Banks can't force depositors to return money mistakenly released: SC
Banks cannot force depositors to return money that has been mistakenly withdrawn due to its own negligence, the Supreme Court ruled.
In a decision by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the high court's Third Division denied a petition by BDO Unibank in its case with a certain Cristina Barcellano.
In September 2003, Barcellano deposited a regional check worth P151,200 from an Albay branch of LandBank into her savings account at BDO in Lucena City.
The teller mistakenly validated the check as local instead of regional, which means it cleared in three banking days instead of seven. Six days later, Barcellano was able to withdraw P76,000 from her BDO account.
On the following day, BDO received a stop payment order and reached out to Barcellano and asked her to return the money she withdrew from her account. She initially agreed, but never remitted the amount.
Through legal counsel, Barcellano demanded to withdraw the remaining balance on her BDO account, but the bank countered and filed an estafa complaint against her.
The Regional Trial Court acquitted Barcellano of the charge and held that the premature withdrawal happened due to the bank's negligence. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the RTC's judgment.
BDO also brought the case before the SC, arguing that Barcellano should still return the money, as this amounted to unjust enrichment and falls under solutio indebiit, or the legal principle that applies when there is a mistake in payment, or the recipient has no right to receive.
The high court disagreed with the bank and stated that it did not explain why the stop payment order was issued.
"Plain as day, BDO failed to demonstrate that Barcellano knowingly received a benefit to which she was not entitled when she withdrew the funds from her account," the decision read.
It added that the principle of solutio indebiti does not apply in the case.
"In handling their transactions, banks are required to exercise extraordinary diligence, which is more than that of a Roman pater familias, or a good father of the family," the SC said.