B.2. Gumabon vs. Philippine National Bank
B.2. Gumabon vs. Philippine National Bank
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
104
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable and cannot be passed
upon by the Court in the exercise of its power to review under Rule 45.
There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. Questions of fact may be
raised before this Court in any of these instances: (1) when the findings are
grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when
there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on
misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6)
when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the
trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition
as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
Same; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Payment; The burden of proving
that the debt had been discharged by payment rests upon the debtor once the
debt’s existence has been fully established by the evidence on record.—It is
a settled rule in evidence that the one who alleges payment has the burden
of proving it. The burden of proving that the debt had been discharged by
payment rests upon the debtor once the debt’s existence has been fully
established by the evidence on record. When the debtor introduces some
evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence — as
distinct from the burden of proof — shifts to the creditor. Consequently, the
creditor has a duty to produce evidence to show nonpayment.
Same; Same; Admissibility of Evidence; Evidence, to be admissible,
must comply with two (2) qualifications: (a) relevance and (b) competence.
—Evidence, to be admissible, must comply with two (2) qualifications: (a)
relevance and (b) competence. Evidence is relevant if it has a relation to the
fact in issue as to induce a belief in its existence or nonexistence. On the
other hand, evidence is competent if it is not excluded by the law or by the
Rules of Court.
105
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
competence of evidence is the best evidence rule. Section 3, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court provides that the original copy of the document must be
presented whenever the content of the document is under inquiry. However,
there are instances when the Court may allow the presentation of secondary
evidence in the absence of the original document. Section 3, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court enumerates these exceptions: (a) When the original has been
lost, or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the
part of the offeror; (b) when the original is in the custody or under the
control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails
to produce it after reasonable notice; (c) when the original consists of
numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and (d) when the original is a public
record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
Same; Same; Formal Offer of Evidence; Formal offer means that the
offeror shall inform the court of the purpose of introducing its exhibits into
evidence. Without a formal offer of evidence, courts cannot take notice of
this evidence even if this has been previously marked and identified.—The
affidavit of the PNB New York’s bank officer is also inadmissible in the
light of the following self-explanatory provision of the Rules of Court: “Sec.
34. Offer of evidence.—The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. x x x.” Formal offer means that the offeror shall
inform the court of the purpose of introducing its exhibits into evidence.
Without a formal offer of evidence, courts cannot take notice of this
evidence even if this has been previously marked and identified.
Same; Same; Affidavits; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Jurisprudence
dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence when its affiant or
maker did not take the witness stand.—It is unmistakable that the PNB did
not include the affidavit of the PNB New York’s bank offi-
106
107
cases the standard of care required from banks, and the bank’s liability
for the damages sustained by the depositor. The bank is not absolved from
liability by the fact that it was the bank’s employee who committed the
wrong and caused damage to the depositor. Article 2180 of the New Civil
Code provides that the owners and managers of an establishment are
responsible for damages caused by their employees while performing their
functions.
Quasi-delicts; Contributory Negligence; Contributory negligence is
conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the
harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required
to conform for his own protection.—As to contributory negligence, the
Court agrees with the RTC that the PNB failed to substantiate its allegation
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
108
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
Anna Marie was compelled to litigate to protect her interests, the award of
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of P150,000.00 is proper.
Same; Same; Legal Interest; Pursuant to the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas-Monetary Board (BSP-MB) Circular No. 799, the legal interest
rate is six percent (6%) per annum effective July 1, 2013. The new rate is
applicable prospectively; thus, the twelve percent (12%) per annum shall
still apply until June 30, 2013.—We note that pursuant to the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas-Monetary Board Circular No. 799, the legal interest
rate is 6% per annum effective July 1, 2013. The new rate is applicable
prospectively; thus, the 12% per annum shall still apply until June 30, 2013.
In the present case, Anna Marie filed her complaint on August 12, 2004.
PNB is therefore liable for legal interest of 12% per annum from August 12,
2004 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until its full
satisfaction.
109
BRION, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court filed by Anna Marie Gumabon (Anna Marie)
assailing the December 16, 2011 decision2 and June 26, 2012
resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
96289. The CA reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC’s) ruling4 in
Civil Case No. Q-04-53432 favoring Anna Marie.
The Facts
On August 12, 2004, Anna Marie filed a complaint for recovery
of sum of money and damages before the RTC against the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) and the PNB Delta branch manager Silverio
Fernandez (Fernandez). The case stemmed from the PNB’s refusal
to release Anna Marie’s money in a consolidated savings account
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
_______________
110
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
_______________
111
FXCTD Nos. 993902 and 993992,11 and that the PNB withheld the
release of the balance of P250,741.82 in the consolidated savings
account.12 According to the PNB, Anna Marie pre-terminated,
withdrew and/or debited sums against her deposits.
Thus, Anna Marie filed before the RTC a complaint for sum of
money and damages against the PNB and Fernandez.13
As to the two FXCTDs, Anna Marie contended that the PNB’s
refusal to pay her time deposits is contrary to law. The PNB cannot
claim that the bank deposits have been paid since the certificates of
the time deposits are still with Anna Marie.14
As to the consolidated savings account, Anna Marie stated that
the PNB had already acknowledged the account’s balance in the
Deed of Waiver and Quitclaim amounting to P2,734,207.36. As of
January 26, 2004, the remaining balance was P250,741.82. PNB
presented no concrete proof that this amount had been withdrawn.
Anna Marie prayed that the PNB and Fernandez be held
solidarily liable for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well
as attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and legal interests because of the
PNB’s refusal to honor its obligations.
In its answer,15 the PNB argued that: (1) Anna Marie is not
entitled to the balance of the consolidated savings account based on
solutio indebiti; (2) the PNB already paid the $10,058.01 covered by
FXCTD No. 993902; (3) the PNB is liable to pay only $10,718.87 of
FXCTD No. 993992, instead of the full amount of $17,235.41; and
(4) Anna Marie is guilty of contributory negligence. The PNB’s
arguments are discussed below.
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
112
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
113
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
114
Anna Marie’s ledger was also not presented as evidence to show that
several withdrawals had been made against FXCTD No. 993992.
On the consolidated savings account, the RTC held that the
PNB failed to prove that Anna Marie withdrew the balance of
P250,741.82. The RTC excluded PNB’s evidence, i.e., photocopies
of the miscellaneous ticket and manager’s check, to prove the
alleged withdrawals, since these documents were just photocopies
and thus failed to satisfy the best evidence rule.
The RTC awarded damages to Anna Marie due to the PNB’s
mishandling of her account through its employee, Salvoro. The RTC
also held that the PNB failed to establish Anna Marie’s contributory
negligence.
In conclusion, the RTC ordered the PNB to pay Anna Marie these
amounts:
From this ruling, the PNB appealed before the CA.
115
_______________
116
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
In its comment, the PNB counters that: first, the CA can rectify
the RTC’s factual findings since the RTC committed errors in its
appreciation of the evidence; second, the RTC completely ignored
the PNB’s several evidence proving its payment of Anna Marie’s
FXCTDs; third, Anna Marie did not refute the PNB’s allegations of
payment; fourth, the CA has the right to review even those exhibits
which were excluded by the RTC; and fifth, the CA correctly ruled
that the PNB should not be faulted about the unrecorded
transactions, and that the PNB had done its duty to its depositors
when it conducted investigations and an internal audit of Anna
Marie’s accounts.
The Issues
The issue before this Court is whether Anna Marie is entitled to
the payment of the following amounts:
_______________
117
Our Ruling
We grant the petition and reverse the CA’s ruling.
The core issue raised in the present petition is a question of fact.
As a general rule, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court covers only questions of law. Questions of fact are not
reviewable and cannot be passed upon by the Court in the exercise
of its power to review under Rule 45.28
There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. Questions of
fact may be raised before this Court in any of these instances: (1)
when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises,
or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5)
when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
_______________
118
Anna Rose’s SOA, and the affidavit of the PNB New York’s bank
officer. The inadmissibility of these documents is explained more
fully in the following discussion.
PNB failed to establish the fact
of payment to Anna Marie in
It is a settled rule in evidence that the one who alleges payment
has the burden of proving it.30 The burden of proving that the debt
had been discharged by payment rests upon the debtor once the
debt’s existence has been fully established by the evidence on
record. When the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the
burden of going forward with the evidence — as distinct from the
burden of proof — shifts to the creditor. Consequently, the creditor
has a duty to produce evidence to show nonpayment.31
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
In the present case, both the CA and the RTC declared that the
PNB has the burden of proving payment. The lower courts, however,
differed in resolving the question of whether the PNB presented
sufficient evidence of payment to shift the burden of evidence to
Anna Marie. The RTC ruled that the PNB failed to do so, after
excluding PNB’s evidence, i.e., miscellaneous ticket, manager’s
check, and the affidavit of the PNB New York’s bank officer, based on
the rules of evidence. The CA, on the other hand, considered the
excluded evidence and found that the PNB presented sufficient proof
of payment.
_______________
30 Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 326 Phil. 89, 90; 256 SCRA
84, 89 (1996).
31 Saberola v. Suarez, G.R. No. 151227, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 135, 146-147.
119
SA No. 6121200
The PNB alleged that it had already paid the balance of the
consolidated savings account (SA No. 6121200) amounting to
P250,741.82. It presented the manager’s check to prove that Anna
Marie purchased the check using the amounts covered by the
Gumabon’s two savings accounts which were later part of Anna
Marie’s consolidated savings account. The PNB also presented the
miscellaneous ticket to prove Anna Marie’s withdrawal from the
savings accounts.
The RTC denied the admission of the manager’s check and the
miscellaneous ticket since the original copies were never
presented.32 The PNB moved to tender the excluded evidence and
argued that even without the presentation of the original copies, the
photocopies are admissible because they have been identified by
Fernandez.33
Evidence, to be admissible, must comply with two qualifications:
(a) relevance and (b) competence. Evidence is relevant if it has a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce a belief in its existence or
nonexistence.34 On the other hand, evidence is competent if it is not
excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court.35
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
One of the grounds under the Rules of Court that determines the
competence of evidence is the best evidence rule. Section 3, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court provides that the original copy of the
document must be presented whenever the content of the document
is under inquiry.36
_______________
120
However, there are instances when the Court may allow the
presentation of secondary evidence in the absence of the original
document. Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court enumerates
these exceptions:
(a) When the original has been lost, or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(d) when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or
is recorded in a public office.
While the RTC cannot consider the excluded evidence to resolve
the issues, such evidence may still be admitted on appeal provided
there has been tender of the excluded evidence under Section 40 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.37
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
_______________
dence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the
following cases: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) When the original
is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; (c) When the original
consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.”
37 “Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence.—If documents or things offered in
evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or
made part of the record. If the evidence
121
In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the
utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos
or of millions. The bank must record every single transaction
accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This
has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of
money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
_______________
excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.”
38 Philippine Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127469,
January 15, 2004, 419 SCRA 487, 505-506.
39 Id.
40 Id.
122
The PNB claimed that it had already paid the amount of
$10,058.01 covered by FXCTD No. 993902. It presented the foreign
demand draft dated March 11, 2002 which Anna Marie allegedly
purchased with the funds of FXCTD No. 993902. In addition, the
PNB also presented Anna Rose’s SOA to show that there was a fund
transfer involving the contested amount. To further support its claim,
the PNB annexed the affidavit of the PNB New York’s branch
officer about the fund transfer. The PNB, however, failed to formally
offer the affidavit as evidence.
Anna Marie moved for the exclusion of the photocopy of Anna
Rose’s SOA for failing to conform to the best evidence rule. The
RTC granted her motion and denied its admission. When the case
reached the CA, the CA stated that the RTC should have considered
the evidence in the light of the PNB’s identification of the SOA as
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
123
Formal offer means that the offeror shall inform the court of the
purpose of introducing its exhibits into evidence. Without a formal
offer of evidence, courts cannot take notice of this evidence even if
this has been previously marked and identified.43
In Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Parocha,44 we reiterated the
importance of a formal offer of evidence. Courts are mandated to
rest their factual findings and their judgment only and strictly upon
the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. The formal offer
enables the judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the
proponent is presenting the evidence. It also affords the opposing
parties the chance to examine the evidence and to object to its
admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court
will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized
by the trial court.
In People v. Napat-a,45 People v. Mate,46 and Heirs of Romana
Saves v. Hiers of Escolastico Saves,47 we recognized the
_______________
41 Rollo, p. 74.
42 Rule 132, Rules of Court.
43 Star Two (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454, March 23, 2011, 646
SCRA 371, 375-376.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
44 G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 410, 416.
45 G.R. No. 84951, November 14, 1989, 179 SCRA 403, 407.
46 No. L-34754, March 27, 1981, 103 SCRA 484, 493.
47 G.R. No. 152866, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 236, 246.
124
The PNB alleged that Anna Marie’s claim over FXCTD No.
993992 should only be limited to $5,857.79. It presented the
manager’s check, which admissibility we have heretofore discussed
and settled, and the miscellaneous tickets.
We cannot absolve the PNB from liability based on these
miscellaneous tickets alone. As the RTC correctly stated, the
transactions allegedly evidenced by these tickets were neither posted
at the back of Anna Marie’s certificate, nor recorded on
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
48 Dantis v. Maghinang, Jr., G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 599,
610.
125
her ledger to show that several withdrawals had been made on the
account.
At this point, we remind the PNB of the negotiability of a
certificate of deposit as it is a written acknowledgment by the bank
of the receipt of a sum of money on deposit which the bank
promises to pay to the depositor, to the latter’s order, or to some
other person or the latter’s order.49 To discharge a debt, the bank
must pay to someone authorized to receive the payment.50 A bank
acts at its peril when it pays deposits evidenced by a certificate of
deposit, without its production and surrender after proper
indorsement.51
Again, as the RTC had correctly stated, the PNB should not have
allowed the withdrawals, if there were indeed any, without the
presentation of the covering foreign certificates of time deposit.
There are no irregularities on Anna Marie’s certificates to justify the
PNB’s refusal to pay the stated amounts in the certificates when it
was presented for payment.
Therefore, the PNB is liable for Anna Marie’s claims since it
failed to prove that it had already been discharged from its
obligation.
PNB is liable to Anna Marie for
actual, moral, and exemplary
banking institution.
Since the PNB is clearly liable to Anna Marie for her deposits,
the Court now determines PNB’s liability for damages under
existing laws and jurisprudence.
_______________
49 Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Querimit, G.R. No. 148582, January 16,
2002, 373 SCRA 665, 671.
50 Id.
51 Id.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
126
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
127
_______________
14, 1997, 269 SCRA 695, 708-710; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v.
Cabilzo, G.R. No. 154469, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 259, 270-271.
57 “Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only
for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible. x x x The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions,
x x x.”
58 G.R. No. 157845, September 20, 2005, 470 SCRA 328, 341.
128
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
_______________
59 Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 374, 388; 253 SCRA 303, 318
(1996).
60 The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Rosales, G.R. No. 183204,
January 13, 2014, 713 SCRA 75, 88.
61 Solidbank Corporation v. Arrieta, 492 Phil. 95, 97; 451 SCRA 711, 716
(2005).
129
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
We note that pursuant to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas-
Monetary Board Circular No. 799, the legal interest rate is 6% per
annum effective July 1, 2013. The new rate is applicable
prospectively; thus, the 12% per annum shall still apply until June
30, 2013.
In the present case, Anna Marie filed her complaint on August
12, 2004. PNB is therefore liable for legal interest of 12%
_______________
130
per annum from August 12, 2004 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per
annum from July 1, 2013, until its full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
December 16, 2011 decision and June 26, 2012 resolution of the
Court of Appeals is hereby reversed. The October 26, 2010 decision
of the Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED with
MODIFICATIONS. Thus, the Philippine National Bank is
ORDERED to pay Anna Marie Gumabon the following:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Financial Consumers
Protection Department of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, for
information and possible action in accordance with the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas’ mandate to protect the banking public.
SO ORDERED.
131
——o0o——
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/27
1/26/22, 11:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 798
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017e96f8831570dd9de1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 27/27