A bank cannot compel a depositor to return funds withdrawn from an account under the principle of unjust enrichment when the loss resulted from the bank’s own gross negligence, the Supreme Court has ruled.
In a Feb. 12, 2026 decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the high court’s Third Division denied a petition filed by BDO Unibank Inc., finding that the bank’s failure to follow its own check-clearing procedures amounted to gross negligence.
The case stemmed from a P151,200 check that depositor Cristina Barcellano placed in her savings account at BDO’s Lucena City branch. The check was issued by a Land Bank of the Philippines branch in Albay.
A BDO teller mistakenly processed the check as a local check rather than a regional one. This made the funds available in Barcellano’s account after three banking days instead of the seven-day clearing period required for regional checks.
Believing the funds had cleared and were available for withdrawal, Barcellano withdrew P76,000.
BDO later received a stop payment order on the check and demanded that Barcellano return the amount she had withdrawn. When she did not, BDO withheld the remaining balance in her account and filed an estafa complaint against her.
The Regional Trial Court acquitted Barcellano of estafa, finding no evidence of fraud or deceit and concluding that the premature withdrawal resulted from BDO’s oversight. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the ruling.
BDO then brought the civil aspect of the case before the Supreme Court, arguing that Barcellano remained liable under solutio indebiti, a legal principle requiring the return of something received by mistake, and that her refusal to return the money amounted to unjust enrichment.
Bank’s ‘multiple errors’
The Supreme Court rejected BDO’s arguments.
While the high court acknowledged that civil liability may exist independently of a criminal conviction under principles such as unjust enrichment, it found that BDO failed to show that Barcellano knowingly received a benefit to which she was not entitled.
The court noted that BDO did not explain why the stop payment order was issued or establish that Barcellano knew the check would not ultimately clear.
“From the foregoing, it is beyond cavil that BDO committed multiple errors. First, it credited the amount of the check deposited by Barcellano without clearing it with the drawee bank. Second, its bank teller improperly cleared the check as a local check instead of a regional one. Third, BDO failed to detect the erroneous clearing and did not even learn of it until it received a stop payment order. Taken altogether, these acts clearly constitute gross negligence on the part of BDO. Verily, BDO’s failure to observe basic safeguards against the risk of invalid checks led to the loss of a sum of money.”
The court instead found that the records indicated Barcellano withdrew the money in good faith after BDO made the funds available in her account.
“The reason for the stop payment order was neither established nor shown to have been known to Barcellano. It was not determined that her account had insufficient funds, had been closed, or had been affected by any other issue,” the Supreme Court said.
“Plain as day, BDO failed to demonstrate that Barcellano knowingly received a benefit to which she was not entitled when she withdrew the funds from her account,” it added.
‘Solutio indebiti’ does not apply. The high court said BDO’s own gross negligence caused the financial loss, pointing to its treatment of the regional check as a local one and its failure to follow safeguards designed to manage check-clearing risks.
It also rejected BDO’s reliance on solutio indebiti, ruling that the doctrine did not apply because the erroneous release of the funds resulted from the bank’s gross negligence rather than the kind of mistake contemplated under the principle.
“Finally, given that the factual milieu of the case does not give rise to unjust enrichment, there exists no constructive trust to compel the return of the amount to BDO,” the Supreme Court said.
Solutio indebiti applies when payment was made on the erroneous belief that such payment is due.