Apique v. Fahnenstich
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dominador M. Apique (Dominador) and Evangeline Apique Fahnenstich (Evangeline) are siblings. Evangeline, who was working abroad, executed a General and Special Powers of Attorney constituting Dominador as her attorney-in-fact to purchase real property and manage her business affairs in the Philippines. Evangeline opened a joint savings account with Dominador at PCI Bank (later EPCIB, now Banco de Oro) for the purpose of facilitating fund transfers for Evangeline's business projects. Procedural History: On February 11, 2002, Dominador withdrew P980,000.00 from the joint account and deposited it into his personal account. Evangeline discovered this withdrawal on February 23, 2003, and demanded its return, which Dominador failed to do. Evangeline filed a complaint for sum of money, damages, and injunction against Dominador and EPCIB. The RTC dismissed Evangeline's complaint, ruling that Dominador could validly withdraw from the joint account as compensation for his services. The CA reversed the RTC, ordering Dominador to return the P980,000.00 plus interest, finding that Dominador's authority was limited by the account's purpose and that his claims of compensation were unsubstantiated. The CA denied Dominador's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Dominador filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether Evangeline is entitled to the return of the P980,000.00 withdrawn by Dominador from their joint savings account, considering the purpose of the account and Dominador's justification for the withdrawal. Whether Dominador is entitled to compensation for his services as administrator based on quantum meruit, despite not raising it as an affirmative defense or counterclaim in his answer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification, ordering Dominador M. Apique to return to Evangeline Apique Fahnenstich the amount of P880,000.00, plus legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum, reckoned from the filing of the complaint until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to the return of the withdrawn amount: The Court reiterated that while a joint "OR" account allows any co-depositor to withdraw funds without the other's consent as far as the bank is concerned, this authority is circumscribed by the agreement between the co-depositors and the purpose for which the account was opened. In this case, the account was opened to facilitate fund transfers for Evangeline's business projects, and Dominador's authority to withdraw was conditioned on the necessity of funds for these projects. The Court found that at the time of the withdrawal, there were no projects being undertaken for Evangeline. Furthermore, Dominador's claim that the withdrawn amount was his compensation from Holgar Schwarzfeller, Evangeline's common-law husband, was unsubstantiated and self-serving, lacking competent evidence to prove Holgar's promise of compensation or remittance of funds for Dominador's benefit. Therefore, Dominador failed to justify his right over the withdrawn amount, making him liable for its return. The Court, however, modified the amount to be returned by deducting the P100,000.00 that Dominador unrefutedly contributed to the account, reducing the recoverable amount to P880,000.00. On the claim for compensation based on quantum meruit: The Court ruled that Dominador could not claim compensation based on quantum meruit because this defense was not raised as an affirmative defense or counterclaim in his answer to the complaint. Settled jurisprudence dictates that defenses and counterclaims not raised in the answer are deemed waived or barred, respectively. Thus, Dominador's failure to properly plead this claim in his responsive pleading precluded him from asserting it during the trial or appeal.
Main Doctrine
While a co-depositor in a joint "OR" account may validly withdraw funds without the consent of the other co-depositor as far as the bank is concerned, their authority to withdraw, as well as the amount, is circumscribed by the purpose for which the account was opened and the agreement between them. The burden of proof rests on the party asserting an affirmative defense or a claim for compensation.