ANGELITA A. ANTONINO VS. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, INC.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 273446
- Promulgated: 2025-04-23
- Ponente: GAERLAN, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Angelita A. Antonino and Remedios A. Antonino (hereinafter "Antoninos") placed several time deposits with Banco De Oro Universal Bank, Inc. (BDO) at its San Lorenzo Branch between 1998 and 2001. They alleged an agreement with the Bank Manager for automatic rollovers of their investments, including accrued interest, because they mostly resided in the USA. The Time Deposit Certificates (TDCs) were kept in a safety deposit box at Banco Filipino, which later declared bankruptcy. The Antoninos were preoccupied with family medical issues and only retrieved their TDCs from the Philippine Deposit Insurance Company (PDIC) after Banco Filipino's closure in 2011. Upon attempting to withdraw their investments, the Antoninos discovered that BDO San Lorenzo had ceased operations without notification. BDO later informed them that three of their TDCs, amounting to USD 50,000.00, were already redeemed on May 28, 2001, by Angelita Antonino, and presented a Demand Draft bearing her purported signature. Angelita denied this, presenting a Bureau of Immigration (BOI) certification and her passport to prove she was out of the country from November 20, 2000, to June 9, 2003, thus making it impossible for her to have signed the Demand Draft on May 28, 2001. A PNP handwriting expert also found dissimilarities in the signatures. The Antoninos filed a complaint seeking payment for their time deposits totalling USD 150,008.41. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered BDO to pay USD 100,000.70 plus interest, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, but denied the claim for one TDC (No. 00846962) due to the absence of the actual certificate. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Both parties then filed petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's finding that the Antoninos are entitled to the payment of their time deposits covered by TDC Nos. 1117687, 1193123, 1193124, and 1193125. 2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Antoninos are not guilty of laches. 3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Official Receipt No. 538828 is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of TDC No. 00846962. 4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Supreme Court **affirmed** the findings of the lower courts, ruling that the Antoninos are entitled to the payment of their time deposits covered by the four TDCs. The Court found that the Antoninos discharged their burden of proving, by preponderance of evidence, their entitlement to the payment. The most compelling evidence was their **possession of the original TDCs**, which, according to the literal terms and conditions (Paragraph 9) printed on the dorsal side of the TDCs, must be surrendered to the bank upon redemption. BDO's former Officer-in-Charge also attested to this standard operating procedure. The Court acknowledged that the **possession of a certificate of time deposit is a key indication that payment has not yet been made**. BDO's evidence, including computer-printed history data and a Demand Draft purportedly signed by Angelita, was found less persuasive. The computer-printed history data was considered an internal document. The authenticity of Angelita's signature on the Demand Draft was effectively controverted by her **Bureau of Immigration Certification and passport entries**, proving she was out of the country when the alleged withdrawal occurred. A PNP handwriting expert's testimony further supported the claim that the signature on the Demand Draft was likely not made by Angelita. BDO's inability to produce an alleged Affidavit of Loss or supporting documents due to "lapse of time" was also noted. **Issue 2:** The Supreme Court **affirmed** that the Antoninos are not guilty of laches. The Court found that there…
Keywords
Rule 45 Rules of Court, Civil Code Article 2229, Civil Code Article 2208, 2019 Manual of Regulations for Banks Section 261, Diligence Required of Banks, Presumption of Regularity, Time Deposits, Banking Law, Recovery of Investments, Bank Negligence, Preponderance of Evidence, Certiorari, Laches, Moral Damages, Exemplary Damages, Attorney's Fees, Factual Findings, Public Document, Parol Evidence Rule, Appeals Denied