FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY V. ESTRELLA QUERIMIT G.R. No. 148582.

January 16, 2002

I.

PARTIES Petitioner Respondent-

CASE ANALYSIS
Far East Bank and Company Estrella Querimit

II. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Regional Trial Court Court of Appeals 2nd Division Supreme Court III. THEORIES OF THE PARTIES Petitioner: Far East Bank and Trust Company claimed that they are not liable for the value of four certificate of deposits including the interest thereon and other fees because deposit was already paid to or withdrawn at maturity by the late Dominador Querimit (respondents husband) Respondent: Estrella Querimit claimed that she did not withdraw her time deposit in preparation for her retirement. The certificate of deposit was still on her possession, thus, entitled for payment of the bank. IV. OBJECTIVES OF THE PARTY Petitioner: The petitioner wants to be relieved of the burden of paying the respondent of the deposit with an amount of $60,000.00 and other fees which was held by the Court of Appeals. Respondent: The respondent sought for the payment of her deposit on her dollar savings account in Petitioners Harrison Plaza branch with a total amount of $60,000.00. V. KEY FACTS On November 24, 1986, respondent Estrella Querimit opened a dollar savings account in petitioners Harrison Plaza branch, for which she was issued four (4) Certificates of Deposit (Nos. 79028, 79029, 79030, and 79031), each certificate representing the amount of $15,000.00, or a total amount of $60,000.00. The accrued

certificates were to mature in 60days and were payable to bearer at 4.5% interest per annum. Respondent kept her dollar on petitioners bank so that she could use the fund after she retired. On 1989, respondent accompanied her husband in the United States for treatment. Unfortunately her husband died on 1993. She then went to the respondent bank to withdraw her deposit but to her dismay, she did not able to withdraw her money. The petitioner claimed that they have already paid the respondents husband but did not asked for the certificate of deposit because the latter was one of the banks senior managers. Trial Court rendered judgment for the rendered in favor of Estrella Querimit. The petitioners contends that they are not liable to respondents deposit and damages as well as interest because they have already paid the aforementioned. Hence, this petition. VI. ISSUE Whether or not subject certificates of deposit have already been paid by he petitioner. VII.HOLDINGS. The Court held that the respondent is subject for payment of her deposit. VIII. RATIO DECIDENDI A certificate of deposit is defined as a written acknowledgment by a bank or banker of the receipt of a sum of money on deposit which the bank or banker promises to pay to the depositor, to the order of the depositor, or to some other person or his order, whereby the relation of debtor and creditor between the bank and the depositor is created. The principles governing other types of bank deposits are applicable to certificates of deposit, as are the rules governing promissory notes when they contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain of money absolutely. The principle that payment, in order to discharge a debt, must be made to someone authorized to receive it is applicable to the payment of certificates of deposit. Thus, a bank will be protected in making payment to the holder of a certificate indorsed by the payee, unless it has notice of the invalidity of the indorsement or the holders want of title. A bank acts at its peril when it pays deposits evidenced by a certificate of deposit, without its production and surrender after proper indorsement. As a rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment. Petitioner bank failed to prove that it had already paid Estrella Querimit, the bearer and lawful holder of the subject

certificates of deposit. The payment should not have paid respondents husband or third party without requiring the surrender of certificates of deposit. IX. DISPOSITION The petition hereby denied.