BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Cristina Barcellano y Riego
G.R. No. 261264, February 12, 2026
Third Division, Dimaampao, J
Facts
Cristina Barcellano deposited a ₱151,200.00 Landbank regional check into her BDO savings account. A BDO teller erroneously processed it as a local check, causing it to clear within three banking days instead of the seven days required for regional checks.
Because of the premature crediting, Barcellano withdrew ₱76,000.00. The following day, Landbank returned the check because of a stop-payment order. BDO demanded that Barcellano return the withdrawn amount, but she failed to do so.
BDO filed a criminal complaint for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC acquitted Barcellano for failure to prove fraud, deceit, or abuse of confidence. It also refused to order her to return the money, finding that BDO’s gross negligence caused the premature withdrawal. The CA affirmed.
Before the Supreme Court, BDO pursued the civil aspect of the case, arguing that Barcellano’s retention of the amount constituted unjust enrichment and that the erroneous credit created an obligation to return the money under solutio indebiti and constructive trust.
Issues
- Whether Barcellano may be held civilly liable despite her acquittal in the estafa case.
- Whether she must return the ₱76,000.00 under the principles of unjust enrichment, solutio indebiti, or constructive trust.
Ruling
No. The petition was denied.
Barcellano’s acquittal based on the absence of fraud or misrepresentation precluded civil liability ex delicto. Nevertheless, under Article 29 of the Civil Code, the court may still determine in the same criminal action whether civil liability arose from another source of obligation independent of the offense charged.
In this case, however, BDO failed to establish any independent basis for civil liability.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 2154 of the Civil Code, solutio indebiti requires:
- Payment when no binding relation exists between the payor and recipient; and
- Payment made through mistake, rather than liberality or another cause.
BDO’s loss was not attributable to a legally cognizable mistake but to its own gross negligence. BDO:
- Credited the check without first clearing it with the drawee bank;
- Improperly treated an evidently regional check as a local check; and
- Failed to discover the error until it received the stop-payment order.
Banks are businesses imbued with public interest and must exercise extraordinary diligence in handling transactions. BDO’s failure to observe basic safeguards and its own clearing policies was the proximate cause of the loss.
Moreover, BDO failed to prove that Barcellano knowingly received money to which she was not entitled. The reason for the stop-payment order was never established, nor was it shown that Barcellano knew of any defect in the check. Her attempt to withdraw the remaining balance supported the inference that she honestly believed she owned the funds credited to her account.
Since BDO failed to establish that Barcellano knowingly and unjustly retained an undue benefit, neither unjust enrichment nor solutio indebiti applied. Consequently, no constructive trust arose in BDO’s favor.
Doctrine:
A bank cannot recover under solutio indebiti when the undue payment resulted from its own gross negligence rather than a legally cognizable mistake. As institutions imbued with public interest, banks must exercise extraordinary diligence and observe basic safeguards in processing and clearing checks.
An accused’s acquittal extinguishes civil liability ex delicto when the act giving rise to such liability is found not to exist. Courts may nonetheless adjudicate civil liability arising from sources independent of the crime, but the elements of that independent source must still be proven.
Disposition
The Supreme Court denied BDO’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. Barcellano was not ordered to return the ₱76,000.00.
