REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CITY OF PARANAQUE BRANCH 258 ZUWETA, PUNO, AND ASSOCIATES PR BO 2015 ee Sore | OCTAVIO S, MARASIGAN Jr. Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. 06-0336 For: DAMAGES ~ versus- PHILIPPINE NATIONAL. BANK, Defendant. x This is a Verified Complaint for Damages filed by piaintiff Octavio S. Marasigan Jr. egainst defendant Philippine National Bank. In his Complaint, plaintiff alleged that on August 28, 2003 he opened a United States Dollar Savings Account No. 2867076371 at PNB-Aiabang Bianich with ain iviitiai Geposits of Two Hundred Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four Dollars and Fifty Cents (US$ 206, 494. 50). That defendant bank never issued 4 passbook to him neither did he made 4 single withdrawal or deposit on the said account because he considered it as a reserved fund for future use. On August 04, 2004, almost a year after he opened his account, ne went to defendant bank to check his dollar account. He was surprised that the ending balance of his account was only Two Hundred Ninety Four Dollar and Forty Seven Centavos (US$ 294.47,00) due to severai withdrawals made by different persons he never authorized, Aggrieved by the joss of his hard earned money he sent a demand letrer to defendant Gank for the re-payment of his money because it approves Uie unauthorized withdrawal from his accountDecision Civil Case No. 06-0336 Marasigan, Jr, vs. PNB os eee een He further alleged that defendant bank failed ‘to exercise the required diligence owes to its depositor by reason of their fiduciary relationship, for which he was entitled to be paid an equal amount to his account as stipulated in their deposit agreernent pius the iegal interest from the principal amount from the time of demand, He likewise claim for nominal damages in the amount of Five (5) Million pesos for fatiure of the defendant bank to observe the required degree of diligence to protect his hard eamed money; Five (5) Million pesos for Mora! damages as he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings; Five {5} Million pesos for Exemplary damages; One (1) Million pasos for attorneys and for the cost of the suit. On its Answer with Compuisory Counter-Claim, defendant alleged that as part of the standard banking procedures, plaintiff was provided with a passbook as proof of his deposits. The plaintiff also made Twenty two (22) withdrawais in the totai amount of US $ 200,756.00 under normal banking procedures and after meticulous comparison of the plaintiffs’ signature with the latter Signature Card, Passport and other documents in the banks’ possession. That on January 13, 2006 a withdrawal transaction was made in the amount of US $16,000 and it was deposited to plaintiffs’ Checking Account No. 281-890007-711 at PNB Sucat Branch, Defendant bank further alleged that plaintiff has no cause of action because ail the withdrawal transactions were all made above board. By way of Counterclaim, defendant banks claim the amount of Php. 500,000.00 as Moral damages as its reputation was tarnished because of the groundiess suit; Php. 100,000 .00 by way of Attorney's fees because the defendant bank was compelled to jitigate to protect its right; Pip. £00,090.00 by way of Exemplary damages for filing a baseless and unwarranted sult and to set example to the pubiic,Decision Civil Case No. 66-0336 Marasigan, Jr, vs. PNB. Be Saran ranean erat se a “x Plaintiff and defendant bank stipulated the existence of the Dollar Saving Account No. 286-7076371 at PNB-Alabang Branch opened on August 23, 2003 with an initial deposit of Two Hundred Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four Dollars and Fifty Cents (US$ 200, 494, 50) United States Currency and with an ending balance of Two Hundred Ninety Four Dollar and Forty Seven Centavos (US $ 294.47.) as of August 04, 2004, Thereafter, trial ensued, Plaintiff presented the following witnesses, to wit: OCTAVIO MARASIGAN Jr, the plaintiff in this case, testified that upon the request of Gloria Miranda a former account officer of PNB Alabang Branch, he opened a Dollar Saving Account at PNB Alabang Branch on August 28, 2003 with an initial deposit of US$ 200,494.50 under Account No. 286-7076371. When he opened the said account, he signed a signature card and client Information sheet and affirmed his signature therein (Exh. “8” and Annex “1-C°}. It is composed of US$ 800.00 cash and the remaining US$ 200,000 was transferred to his account from his wife's account. Prior to the opening of the said account he and his family member were already a valued client of the PNB Sucat Branch having deposited therein an amount of over a million dollars. At first, he wanted to transfer some of his funds from PNB Sucat Branch to PNB Alabang Branch and toid the same to Giorla Miranda but the jatter advised him against it because she might be accused of pirating an account from the Sucat Branch. That he did not made aay deposit or withdrawals on the said account. On August 2004 he was at PNB Sucat Branch where he checked his account balance with PNB Alabang Branch because he warited to open another lottery business abroad. He was told by PNB Sucat Branch that per verification, he only had US$ 200.00 dollars left on his PNB AlabangDecision Civil Case No, 06-0336 7 Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB K crore terete ee x account, He requested for a copy of all the withdrawals slips which PNE Alabang branch complied with and sent him copies thro fax machine at PN Bra That after his careful examination of the withdrawal shps he found out that his signatures therein were forged. He turther testified that the signature appeared on top of the word “recipient” in the withdrawai stip dated January 42, 2004 (Exb. “A-1) was aiso forged because there was a continuation of writing between the letters "a" and letter “s” in his family name “Marasiaan” which ne never did whenever he writes ms family nama. Ha aise festified that when ne writes his family name he always break after the ietter “a” before he write the letter “s” as a distinctive feacures. He fikewise testified that the slanatu in the documents marked as Exhs. “A” to 1"; Exh. "D-1%, Exh. “G-1°, Exin, FHL", 7", was not his signatures be difference between the stroke and break in the signatures ' He aiso stated that he write the letter "a" anew from the top going down, while in the questioned signatures, the letter “a” was directly and continuously connected to ietrer *s". That from tha time be opened his savings account at PNB- Alabang Branch he never changed hit signature. He also denies the signature appeared on Annex “1-8” which appeared A- 23", Exh. “C- was a big As directed by the court, plaintiff wrote his specimen signatures in open court in a document marked as Exh, “A” (Exh. "H"). He was not also famitiar withh the name of Thomas Alumpia, Eligio Regala, Judith Madalas, and Pepito Tagum Jy, because he never made any transactions with them, althouch. he was infoimed that those were Gloria Mirancda’s employees in her traveling agency. dt oout what He went to PME Alabang Branch to fin: happened’ to his account, but nobody explained what Nappened Gecause Gioria Miranda was mot around at that time. Then he referred the matter to his lawyer, from Zuleata and Puno Law Gffice for legal action. SeveralDecision. Civil Case No, 66-0336 Marasigan, Jr, \ meetings with clefendant bank's legal officers were made but nothing happened prompting him through his lawyers to sent two (2) demand letters (Exts. "C” and “b'5. He confirmed that the amount of US$ 16,000.00 was withdrawn from his account at PN& Alabang Branch by Gloria Miranda who was then borrowing certain amount of money from him and promised to return the same after a couple of days. After a couple of days, Gloria Miranda told him “ Sir, nakapagdeposito na po ake sa utang ko, nandiyan n2po sa sucat branch fiyo, check nyo na iang po”. Wien he checked his account at PNB Sucat Branch, indeed there was a transfer of fund to his account, However, on August 2004, wher he was “reconstructing” all his dollar withdrawals, he discovered that the said amount also came from his account at PNB-Aiabang Branch and not from Gioria Miranda as payment for the iatter’s ioan On his cross examination, he testified that his total deposit in PNG -Sucat branch was around US$ 700,000.00 aside from his peso deposits, ROSA4RIO PEREZ testified that she worked as Document Examiner I at PNP Camp Crame since 1981 up to present. Fer dutles and responsibilities inciude comparing and analyzing questionable documents pertaining to the signatures, handwriting, alteration, counterfeiting of documents, Sie likewise testified that before conducting examination on the questionable documents, she photographed the samme before submitting those to her Division Chief. She affirmed that she made a report (Q: Documents Report No, 052-09 soe “We V-3) ) where her signature as well as the Viviana P. OL withdrawal slip dated January 12, 2004 (Exh. "A" ) and theRecision Civii Case No, 06-0336 Marasigan, ir. vs. PINB n?x signature marked as “Q-2 %Q-24" appeared in the withdrawal slip dated Seauary 13, 2004; (Exh, “A-1") referred 2 the questioned signatures, while the: standard/genuine signatures of Octavio Marasigan Jr, marked ag °S-1" to “S-19" (Exh. °V-5"). Based on the Scientific Comparative Examination and Analysis between the questioned signatures on the Twenty 22) of withdrawal slips and the standard signatures of Octavio Marasigan Jr, in the nineteen (19) pieces of documents submitted, it appears that it has a significant divergences iy the maiwier oF ex on how the writings were done., like the quality, stv okes, structures and other individual handwriting characteristics. She also cOnciUGed that the questioned signature i and the submitted standard signatures of Oclavio Marasigan Ir. (S14 co SS 19") were not written by oie and ame person, That the questioned signatures were executed in a slow manner as shown by the hesitarion and tremors in the strokes, while in the standard signatures, the executions were done in 2 fast movemem. ag shown by the smoothness ir reveals the poor qualiry of the strokes hasitations in the tremors of the writings, while ‘in the standard signatures the movements were smooth, conmmnuous and the flying movements of the strokes were also different questioned Based on the anlarged photagraphed of the signatures (°Q-1" 45'9 she found out that: “iy Arrow No.1, referred to the initials stroke of the writing which wes blunt in the entire guestioned signature from “Q-1 to O-45" white in the staedard signature, the initial stroke was tapered. ¥ in Arrow No. 2, referred ro the elongate: loop of the stroke while im the standard signature it was rounded stioke,Decision Civil Case No, 06-0336 Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB. In Arrow No, 3, referred to the terminal stroke appearing in the letter “e” which was blunt, while in the standard signature it referred to the curve movement or flying movement; In Arrow No, 4, referred to the letter “a”, It has an opening while in the standard signature, the portion was closed stroke and looks like a fetter “c"; In Arrow No. 5 , referred to the terminal stroke of the last ietter which was like fetter “c".” Its stroke was arcaded or rounded on the lower portion; In Arrow No. 6, referred to the foot of the letter “r“ which was a hook and some has a blunt Stroke as appeared on “Q-1" to “Q-45" while in the standard signature, the portion has a short stroke going down to the right and it was tapered: In Arrow No. 7, referred to the terminal stroke of the arrow. it was a curvature at the foot of the letter, while in the standard signature, the arrow pointed to the short stroke, a flying stroke gaing to the right; In Arrow No, 8, in the questioned signature, pointed to the connecting stroke whiie the stroke that connects the two (2) letters which was evicent in the entire questioned signature, while in the standard sianature, the portion has a pen tift or it has a vanishing stroke in the middie; In Arrow No, 9, leads to the pointed stroke on the questioned signature while in the standard signature, the stroke was rounded, and; In Arrow No. 10, referred to the fetter a which was one straight stroke, while in the standard signature, the stroke has a curve.”Decision a Civil Case No. 06-0336 . Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB x That based on these individual characteristics. which she observed between the questioned signatures and the standard signature of the plaintiff she concluded that it was not written by one and the same person. She further testified that the Standard Signature marked as “S-1" was taken out from the Federat Tax Return Form dated April 17, 2004; Standard Signature marked as »S-2" was taken out from Annual Salary and Transmitted for US Information Return Form 10696 dated Septernber 27, 2004; Standard Signature marked as “S-3" was taken out from JM intruder Farm Certificate of Empioyment of Frederick G. Samonte dated October 28, 2004; Standard Signature marked as “S-4 to S'-7" was taken out from the four (4) sheets of Gaming Machine Jackpot Tax Monthly Withholding Return dated November 08, 2004 (Exhis. “W” to "W-18") She further testified that their office required the submission of documents with signatures of Octavio Marasigan Jr., purposely to have a sample of piaintiff’ signatures as a standard sample signature, and subrnitted Employees Quarterly Federai Tax Return Form No. 9-SS dated April 17, 2004 (Exh. “X"}. She likewise identified documents marked Exhs. “X-1", "Y", "2", "Z-2", "2-4", “AA", “BB”, "CC", “DD”, “DD-1", “EE” "FE", MER=2", SEF-2"., SG", “GG-1", "GG- 2-A,” containing genuine signatures of ‘Octavio S. Marasigan Jr. On her cross exarnination, she testified that she was 100% sure that the questioned signatures and the standard signatures were not written by one and the same person. That she was also aware that no two (2) signatures specimen of a person are exactly alike or the same. That although the questioned signatures have similarities with the standard signatures she maintains that it was not possible that it was written by one and the same person. Thereafter, plaintiff rested his case. The defendant on the other hand presented the following witnesses, to wit:Decision Civil Case No. 06-0336 Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB XK veces er tree x CECILIA S$. ESTILO testified that she was the duly authorized representative of defendant PNB who file its Answer with Counterclaim as shown by the Secretary's Certificate issued by PNB Corporate Secretary. She affirmed that the plaintiff opened a US$ Dollar Savings Account No. 2867076371 at PNB-Alabang Branch with an initial deposit of US$ . 200,494.00 because she was then the Sales and Service Head (SSH) of PNB-Alabang Branch from November 2003 to January 2008, That she approved thirteen (13) withdrawals transactions out of twenty two (22) withdrawals from January 12, 2004 to March 5, 2004, That a passbook was given to plaintiff by the defendant bank and it was presented every time his representative mace a withdrawal transaction from his account. That she personally examined the plaintiff's passbook before she approved the withdrawal transactions. That plaintiff never complains nor reported that he was not given a passbook for his account. On January 12, 2004, after comparing the withdrawal slip presented by the plaintiff's representative Tomas Adopina with the Plaintiff's Client Information Sheet (Exh. “1%, and PNB EDP Slip (Exh. “1-B") she approved the withdrawal transactions in the amount of US$ 20,000.00 (Exh. “2"). She likewise approved the withdrawal transaction dated January 13, 2004 in the amount of US$ 16, 900.00 against Plaintiff's Checking Account No. 281-890097-7 (Exh. °3°9; Withdrawal transaction dated January 22, 2004 in the amount of US$ 20,000.00 (Exh. "2"; Withdrawals dated! January 21, 2004 in the amount of US$ 66,325.00 (Exh. *2- Cc) presented by plaintiff's representative Eligio Regala and Judith Montales respectively after she examined and compared the same with the bank records as shown by the transactional code “with” in the machine validation of the withdrawal slip. Lastly, she testified that all withdrawals transactions were authorized because piaintiff’s representative presented a duly signed withdrawai slip together with his passbook.Decision Civil Case No, 06-0336 Marasigan, Jr. vs, PNB She further testified that before she approved the withdrawal transactions she required the plaintiff's representative to present his/her identification card, but it was the bank teller's duty to incicare or to write down the ib’s of the authorized representative. That in this case, the bank teller overlooked to write down the ID's of the plaintiff’s representative, although she was sure that the Identification Card of the plaintiff's representative was presented otherwise she will not approve the same. She admitted that she did not call Mr, Marasigan to verify if indeed Thomas Adopina was his representative notwithstanding plaintiff's telephone number appeared in the Signature Card and EDP Slip and despite the huge amount of money to be withdrawn. She expiained that during that time, the defendant bank has no policy to call their cent for the confirmation of the withdrawal transaction and to ask whether the representative was authorized or not, - She further testified that she neither asked Maria Cristina A. de Guzman why she processed the withdrawai transaction without indicating the Identification Card of the plaintiff's representative in the withdrawal slips dared January 13,16,22,26 and 27, 2004. That Ms. De Guzman resigned from the bank on 2009. She also approved withdrawal transaction dated January 21, 2004 in the amount of US$ 66,325.00 ( Exh. “2-C"} as weil as the other withdrawal transactions made by plaintiff's representative after they presented their Identification Card from Royal Queen Travel and Tours together with the duly signed withdrawals slips, That she worked at defendant bank since February 27, 1999 or more of jess 14 years. That based on her experience, it was normal to have a withdrawal transaction in a span of few days or even for a consecutive days however, she did not realize then that the withdrawais made by plaintiff's representative was transacted only within a span of few days and some were made within com tive days.at y Decision Civil Case No. 06-0336 Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB Si oieete She further testified that it is now the policy of the defendant bani thet every time a withdrawal transaction is to be made in the amount of Php. 500,000 or US$ 10,000 or above, the client has to be called for confirmation and there should be a one day reservation before the said withdrawals transaction can be made. Lastly, while there was a one day reservation made in the instant case, she cannot recali who made such reservation because she was not in charge of the cash holding but of the sales and cash services. That Ms. De Guzman though still employed by PNB Is ne longer assigned with PNB Alabang Branch, She informed that the bank requires the presentation of the withdrawal slip together with the [D's of the representative for his/her proper identification, before the bank approves the withdrawal transaction and to serve as safeguard for the bank to go after them in case there was an anomaly. Without this identification card she will not approve the wansactions. She admitted, however, that in this particular case she approved the withdrawal transactions despite the absence of the identification card number indicated in the withdrawal slip. testified that she is an employee of defendant bank since September 1987 and designated Accounting Reconciliation Officer of the In- sourcing Operations Department under the Global Operations Group of PNB since July 2011. That she came across the account of Octavio S. Marasigan Jr., during the time she was the Sales and Service Officer at Alabang Branch because she approved some of the withdrawal transactions from the said account. She also stated that as Bank Sales and Service Officer, she was responsible for the cashiering operations of the defendant bank and in the absence of Sales and Service Head, she approved the withdrawal transactions in the arnounts ranging from Php. 50,006.00 or US$ 1,000 up to Php. 500,000.00 or US$ 10, 006.00.Decision Civil Case No. 06-0336 Marasigan, Jr. vs, PNB She also admitted having approved four (4) withdrawal transactions dated January 20, 2004 in the amount of US$ 3,606.00 (Exh, “2-M"); January 27, 2004 in the amount of US$ 4,000 (Exh. "2-N"}; March 3, 2004 in the amount of US$ 1,000.00 (Exh. “2-P"}; and February 10, 2604 in the amount US$ 12, 532,00.00 (Exh. “O") made by plaintiff's representative, Eligio Regala and processed by Ma. Cristina “Butch” de Guzman. The iatter, resigned frorn the bank on January 2009, She approved the said transactions after she was convinced that plaintiff's representative was duly authorized by the plaintiff after she examined and compared the latter signatures appeared in the withdrawal slip with the plaintiffs’ Client Information Sheet (Exh. °1”); EDP Slip Signature Card (Exh. “i-6"); PNB Signature Card (Exh. “1- A‘) and with the plaintiff's passport with number 22002772 (Exh. "1-0". She claims that the plaintiff allegations are not true because she approved the four (4) withdrawal transactions out of twenty two (22) withdrawals after his representative presented @ duly signed withdrawal slips coupled with the plaintiff's passbook as were shown by the transactional code “with” in the machine validation of the withdrawal slips. She admitted that she was not sure as to whether the piaintiff was reaiiy issued passbook because there was no complaint on record froin the plaintiff that he was not issued a passbook neither the same was lost or staten. She also admitted that in this case there was a withdrawai of US$ 12,532.00 which she considered as within the range of huge amount (US$ 10,000.06 and up). When the withdrawals were made the bank has no existing poticy to confirm or to verify from their client whether the representative was authorized or not. She aiso stated that it was Eligio Regala who presented a duly signed withdrawal slip together with the plaintiff's passbook. That after she verifies the same from the bank records she was convinced that the signature appeared in the withdrawal slips and the ID presented from Good Times Staffing and Allied Services are the same,43 Decision Civil Case No. 06-0336 Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB She also stated that the bank have documents ‘to shows that every time a depositor open an account they signed a document that they received their passbook, although she does not know if the bank was still in the possession of the said documents considering that it was almost ten (10) years had passed, That she does not know what really happened after the account was opened because it was the Account Manager and the Relationship Officer who handled and taiked to the client. On re-direct examination, she testified that before she approved the withdrawal transaction she checked the withdrawais slip together with the plaintiff's passbook if the same have the same signatures and she was convinced that it has the same signatures, Thereafter, defendant bank rested its case. ISSUE: The Court is tasked to determine whether plaintiff is entitied to damages for the alleged unauthorized withdrawal from bis savings account at the defendant bank, in the total amount of US$200,494,50. RULING: Jn ruling this case, this Court is quided by the Supreme Court's description of the fiduciary duty of the banks under the jaw. In the Consojidated Bank and Trust Corp. vs. Court of Appeats and L.C. Diaz and Company, CPA's (G.R. No. 138569, Sept. 14, 2003) the Supreme Court states thus: The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on simple toan.”””'articte 1980 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "x x x savings x x x deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan.” There is @ debtor-creditor relationship between the bank and its depositor. The bank is the debtor and the depositor ts the creditor, The depositor tends the bank money and the bank agrees to pay the depositor on demand, The savings deposit agreement between the bank and the depositor isDecision Civil Case No. 06-6336 Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB the contract that determines the rights and obligations of — the parties. The law imposes on banks high standards in view of the fiduciary aature of banking. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8791 ("RA 8791"),1""! which took effect on 13 June 2000, declares that the State recognizes the fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance."*! This new provision in the genera! banking law, introduced in 2000, is @ statutory affirmation of Supreme Court decisions, starting with the 1990 case of Simex International v. Court of Appeats,(“! holding that “the bank is under obligation to teat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciasy nature of their relationship," This fiduciary relationship means that the bank's obtigation to observe “high standards of integrity and performance” is deemed written into every deposit agreement between a bark and its dépositor. The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of @ good father of a family, Article 1272 of the Civil Code states that the degree of diligence required of an obligor is that prescribed by law or contract, and absent Such stipulation then the diligence of 3 good father of a family!" Section 2 of RA 8791 prescribes the statutory diligence required from banks - that banks must observe “hitgt janis of integrity and performance’ in servicing their depositors, However, the fiduciary mature of a bank-depasitor ielationship does not convert the contract between the bank and its depositors from a simple loan to 4 trust agreement, whether express or implied. Failure by the bank to pay the depositor is failure to pay simpie loan, and not a breach of trust!" The faw siniply imposes on the bank a higher standard of integrity and performance in complying with its obligations under the contract of simple loan, beyond thase required of non-bank debtors under a simitar contract of simple loan, The fiduciary nature of banking does not convert a simple joan into a trust agreement because banks do not accept deposits to enrich depositars but to earn money for themselves. The law atiows banks to offer the lowest possibile interest rate to depositors while charging theDecision Civil Case No, 06-0336 Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB highest possible interest rate on their own borrowers, The interest spread or differential belongs to the bank and net to the depositors who are not cestul que trust of banks. If depositors are cestul Gue trust of banks, then the interest spread or income belongs to the depositors, a situation that Congress certainly did not intend in enacting Section 2 of RA 8791, AAR Article 1272 of the Civil Code provides that "responsibility. arising from negligence in the periormance of every kind of obligation is demandable." For breach of the savings deposit agreement due to nagiigence, or culpa contractual, the bank. is liable to its depositor. In the instant case, the plaintiff opened a Dollar Savings Account in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand, Five Hundred Ninety Dollars and Fifty Centavos (US$200,494.50).. As such, defendant has an obligation to observe the high standard of integrity and performance as it is deemed written into every deposit agreement between the bank and Its depositor Plaintiff claims that he has not been issued 3 passbook. Defendant, however, asserts that contrary to the allegation of the plaintiff, a passbook was issued to the latter and has evidence to prove the same. with this assertion, the burden of proof 1s shifted to the defendant that indeed a passbook was issued to the piaintiff. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the rules on Savings Account provides that any person in possession of the passbook is pr esumptively its owner, (ibid). Given this presumption, the bank has all the more obliged to ensure that the passbook is issued and received by the depositor once the account is opened, considering that once @ passbook comes into possession of the wrong person, this could facilitate unauthorized withdrawal using forged signature as in this case, Ma. Victoria Ramirez, defendant's witness, testified that the bank have documents to show that everytime 4Decision Civil Case No, 06-0336 Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB depositor open an account, they signed a document that they received a passbook. Notably, however, this document was not presented in court, Failure to adduce this evidence, the assertion of defendant, is to the mind of this Court, a mere self-serving statement, which deserves no credence. Pieces of evidence on record further shows that big amounts of money from the piaintiff's account were withdrawn in a series of transactions which starts from January 12, 2014 to March 3, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that those withdrawats were unauthorized by him, that the persons presenting themselves to the bank as his representatives were not known to him and the signatures appearing on the withdrawal siips were not his. He presented) an expert witness from the Camp Crame who testified that his purported signatures in the withdrawal slips differs from his standard signatures based on the comparison she made on the questioned documents with the documents submitted by the plaintiff and concluded that they are not written by one and the same person. Cecilia Estilo, clefendant representative claims that the withdrawais are vaiid and in order; that some of the withdrawals were approved by her after comparing the signatures in the withdrawal slip with the plaintiff's EDP Stip and was convinced that the signatures therein were that of the plaintiff. She however, recognized that their teller Ms. De Guzman, processed the withdrawal transaction without indicating therein the identification Card of the plaintiff's representative in the withdrawal slips dated January 13, 16, 32, 26 and 27, 2004, While she allegedly asked the teller, Ms. De Guzman, about it, she did not divulge the response of the teller thereto, The importance of this Identification Card to be written on the withdrawal sip, cannot be overemphasized in the light of defendant's witness admission, that this is the bank's safeguard in case there was an anomaly. Failure to indicateDecision Civil Case No. 06-0336 : Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB x this in the withdrawal slips indicates negligence on the part of bank employees who processed and approved these transactions. Unfortunately, said Teller was not presented as witness on the pretext that she already resigned in 2009. It has alse been established that no verification were made on the authority of the plaintiff’s alleged vepresentatives to withdraw from the account. Defendant’s witness stated that the telephone number of the plaintiff is written at the latter’s signature card. Whiie there is no existing policy then that they should verify from the depositor as to the authority of their representative, the frequency of the withdrawals and the amount invoived could have alerted them and confirmed from the plaintiff himself whether the person claiming to be the Plaintiff's representative is authorized as such. In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract, there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent, In culpa contractual, the bank is bound by the negligence of its employees under the principte of respondent superior or cormmand responsibility. The bani must not only exercise “high standards of integrity and performance” if rust atso insure that its employees do likewise because this is the oniy way to ensure that the bank will comply with its fiduciary duty. (Supra) Failing to discharge this burden, the defendant is liable to damages. Be that as it may, however, this Court also finds plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence. In this case, Octavio Marasigan failed to report or complain to the defendant hank the non-issuance of his passbook. Records show that out of the US$200,494.50 deposits of the plaintiff at the defendant bank, oniy US$294.47 was left after a series of withdrawals from this aceount were mace from January 12, 2004 to March 3, 2004. When we subtract the US$16,000 which was acknowledged by the plaintiff as having transferred by Gloria Miranda to his PNP Sucat Branch Account as payment for Miranda‘s Loan, the toralDecision Civil Case No. 06-0336 - Marasigan, Jr. vs. PNB x x actual damage on part of the plaintiff would be US$184,494. 50 US currency. Applying the ruting in Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Court of Appeals where the Court heid the depositor guilty of contributory negligence, allocating the damages between the depositor and the bank on a 40-60 ratio, defendant PNB Alabang Branch must pay 60% of the One Hundred Eighty Four Thousand, Four Hundred Ninety Four and Fifty Cents United States currency (US$184,494.50) as actual damages suffered by the piainuff and the latter must shouider 40% of the same amount. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, this Court hereby renders judgment ordering defendant PNB Alabang Branch to pay Octavio Marasigan the sum of US$116,696.70 with the interest due as stipulated in the deposit agreement to be counted from the day the account was opened on August 28, 2003 until it is paid, and to pay separately legal interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing this Complaint until paid and to pay the cost of suit. SO ORDERED Paranaque City, April 1, 2015 NQMEMI J. BALITAAN Presiding Judae NB/gladys/myta