.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
and the Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice