Petitioner accused respondent Rosales and an unidentified woman as the ones responsible for the
unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawal of US$75,000.00 from Liu Chiu Fang’s dollar account with
petitioner’s Escolta Branch. Petitioner alleged that on February 5, 2003, its branch in Escolta received from
the PLRA a Withdrawal Clearance for the dollar account of Liu Chiu Fang and on the same day, respondent
Rosales went to petitioner’s Escolta Branch to inform its Branch Head, Celia A. Gutierrez (Gutierrez), that
Liu Chiu Fang was going to withdraw her dollar deposits in cash. Gutierrez told respondent Rosales to
come back the following day because the bank did not have enough dollars. On February 6, 2003,
respondent Rosales accompanied an unidentified impostor of Liu Chiu Fang to the bank and that the
mpostor was able to withdraw Liu Chiu Fang’s dollar deposit in the amount of US$75,000.00. On March
3, 2003, respondents opened a dollar account with petitioner; and that the bank later discovered that the
serial numbers of the dollar notes deposited by respondents in the amount of US$11,800.00 were the same
as those withdrawn by the impostor. Respondents were charged with a criminal case of Estafa through
False Pretences, Misrepresentation, Deceit, and Use of Falsified Documents. During the pendency of the
criminal case, the petitioner issued a “Hold-out” order for the bank accounts of the respondents. That they
had no legal reason to issue the Hold-out order. Respondents assail that they have a valid reason for issuing
the "Hold Out" order and prayed or actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees. It
averred that due to the fraudulent scheme of respondent Rosales, it was compelled to reimburse Liu Chiu
Fang the amount of US$75,000.00 and to file a criminal complaint for Estafa against respondent Rosales.
The RTC Manila found the petitioner liable for damages for breach of contract. The RTC ruled that it is the
duty of petitioner to release the deposit to respondents as the act of withdrawal of a bank deposit is an act
of demand by the creditor. CA affirmed but removed the actual damages. Petitioner in issue the award of
moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. It insists that respondents failed to prove that it acted in
bad faith or in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. Petitioner denies that its employees
were negligent in releasing the dollars. It claims that it was the deception employed by respondent Rosales
that caused petitioner’s employees to release Liu Chiu Fang’s funds to the impostor.
In the case of Simex International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the court elucidated that "the bank is under
obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary
nature of their relationship." They further clarified the relationship in the case of Cagungun v. Planters
Development Bank, stating that fiduciary relationship means that the bank’s obligation to observe "highest
standards of integrity and performance" is deemed written into every deposit agreement between a bank
and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher
than that of a good father of a family.
In the regulatory aspect, due diligence depends on the type of customer, business relationship or nature of
the product, transaction or activity. Every covered person shall develop clear, written and graduated
customer acceptance and identification policies and procedures that will ensure that the financially or
socially disadvantaged are not denied access to financial services while at the same time prevent suspicious
individuals or entities from opening an account or establishing a relationship. BSP Circular No. 102
provides for the criteria to consider the level of due diligence applied to each transaction.
Logically, the bank as a business entity has the right and responsibility to protect itself from risky and
harmful acts done or not done by both potential and existing customers. Although it is true that they are
imbued with public trust but it doesn’t mean that they should accept any transaction without considering
their own skins. Just like any entity, they are and must be clothed with protection.
In this case the bank should have imposed a stricter withdrawal procedure especially for those who are not
the account holders. First, they should have secured the identity of the person who withdrew the money and
their relationship with the account holder. Second, they should have secured the validity of the documents
presented if they are authentic of not. Thirdly, they should have informed the primary account holder of the
on-going transaction to get their verbal confirmation in order to ascertain that the transaction was legitimate.
The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) can compel banks to freeze the account upon determination
that probable cause exists that any deposit or similar account is in any way related to like Money Laundering
or Terrorism Financing which is illegal.
In Joint-bank accounts, incase the bank receives a contradictory instruction from any co-accountholder/s,
the bank may freeze the account until all the account holders arrive at common instruction.
If there are court orders to freeze the account on probable cause that the account is used in unlawful acts
and/or money laundering .