By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
When banks slip, should depositors pay the price?
Every now and then, a court decision quietly reinforces a principle we often take for granted: that ordinary people should not be made to suffer for the mistakes of powerful institutions. The recent Supreme Court ruling in BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Barcellano is one such reminder.
The story began with a simple deposit. A woman placed a check in her BDO account. The bank teller mistakenly treated it as a local check instead of a regional one. That single error shortened the clearing period from seven days to three. Because the bank’s system showed the funds as “cleared,” the depositor withdrew part of the amount—believing, as any of us would, that the money was already hers.
Days later, the check bounced due to a stop-payment order. Only then did the bank realize its mistake. It demanded that the depositor return the withdrawn amount. She refused. The bank filed a criminal case. She was acquitted. The bank then insisted on civil liability, arguing unjust enrichment and “payment by mistake.”
But the Supreme Court saw the situation for what it was: a chain of errors committed by the bank itself.
The Court did not mince words. Banks are not ordinary businesses. They handle people’s savings, salaries, tuition money, and life savings. Because of this, the law requires them to exercise extraordinary diligence—a level of care far higher than what is expected of regular establishments.
In this case, BDO failed that standard at every turn. It misclassified the check. It prematurely credited the amount. It failed to detect the error until the check was returned. These were not harmless slips. They were acts of gross negligence, and the law does not allow a negligent party to shift the consequences of its own lapses to someone else.
The Court also rejected the claim of unjust enrichment. For unjust enrichment to apply, the person must have knowingly received something they were not entitled to. But the depositor acted in good faith. She withdrew money that the bank itself told her was available. She even tried to withdraw the remaining balance—hardly the behavior of someone scheming to take advantage.
As for “payment by mistake,” the Court drew a clear line: the law protects honest mistakes, not errors born of gross negligence. A bank cannot invoke legal doctrines meant to correct innocent misunderstandings when the root of the problem is its own failure to follow basic banking procedures.
In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed that BDO must bear its own loss.
This ruling matters beyond the parties involved. It reassures the public that when we transact with banks, we are not gambling with our own peace of mind. When a bank tells us our funds are available, we should be able to trust that statement. And when a bank commits a mistake, it cannot simply turn around and demand that the depositor absorb the damage.
Trust is the currency of the banking system. And trust is earned not by shifting blame, but by owning up to one’s responsibilities (BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Barcellano y Riego, G.R. No. 261264, February 12, 2026).