Dear Atty. Angela,
My father was mistakenly credited P100,000 in his bank account and when the bank discovered this, it sent him a demand letter. When I asked my father, he confessed that he already spent this money. He is of the belief that while the money did not belong to him, he should not be made to suffer to return it and that the bank should shoulder the burden caused by its negligent employee. Is he obligated to return the money?
Berna
Dear Berna,
It is a fact that your father appropriated and spent the P100,000 inadvertently deposited to his account knowing fully well that the money did not belong to him. The bank employee’s negligence will not change that the money he received was not his.
Article 19 of the Civil Code requires that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. This provision of law sets standards which must be observed in the exercise of one’s rights as well as in the performance of its duties, to wit: to act with justice; give everyone his due; and observe honesty and good faith.
Moreover, under Article 22 of the Civil Code, “every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.” There is unjust enrichment “when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.”
The principle of unjust enrichment has two conditions. First, a person must have been benefited without a real or valid basis or justification. Second, the benefit was derived at another person’s expense or damage.
In the case of Land Bank v. Catadman, G.R. No. 200407, 17 June 2020, the Court ruled that pursuant to Article 22 of the Civil Code, Catadman must unconditionally return the money to Land Bank, less the amount he has already paid. Contrary to his claim, the doctrine on the fiduciary nature of banking institutions does not preclude Land Bank from recovering the money from him. In the same vein, the said doctrine and ruling applies in this case.
Atty. Angela Antonio