Ana Grace Rosales and Yo Yuk To

G.R. No.
183204 January 13, 2014
THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,

vs.
ANA GRACE ROSALES AND YO YUK TO
FACTS
Respondent Ana Grace Rosales (Rosales) is the proprietor of China Golden Bridge Travel
Services, a travel agency. Respondent Yo Yuk To is the mother of respondent Rosales. Petitioner
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company is a domestic banking corporation legally established and
operating under Philippine law. Respondents created a Joint Peso Account with the Pritil-Tondo
Branch of the petitioner in 2000. As of August 4, 2004, the balance in the respondents' Joint Peso
Account was $2,515,693.52.
In order to open a savings account, as required by the Philippine Leisure and Retirement Authority
(PLRA), respondent Rosales went with her client Liu Chiu Fang, a Taiwanese national applying for
a retiree's visa from the PLRA, to petitioner's branch in Escolta in May 2002. Because Liu Chiu
Fang could only speak Mandarin, respondent Rosales had to translate for her client.
Using false pretenses, misrepresentation, deceit, and the use of falsified documents, petitioner
filed a criminal action against Estafa before the Office of the Prosecutor of Manila on September
3, 2003. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 03I-25014, against respondent Rosales. The
petitioner claimed that respondent Rosales and an unnamed woman were in charge of the
fraudulent and unauthorized withdrawal of US$75,000.00 from Liu Chiu Fang's dollar account
with the petitioner's Escolta Branch. The petitioner claimed that on February 5, 2003, its branch in
Escolta received a Withdrawal Clearance for Liu Chiu Fang's dollar account from the PLRA.
However, respondent Rosales denied being involved in Liu Chiu Fang's fraudulent and
unauthorized withdrawal from her dollar account. Respondent Rosales asserted that she did not
visit the bank on February 5, 2003, nor did she let Gutierrez know that Liu Chiu Fang intended to
close her account. Respondent Rosales also asserted that she lost track of Liu Chiu Fang after
she opened an account with petitioner.
Respondent Rosales went to the bank at noon on February 6, 2003, to complete a transaction.
While she was transacting with the teller, she caught a glimpse of a woman sitting at the desk of
the Branch Operating Officer, Melinda Perez (Perez).33 After responding to Rosales, Perez
informed her that Liu Chiu Fang had arrived at the bank to close her account.
Unfazed, the petitioner requested for reconsideration when the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila issued a Resolution on December 15, 2003, dismissing the criminal case for lack of
reasonable cause43.
Respondents filed a Complaint for Breach of Obligation and Contract with Damages against the
petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila on September 10, 2004, which was
docketed as Civil Case No. 04110895 and assigned to Branch . Respondents claimed that
petitioner had put their accounts on "Hold Out" status, making it impossible for them to withdraw
their deposits several times. Petitioner, however, did not provide an explanation for this decision.
As a result, the respondents prayed that the "Hold Out" order be lifted and that they be permitted
to withdraw their deposits.
Because it had a good reason for issuing the "Hold Out" order, the petitioner claimed that the
respondents had no cause of action.It also asserted that respondent Rosales' deceptive scheme
had forced it to reimburse Liu Chiu Fang for the sum of US$75,000.00 and to file a criminal
complaint for Estafa against him.
A Resolution from the City Prosecutor of Manila, dated February 18, 2005, overturned the criminal
complaint's dismissal.52 Following this, an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 05-
236103,53 accusing respondent Rosales of Estafa was filed before Branch 14 of the RTC of
Manila.
ISSUE/S
1. IN DETERMINING THAT THE "HOLD-OUT" PROVISION IN THE APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT

FOR DEPOSIT ACCOUNT DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE, THE [CA] MADE A MISTAKE.
2. THE [CA] MADE A ERRATICAL DECISION WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES WERE NEGLIGENT IN RELEASING LIU CHIU FANG'S FUNDS.
3. In confirming the award of moral damages, exempt damages, and attorney's fees, the [CA]
erred.
It posits that the "Hold Out" clause in the Application and Agreement for Deposit Account applies
to all obligations because it does not distinguish between obligations arising ex contractu or ex
delictu. Petitioner also claims that the fraud committed by respondent Rosales was clearly
established by evidence,so it was justified in issuing the "Hold-Out" order. Petitioner claims that
the CA erred in not applying the "Hold Out" clause stipulated in the Application and Agreement for
Deposit Account
The petitioner also challenges the payment of attorney's fees and moral and exemplary damages.
It
RULING
Petitioner appealed to the CA out of resentment.
1.On April 2, 2008, the CA upheld the RTC's decision but struck the award of actual damages
because "the basis for [respondents'] claim for such damages is the professional fee that they
paid to their legal counsel for [respondent] Rosales' defense against the criminal complaint of
[petitioner] for estafa before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila and not this case."As a
result, the CA handled the case in the following manner:In light of the above, the RTC, Branch 21
in Manila's decision in Civil Case No. 04-110895 dated January 15, 2007, is thus AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the actual damages awarded to [respondents] Rosales and Yo Yuk To are
hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED
2.Any sum in the Account may be subject to a lien by the Bank at any time, in its discretion, and
with or without notice to any or all of the depositors, which the Bank may use in full or in part to
satisfy any debt, matured or unmatured, owed to the Bank at such time by any or all of the
depositors. It is accepted that if the debt is only owed by one of the depositors, then this clause
represents the approval of all depositors to have the Account serve as a guarantee for the
obligation to the extent of the debtor's equal portion of the funds deposited to the Account.
The "Hold Out" provision in the Application and Agreement for Deposit Account should not be
relied upon by the Petitioner.
3.Finally, it must be emphasized that even though we acknowledge that the petitioner has the
right to defend itself against fraud or suspicions of fraud, the exercise of that right must be done
within the parameters of the law and in accordance with due process, not in bad faith or willfully
disregarding its contractual obligations to respondents.
Because of this, the petition is hereby REJECTED. The Court of Appeals' contested April 2, 2008
ruling and May 30, 2008 resolution in CA-G.R. Hereby AFFIRMED is CV No. 89086.
SO ORDERED

Ana Grace Rosales and Yo Yuk To

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ana Grace Rosales and Yo Yuk To

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ana Grace Rosales and Yo Yuk To

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

183204 January 13, 2014

THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,

1. IN DETERMINING THAT THE "HOLD-OUT" PROVISION IN THE APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT

Petitioner appealed to the CA out of resentment.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.