FACTS: Remedios and Angelita entered into a placement/investment agreement with BDO San Lorenzo. They deposited (1) USD 50,007.71 for a term of 46 days, payable on January 25, 1998, with an agreed interest of 6.26% per annum; (2) USD 50,000.70 with a term of 30 days, payable on August 25, 2000, with an agreed interest of 6.375% per annum; (3) USD 50,000.70 (covering three TDCs) with a term of 30 days, payable on March 28, 2001, with the agreed interest of 5.625% per annum. They claimed that they and the Bank Manager that if the placements/investments were not redeemed or claimed on their due dates, BDO San Lorenzo to automatically roll-over the placements/investments, including all accrued interest.
The Time Deposit Certificates (TDCs) were not redeemed on the dates on which they fell due. BDO San Lorenzo, after declared bankruptcy and was placed under receivership and liquidation by the BSP, ceased operations and closed without notifying Remedios or Angelita. On March 14, 2014, they inquired about their time deposit placements/investments from the BDO branch near their home. Remedios and Angelita learned that the branch where they placed their investments was already closed. They were not given updates, as promised. Hence, after sending a final demand letter, Remedios and Angelita filed a complaint against BDO seeking payment of their time deposit placement/investment with BDO San Lorenzo covered by one receipt and four TDCs, in the total amount of USD 150,008.41, exclusive of interest.
BDO (1) disputed Remedios’s and Angelita’s allegations, claiming there was only one investment in US Dollars, which was rolled over; and (2) submitted a Demand Draft bearing the signature of Angelita and showing that the proceeds were already withdrawn by Angelita on May 28, 2001.
Angelita countered that she could not have withdrawn their investments or signed the
Demand Draft as she was not in the Philippines on May 28, 2001. She presented a Certification dated August 23, 2017, issued by the Bureau of Immigration (BoI), and her passport to prove that she was not in the Philippines on May 28, 2001. Moreover, they presented a handwriting expert from the PNP Crime Laboratory. The expert signified that there were dissimilarities in the manner of execution, spacing, and alignment between the signature appearing on the Demand Draft and Angelita’s standard signatures.
The RTC ordered BDO to pay Remedios and Angelita the total amount of the time deposits covered by the four TDCs, as well as exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The CA affirmed the RTC. BDO was remiss in observing the required degree of diligence when it did not inform Remedios or Angelita about the closure of its BDO San Lorenzo branch. Assuming arguendo that Angelita redeemed the proceeds of the TDC’s, BDO was mistaken in not requiring the surrender of the original TDC’s, in contravention of the terms and conditions imposed by BDO themselves. As they were the ones who imposed this condition, they could not simply ignore its glaring omission and evade the consequences thereof. Remedios and Angelita were entitled to moral damages, in addition to the award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees by the RTC.
ISSUES:
- Whether the Certification issued by the BOI is admissible to support Angelita’s claim that she was not in the Philippines on May 28, 2001.
- Whether the award of moral damages is proper.
RULING:
(1) Yes. 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, the same having been issued by a public officer in the performance of official duty; as such, it constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Under Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, “[d]ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.”
Here, in the absence of clear indicia of partiality or malice, the certification issued by the BOI enjoys a presumption of regularity. To successfully overcome such presumption of regularity, case law demands that the evidence against it must be clear and convincing; absent the requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption stands deserving of faith and credit. BDO failed to present clear and convincing evidence to controvert the presumption.
(2) Yes. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. Moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant but to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries he/she may have suffered.
In view of the significant role of banking institutions in commercial transactions, not to mention its contribution, to the economy in general, the Court, in several cases, has imposed damages and attorney’s fees against them for their failure to exercise the highest degree of diligence, along with high standards of integrity and performance in the discharge of its functions.
In Bank of Commerce v. Spouses San Pablo, the Court adjudged the bank liable for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, for failing to observe the necessary degree of caution in ascertaining the genuineness and extent of authority of the mortgagor who forged the signature of the registered owner of the property.
Here, BDO’s failure to exercise the highest degree of diligence expected of it warrants the imposition of moral damages. This is further justified by the mental anguish and serious anxiety suffered by Remedios and Angelita, who were deprived of the ability to use or enjoy the proceeds of their investments, which they had fully expected to realize. Keeping in mind that moral damages should not serve as a penalty, the Court finds it reasonable under the circumstances to set the award of moral damages at PHP 100,000.00.
