SC: Banks cannot demand return of money lost due to own negligence

Banks cannot ask a depositor to return money he or she withdrew on the ground of unjust enrichment when the loss was caused by the bank’s own negligence, the Supreme Court (SC) said.

In a 10-page decision, the SC Third Division denied a petition filed by a bank against a woman it charged with estafa, noting that the bank committed multiple errors that constituted gross negligence.

The case stemmed from the woman’s deposit of a regional check worth P151,200 issued by an Albay branch of another bank into her savings account.

However, the teller mistakenly processed the check as a local check instead of a regional check, allowing the amount to be credited after only three banking days instead of seven.

The woman then withdrew P76,000.

After receiving a stop-payment order, the bank asked the woman to return the money. Although she initially agreed, she never repaid the amount.

The bank then refused to release her remaining balance and filed an estafa case against her.

The SC said the Regional Trial Court acquitted the woman and the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, prompting the bank to file the petition before the SC.

The SC also noted several errors by the bank, including crediting the amount of the check without clearing it with the drawee bank, the teller’s improper processing of the check as a local instead of a regional check, and the bank’s failure to detect the erroneous clearing.

The bank did not even learn of the error until it received the stop-payment order, the SC said.

The SC said unjust enrichment occurs when a person retains a benefit without valid reason and at another’s expense, or keeps money or property contrary to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

“Plain as day, [the bank] failed to demonstrate that [the respondent] knowingly received a benefit to which she was not entitled when she withdrew the funds from her account,” the SC said.

The SC said the bank could not claim unjust enrichment because it failed to show that the woman knowingly received money to which she was not entitled.

It also emphasized that the banking business is imbued with public interest.

“In handling their transactions, banks are required to exercise extraordinary diligence, which is more than that of a Roman pater familias or a good father of a family,” the SC said.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, was promulgated in February 2026 and made public in August 2026.— MCG, GMA News