METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. MARINA
B. CUSTODIO
Facts:
·
Petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) is a banking
corporation. On the other hand, respondent Marina Custodio is a bank teller
employed at the Laoag City branch of petitioner Metrobank.
·
a cash transfer of two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000) was made from
Teller No. 1 to respondent Custodio. (needs money, maybe to pay for the
withdrawal.")
·
Respondent Custodio was reported to have taken her
lunch break alone and returned to work thereafter
·
security guard (jara) testified that respondent
went out for lunch alone and as carrying a shoulder bag and a paper bag.He, however, did not check the contents of the
bags carried by respondent.
·
respondent Custodio balanced her transactions for the day and turned
over the funds to the bank’s cash custodian, Ms. Marinel Castro, in the amount
of two million one hundred thirteen thousand five hundred pesos (PhP2,113,500). Ms.
Marinel Castro acknowledged receipt of the bundled cash turned over and signed
a Cash Transfer Slip.
·
Castro discovered that there was a shortage amounting
to PhP600,000.
·
600k was never been found.
·
Respondent Custodio was allowed to continue to render
services
·
NBI conducted polygraph tests to all employees
except to the Respondents due to pregnancy.
·
Metrobank files a case against the respondets.
·
RTC for Metrobank
·
CA for Respondent
Issue:
Whether the Respondent Custodio
should be held liable, re: the establishment of similar acts (Cubao and Laoag
City branch) (Propensity of Evidence)
Held:
Best Evidence –
The issue of
respondent Custodio’s civil liability for the cash shortage turns on whether
she is the proximate or direct cause of the loss. There is nothing on record
that will show that there were any missing bundles of one-thousand-peso and
five-hundred-peso bills when respondent Custodio turned over the funds to the
cash custodian, Ms. Marinel Castro. As the appellate court correctly found, the
Cash Transfer Slip was the best evidence that respondent Custodio had properly
turned over the amounts in her care, and that the cash custodian received them
without any shortage.
Although the
Cash Transfer Slip was not introduced in evidence, Ms. Castro admitted having
signed it. Had there been any cash shortage at that point, then the cash
custodian could have refused to sign the Cash Transfer Slip, and respondent
Custodio could have been required to account for any missing funds. However,
having acknowledged receipt of the funds from respondent, it is reasonably
presumed that Ms. Castro found nothing out of order in respondent’s records of
cash transactions and the amounts transferred.
Petitioner Metrobank admits the existence of
the cash transfer slip and the custodian’s signature thereon. It reasons,
though, that it was not unusual for the custodian to sign the slip without
counting the money, since she trusted her co-employees. Petitioner seeks to
impress upon this Court that the custodian’s negligence was in good faith and
should not exonerate respondent Custodio from the cash shortage.
As the Court of Appeals correctly surmised,
Ms. Castro’s procedural lapse in trusting her co-employees by automatically
signing the cash transfer slip without ensuring its correctness contributed
significantly to the loss of the bank’s money.The proper accounting of funds through
the cash transfer slip was precisely instituted as a safety mechanism to trace
the flow of money from one employee to another. Specifically, the cash transfer
slip was meant to ensure that the tellers had properly counted the money that
they turned over to the cash custodian.If Ms. Castro, as cash custodian, had
not been remiss in her responsibilities, petitioner Metrobank would have been
able to identify who among the tellers failed to turn over the proper amount as
reflected in the Cash Transfer Slip. The cash custodian is not to be admonished
for reposing her trust in her co-employees; nonetheless, she was negligent,
insofar as ignoring established bank procedures meant to prevent loss,
especially when one of her co-employees had broken that trust.
When evidence of similar acts or previous
conduct is admissible.
Moreover, the circumstances surrounding
the discovery of these bill wrappers by petitioner Metrobank remain unclear.
Despite the bank manager’s instructions and the bank employees’ efforts in
conducting a thorough search for the missing cash bundles, neither the money
nor the bill wrappers were found on the day of the cash shortage. The cash
custodian who identified these bill wrappers did not explain how she came to
discover them.
In addition, respondent Custodio
was never confronted with these wrappers when the cash shortage was discovered.
Neither were the wrappers presented to her when the bank’s investigators
conducted a one-on-one meeting with the employees two days after the incident.
Not even a report by the investigation team of petitioner Metrobank regarding
the incident was submitted to show when the bill wrappers were discovered, or
when respondent Custodio was suspected of taking the money.
It appears highly unlikely that
respondent Custodio would be able to cart away several bundles of cash without
being detected at all, only to carelessly leave the purported wrappers of the
stolen cash, wrappers stamped with marks that might lead to her identity. The
sudden appearance of these bill wrappers begs the question as to where and when
they were discovered by petitioner Metrobank. If these empty bill wrappers were
allegedly found to be under the account of respondent Custodio soon after the
cash shortage was discovered, then there was no reason for petitioner Metrobank
to have allowed her to continue with her duties in handling bank funds. Yet,
respondent Custodio was subsequently permitted to report for work after the
incident until 23 June 1995.
Contrary to the bank’s assertions
in the Complaint, respondent
Custodio was never asked to account for and/or turn over the missing money.
Neither did the bank, prior to the service of the summons and the complaint,
demand that she return the money. Respondent Custodio was only informed that
she was accused of stealing the missing funds when the summons was served upon
her on 23 June 1995. Indeed, after
the discovery of the cash shortage, every employee was held suspect,and
respondent was never singled out for the loss until petitioner bank filed the
Complaint with the trial court.
Petitioner Metrobank also argues
that respondent Custodio’s prior involvement in a cash shortage in its Cubao
branch is admissible as evidence to prove a scheme or habit on her part.
· The general
evidentiary rule is that evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that one did or did not do the same or a similar
thing at another time. However,
evidence of similar acts may be received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge, identity, plan system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like.In Citibank
N.A., (Formerly First National City Bank) v. Sabeniano, the Court explained the
rationale for this rule:
· The rule is founded
upon reason, public policy, justice and judicial convenience. The fact that a
person has committed the same or similar acts at some prior time affords, as a
general rule, no logical guaranty that he committed the act in question. This
is so because, subjectively, a man's mind and even his modes of life may
change; and, objectively, the conditions under which he may find himself at a
given time may likewise change and thus induce him to act in a different way.
Besides, if evidence of similar acts are to be invariably admitted, they will
give rise to a multiplicity of collateral issues and will subject the defendant
to surprise as well as confuse the court and prolong the trial.
Although the previous cash shortage in Cubao
could possibly shed light on the intent, scheme or habit of respondent
Custodio, that previous cash shortage is not sufficient to affirm a definitive
finding of fact that she took the funds in the Laoag City branch. If the prior
cash shortage in Cubao showed a reasonable intent or habit on the part of
respondent, then there was no reason for petitioner Metrobank to continue to
employ her, considering the degree of trust and confidence required of a bank
teller. Nevertheless, respondent Custodio continued to serve the bank even
after the case in petitioner Metrobank’s Cubao branch. Her continued employment
was an affirmation that she was still worthy of the bank’s trust, insofar as
she was allowed to continue to handle sums of money in the Laoag City branch.
0 Comments