1987, and were payable to bearer at 4.5% interest per annum.

The
SECOND DIVISION certificates bore the word accrued, which meant that if they were not
presented for encashment or pre-terminated prior to maturity, the money
deposited with accrued interest would be rolled over by the bank and
[G.R. No. 148582. January 16, 2002] annual interest
would accumulate automatically. The petitioner banks manager
[5]

assured respondent that her deposit would be renewed and earn interest
upon maturity even without the surrender of the certificates if these were
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST not indorsed and withdrawn.[6] Respondent kept her dollars in the bank
COMPANY, petitioner, vs. ESTRELLA O. so that they would earn interest and so that she could use the fund after
QUERIMIT, respondent. she retired.[7]
In 1989, respondent accompanied her
DECISION husband Dominador Querimit to the United States for medical
treatment. She used her savings in the Bank of the Philippine Islands
MENDOZA, J.:
(BPI) to pay for the trip and for her husbands medical expenses. [8] In
January 1993, her husband died and Estrella returned to
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking review of the
the Philippines. She went to petitioner FEBTC to withdraw her deposit
decision, dated March 6, 2001, and resolution, dated June 19, 2001, of
but, to her dismay, she was told that her husband had withdrawn the
the Court of Appeals[1] in CA-G.R. CV No. 67147,
money in deposit.[9] Through counsel, respondent sent a demand letter
entitled Estrella O. Querimit v. Far East Bank and Trust Company,
to petitioner FEBTC. In another letter, respondent reiterated her request
which affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
for updating and payment of the certificates of deposit, including interest
Branch 38, Manila,[2] ordering petitioner Far East Bank and Trust Co.
earned.[10] As petitioner FEBTC refused respondents demands, the latter
(FEBTC) to allow respondent Estrella O. Querimit to withdraw her time
filed a complaint, joining in the action Edgardo F. Blanco, Branch
deposit with the FEBTC.
Manager of FEBTC Harrison Plaza Branch, and Octavio Espiritu,
The facts are as follows: FEBTC President.[11]
Respondent Estrella O. Querimit worked as internal auditor of the Petitioner FEBTC alleged that it had given respondents late
Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) for 19 years, from 1963 to 1992. [3] On husband Dominador an accommodation to allow him to
November 24, 1986, she opened a dollar savings account in petitioners withdraw Estrellas deposit.[12] Petitioner presented certified true copies of
Harrison Plaza branch,[4] for which she was issued four (4) Certificates documents showing that payment had been made, to wit:
of Deposit (Nos. 79028, 79029, 79030, and 79031), each certificate
1. Four FEBTC Harrison Plaza Branch Dollar Demand Drafts Nos.
representing the amount of $15,000.00, or a total amount of
886694903, 886694904, 886694905 and 886694906 for US$15,110.96
$60,000.00. The certificates were to mature in 60 days, on January 23,

Page 1 of 5
each, allegedly issued by petitioner to respondents 5. ORDERING defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
husband Dominador after payment on the certificates of deposit;[13]
SO ORDERED.[18]
2. A letter of Alicia de Bustos, branch cashier of FEBTC at Harrison
Plaza, dated January 23, 1987, which was sent to Citibank, N.A.,
On May 15, 2000, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which,
Citibank Center, Paseo de Roxas, Makati, Metro Manila, informing the
on March 6, 2001, affirmed through its Fourteenth Division the decision
latter that FEBTC had issued the four drafts and requesting Citibank
of the trial court, with the modification that FEBTC was declared solely
New York to debit from petitioners account $60,443.84, the aggregate
liable for the amounts adjudged in the decision of the trial court. The
value of the four drafts;[14]
appeals court stated that petitioner FEBTC failed to prove that the
3. Citicorp Remittance Service: Daily Summary and Payment Report certificates of deposit had been paid out of its funds, since the evidence
dated January 23, 1987;[15] by the [respondent] stands unrebutted that the subject certificates of
deposit until now remain unindorsed, undelivered and unwithdrawnby
4. Debit Ticket dated January 23, 1987, showing the debit of
[her].[19] But the Court of Appeals held that the individual
US$60,443.84 or its equivalent at the time of P1,240,912.04 from the
defendants, Edgardo F. Blanco, FEBTC-Harrison Plaza Branch
FEBTC Harrison Plaza Branch;[16] and
Manager, and Octavio Espiritu, FEBTC President, could not be
5. An Interbranch Transaction Ticket Register or Credit Ticket held solidarily liable with the FEBTC because the latter has a personality
dated January 23, 1987 showing that US$60,443.84 or P1,240,912.04 separate from its officers and stockholders.[20]
was credited to petitioners International Operation Division (IOD).[17]
Hence this appeal.
On May 6, 2000, the trial court rendered judgment for respondent.
As stated by the Court of Appeals, the main issue in this case is
The dispositive portion of the decision stated:
whether the subject certificates of deposit have already been paid by
petitioner.[21] Petitioner contends that-
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff
[Estrella O. Querimit] and against defendants [FEBTC et al.]: I. Petitioner is not liable to respondent for the value of the four (4)
Certificates of Deposit, including the interest thereon as well as
moral and exemplary damages, attorneys and appearance fees.
1. ORDERING defendants to allow plaintiff to withdraw her U.S.$ Time
Deposit of $60,000.00 plus accrued interests; II. The aggregate value - both principal and interest earned at maturity
- of the four (4) certificates of deposit was already paid to or
2. ORDERING defendants to pay moral damages in the amount
withdrawn at maturity by the late Dominador Querimit who was the
of P50,000.00;
respondents deceased husband.
3. ORDERING defendants to pay exemplary damages in the amount
III. Respondent is guilty of laches since the four (4) certificates of
of P50,000.00;
deposit were all issued on 24 November 1986 but she attempted
4. ORDERING defendants to pay attorneys fees in the amount to withdraw their aggregate value on 29 July 1996 only on or after
of P100,000.00 plus P10,000.00 per appearance of counsel; and the lapse of more than nine (9) years and eight (8) months.

Page 2 of 5
 IV. Respondent is not liable to petitioner for attorneys fees.[22] payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove payment. The debtor has
After reviewing the records, we find the petition to be without merit. the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been
discharged by payment.[29]
First. Petitioner bank failed to prove that it had already
In this case, the certificates of deposit were clearly marked payable
paid Estrella Querimit, the bearer and lawful holder of the subject
to bearer, which means, to [t]he person in possession of an instrument,
certificates of deposit. The finding of the trial court on this point, as
document of title or security payable to bearer or indorsed in
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is that petitioner did not pay either
blank.[30] Petitioner should not have paid respondents husband or any
respondent Estrella or her husband the amounts evidenced by the
third party without requiring the surrender of the certificates of deposit.
subject certificates of deposit. This Court is not a trier of facts and
generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by Petitioner claims that it did not demand the surrender of the subject
the Court of Appeals.[23] The finding of respondent court which shows that certificates of deposit since respondents husband, Dominador Querimit,
the subject certificates of deposit are still in the possession was one of the banks senior managers. But even long after respondents
of Estrella Querimit and have not been indorsed or delivered to husband had allegedly been paid respondents deposit and before his
petitioner FEBTC is substantiated by the record and should therefore retirement from service, the FEBTC never required him to deliver the
stand.[24] certificates of deposit in question.[31] Moreover, the accommodation given
to respondents husband was made in violation of the banks policies and
A certificate of deposit is defined as a written acknowledgment by a
procedures.[32]
bank or banker of the receipt of a sum of money on deposit which the
bank or banker promises to pay to the depositor, to the order of the Petitioner FEBTC thus failed to exercise that degree of diligence
depositor, or to some other person or his order, whereby the relation of required by the nature of its business.[33] Because the business of banks
debtor and creditor between the bank and the depositor is created. The is impressed with public interest, the degree of diligence required of
principles governing other types of bank deposits are applicable to banks is more than that of a good father of the family or of an ordinary
certificates of deposit,[25] as are the rules governing promissory notes business firm. The fiduciary nature of their relationship with their
when they contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain of depositors requires them to treat the accounts of their clients with the
money absolutely.[26] The principle that payment, in order to discharge a highest degree of care.[34] A bank is under obligation to treat the accounts
debt, must be made to someone authorized to receive it is applicable to of its depositors with meticulous care whether such accounts consist
the payment of certificates of deposit. Thus, a bank will be protected in only of a few hundred pesos or of millions of pesos. Responsibility
making payment to the holder of a certificate indorsed by the payee, arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is
unless it has notice of the invalidity of the indorsement or the holders demandable.[35] Petitioner failed to prove payment of the subject
want of title.[27] A bank acts at its peril when it pays deposits evidenced certificates of deposit issued to the respondent and, therefore, remains
by a certificate of deposit, without its production and surrender after liable for the value of the dollar deposits indicated thereon with accrued
proper indorsement.[28] As a rule, one who pleads payment has the interest.
burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment,
the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove

Page 3 of 5
 Second. The equitable principle of laches is not sufficient to defeat equitable.[41] However, we find the award of attorneys fees to be
the rights of respondent over the subject certificates of deposit. excessive and accordingly reduce it to P20,000.00.[42]
Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable length of time, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby
to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been DENIED and the Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 67147 AFFIRMED, with
done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a the modification that the award of attorneys fees is reduced
reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to to P20,000.00.
assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[36]
SO ORDERED.
There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr.,
of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular
JJ., concur.
circumstances. The question of laches is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine, its application is
controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot be used to defeat
justice or perpetrate fraud and injustice. Courts will not be guided or
bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when
to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result.[37] [1]
Per Associate Justice Martin S. Villanueva, Jr. and concurred in by Associate
In this case, it would be unjust to allow the doctrine of laches to Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Perlita J. Tria Tirona.
defeat the right of respondent to recover her savings which she [2]
Per Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr.
deposited with the petitioner. She did not withdraw her deposit even [3]
TSN (Estrella Querimit), pp. 4-5, Oct. 3, 1997.
after the maturity date of the certificates of deposit precisely because
she wanted to set it aside for her retirement. She relied on the banks
[4]
Id., pp. 5-6; TSN (Estrella Querimit), pp. 6-17, Nov. 4, 1998.
assurance, as reflected on the face of the instruments themselves, that [5]
TSN (Estrella Querimit), pp. 6-11, Oct. 3, 1997; TSN (Estrella Querimit), p.
interest would accrue or accumulate annually even after their maturity. [38] 11, Nov. 4, 1998; Exhs. A, B, C, D (Certificates of Deposit).

Third. Respondent is entitled to moral damages because of the

[6]
TSN (Estrella Querimit), p. 17, Oct. 3, 1997.
mental anguish and humiliation she suffered as a result of the wrongful [7]
TSN (Estrella Querimit), p. 18, Oct. 3, 1997; TSN (Estrella Querimit), p. 15, Nov. 4,
refusal of the FEBTC to pay her even after she had delivered the 1997.
certificates of deposit.[39] In addition, petitioner FEBTC should pay [8]
TSN (Estrella Querimit), pp. 18-20, Nov. 4, 1997.
respondent exemplary damages, which the trial court imposed by way [9]
TSN (Estrella Querimit), p. 11, Oct. 3, 1997; TSN (Estrella Querimit), pp. 9-
of example or correction for the public good. [40] Finally, respondent is
22, Nov. 4, 1998.
entitled to attorneys fees since petitioners act or omission compelled her
to incur expenses to protect her interest, making such award just and [10]
TSN (Estrella Querimit), pp. 11-16, Oct. 3, 1997; Records, pp. 8-9 (Letters of
Demand dated July 29, 1996 and Aug. 2, 1996).

Page 4 of 5
[11]
Records, pp. 1-5. [31]
TSN (Alicia de Bustos), pp. 11-15, July 23, 1999.
[12]
Petition, p. 15; Rollo, p. 17; TSN (Tomas Silva), pp. 14-20, Dec. 4, 1997. [32]
TSN (Tomas de Silva), pp. 33-34, Dec. 4, 1997.
[13]
Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, and 13. [33]
Civil Code, Art. 1173.
[14]
Exh. 6. [34]
Canlas v. Court of Appeals, 326 SCRA 415 (2000); Ibaan Rural Bank v. Court of
Appeals, 321 SCRA 88 (1999); Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of
[15]
Exh. 5. Appeals, 269 SCRA 695 (1997); Metropolitan Bank and Trust
[16]
Exh. 7; TSN (Raoul Reniedo), pp. 38-40, April 30, 1998. Company v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 761 (1994); Bank of the
Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 51 (1992).
[17]
Exhs. 8, 9; id., pp. 40-50.
[35]
Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 264 (2000); Philippine National
[18]
Records, pp. 305-311. Bank v. Court of Appeals, 315 SCRA 309 (1999); Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 761 (1994); Aranetav. Bank
[19]
CA Decision, pp. 4-5; Rollo, pp. 43-44.
of America, 40 SCRA 144 (1971).
[20]
Id., p. 6; id., p. 45. [36]
Felizardo v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 137509, Aug. 15, 2001; Gabionza v. Court of
[21]
Id., p. 4; id., p. 43. Appeals, G.R. No. 140311, March 30, 2001; Avisado v. Rumbana, G.R. No.
137306, March 12, 2001; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 366 (1999);
[22]
Petition, pp. 11-12; id., pp. 13-14. PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC, 260 SCRA 758
[23]
Prudential Bank and Trust Company v. Reyes, G.R. No. 141093, Feb. 20, (1996).
2001; Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, [37]
Rosales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137566, Feb. 28, 2001; Cometa v. Court of
G.R. No. 139437, Dec. 8, 2000; PAL Employees Savings and Loan Appeals, G.R. No. 141855, Feb. 6, 2001; De Vera v. Court of Appeals, 305
Association, Inc. v. NLRC, 260 SCRA 758 (1996). SCRA 624 (1999).
[24]
Wong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117857, Feb. 2, 2001. [38]
TSN (Estrella Querimit), pp. 6-11, Oct. 3, 1997; TSN (Estrella Querimit), p.
[25]
10 Am Jur 2d 455. 11, Nov. 4, 1998; Exhs. A, B, C, D (Certificates of Deposit).

[26]
10 Am Jur 457.
[39]
Civil Code, Arts. 2217, 2219.

[27]
10 Am Jur 2d 461.
[40]
Art. 2229.
[28]
Clark v. Young, 21 So.2d 331 (1944); Cohn-Goodman Co. v. Peoples Saving Bank
of Grand Haven, 168 N.W. 1042 (1918).
[29]
Sevillana v. I.T. (International) Corp., G.R. No. 99047, April 16,
2001; Villar v. NLRC, 331 SCRA 686 (2000); Audion Electric Co., Inc.. vs.
NLRC, 308 SCRA 340 (1999); Ropali Trading Corporation v. NLRC, 296
SCRA 309 (1998); Pacific Maritime Services Inc. v. Ranay, 275 SCRA 717
(1997).
[30]
Blacks Law Dictionary (5th ed., 1979), p. 140.

Page 5 of 5