The Supreme Court has ruled that banks are not automatically liable for damages when counterfeit currency is inadvertently released to customers, provided the bank demonstrates that it has exercised the required due diligence in handling currency and supervising employees. This decision emphasizes that while banks have a high duty of care, they are not insurers against undetectable counterfeits. Practically, this means customers bear the risk of loss from ‘near perfect’ counterfeits if the bank can prove adherence to standard procedures. The case underscores the importance of proving negligence or bad faith to claim damages from banks in such instances.

When ‘Supernotes’ Deceive: Can Banks Be Held Liable for Undetectable Counterfeits?

The case of Sps. Cristino & Edna Carbonell v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company arose from a distressing experience suffered by the Carbonells during their trip to Bangkok, Thailand. The couple withdrew US$1,000 from their Metrobank account, only to discover that some of the US$100 bills were counterfeit. This led to humiliation and embarrassment when merchants in Bangkok refused to accept the bills. The Carbonells sued Metrobank for damages, alleging negligence and bad faith. The central legal question was whether Metrobank could be held liable for the incident, despite claiming it had exercised due diligence in handling foreign currency.

The petitioners argued that Metrobank, being a banking institution imbued with public interest, failed to exercise the required degree of diligence, thus making it liable for misrepresentation and bad faith amounting to fraud. They pointed to the emotional distress and public humiliation they endured as a result of the counterfeit bills. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that while banks are indeed held to high standards, liability is not automatic. The Court referenced the General Banking Act of 2000, stating that banks must adhere to the highest standards of integrity and performance, particularly in treating depositors’ accounts with meticulous care. However, compliance with this standard is assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case.

The Court clarified the concept of gross negligence, which would be a key factor in determining liability. Gross negligence implies a ‘want of care in the performance of one’s duties,’ acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, ‘not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.’ The Court emphasized that to establish gross negligence, the petitioners needed to prove that Metrobank failed to take any precautions or wilfully disregarded procedures in handling US dollar notes or in supervising its employees. The factual findings of both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) indicated that Metrobank had indeed exercised the required diligence.

A critical piece of evidence was the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) certification. It stated that the counterfeit US dollar notes were ‘near perfect genuine notes,’ detectable only with extreme difficulty, even with due diligence. Nanette Malabrigo, BSP’s Senior Currency Analyst, testified that the notes were ‘highly deceptive,’ with paper similar to genuine notes and near-perfect security features. The Court thus considered this, highlighting the difficulty in detecting the counterfeit bills, as a significant factor in absolving Metrobank of liability.

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ claim for moral and exemplary damages. The Court stated that the relationship between the Carbonells and Metrobank was that of a creditor-debtor. Even considering the high standard imposed on banks, the absence of bad faith or gross negligence amounting to bad faith negated any legal basis for awarding such damages. Citing Article 2220 of the Civil Code, the Court stated:

Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

The Court further reasoned that Metrobank’s offer to reinstate US$500 to the Carbonells’ account and provide an all-expense-paid trip to Hong Kong was not an admission of liability, but an attempt to assuage their inconvenience. Philippine jurisprudence holds that offers of compromise in civil cases are not admissible as evidence against the offeror. This is encapsulated in Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible.- In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. xxxx

The Supreme Court also addressed the petitioners’ reliance on the doctrine of culpa contractual. To recover damages for breach of contract, the injury must result from a breach of duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. In this case, the Court found no such breach. Even though the Carbonells suffered embarrassment, the Court distinguished between damage and injury, referencing The Orchard Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Yu:

x x x Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right, damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.

In situations of damnum absque injuria, the injured party bears the consequences because the law provides no remedy for damages resulting from an act that does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. Since Metrobank observed proper protocols and procedures, it did not violate any legal duty toward the Carbonells, hence, was not liable for damages.

This case sets a precedent for similar situations involving counterfeit currency and bank liability. While banks have a responsibility to safeguard their customers’ interests, they are not liable for damages if they can demonstrate that they acted with due diligence and that the counterfeit currency was virtually undetectable. This ruling balances the need to protect consumers with the practical limitations faced by banking institutions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a bank is liable for damages when a customer receives counterfeit currency, despite the bank’s claim of exercising due diligence. The Supreme Court ruled that the bank is not liable if it proves it observed proper protocols and the counterfeit was virtually undetectable.
What is ‘damnum absque injuria’?	‘Damnum absque injuria’ refers to damage or loss without legal injury. This occurs when someone suffers harm, but it’s not a result of a violation of a legal duty owed to them, meaning there is no legal basis for compensation.
What is the standard of care required by banks?	Banks are required to exercise the highest standards of integrity and performance in handling depositors’ accounts. This includes meticulous care and adherence to established procedures to prevent errors or fraud.
What did the BSP’s analysis reveal about the counterfeit bills?	The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) certified that the counterfeit US dollar notes were ‘near perfect genuine notes’ and detectable only with extreme difficulty, even with due diligence. The BSP’s Senior Currency Analyst described them as ‘highly deceptive.’
Is an offer of compromise an admission of liability?	No, an offer of compromise in civil cases is not an admission of liability and cannot be used as evidence against the party making the offer. This is in accordance with Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Under what conditions can moral damages be awarded in a breach of contract case?	Moral damages can be awarded in a breach of contract case if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the breach was wanton, reckless, malicious, or done in bad faith, or with oppressive or abusive intent.
What is gross negligence?	Gross negligence is the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. It is characterized by a thoughtless disregard of consequences.
What should a bank do if it discovers it has released counterfeit currency?	While this case absolved the bank of liability, best practices suggest banks should promptly notify affected customers, offer assistance in verifying the currency’s authenticity, and cooperate with authorities in investigating the source of the counterfeit bills. Showing good faith efforts can mitigate reputational damage.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case provides important clarity on the extent of a bank’s liability for inadvertently releasing counterfeit currency. By emphasizing the need to prove negligence or bad faith, the Court has set a high bar for customers seeking damages in such situations. This ruling highlights the importance of due diligence and adherence to standard operating procedures for banking institutions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SPS. CRISTINO & EDNA CARBONELL VS. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, G.R. No. 178467, April 26, 2017