Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 of 3
Banking Case Digests August 23, 2017
(4) Bank of the Phil. Islands v CA and Benjamin Napiza (5) Phil. Bank of Commerce (absorbed by PCIB), et.al. v CA and Rommels Mktg. Corp.
326 SCRA 641 269 SCRA 695
G.R. No. 112392 February 29, 2000 G.R. No. 97626 March 14, 1997
Facts Facts
Private respondent deposited in his Foreign Currency Deposit Unit Savings Account a Managers Private respondent is engaged in selling appliances and maintains two current accounts with petitioner
Check, payable to cash, and duly endorsed by private respondent. Said check belonged to Chan who went to the bank. From May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976, the former entrusted its funds to its secretary, Yabut, for deposit in the
office of private respondent to ask that the check be deposited to the latters dollar account by way of latter bank. All these deposits however, were never credited to the account of private respondent but instead, to
accommodation, for the purpose of clearing, which the latter acceded. Private respondent then delivered to Chan the account of Cotas, Yabuts husband. During these period, petitioner bank had, however, been regularly
a signed withdrawal slip, with the understanding that as soon as the check is cleared, both of them would go to the furnishing private respondent with monthly statements showing its current accounts balances. Unfortunately, it had
bank to withdraw the amount of the check upon private respondent's presentation to the bank of his passbook. never been the practice of Lipana, the president, to check these monthly statements of account reposing complete
Subsequently, one Ruben Gayon, Jr., was able to withdraw from said dollar account of private trust and confidence on petitioner bank.
respondent. Notably however, the withdrawal slip was payable to Ramon and Agnes, both De Guzman. Yabuts modus operandi is to accomplish two sets of deposit slip, the duplicate was allegedly for record
Petitioner bank then received a communication from the drawee bank that the check in question was a purposes, which would show the account number of Yabuts husband, while only the original deposit slip would
counterfeit, thus, it immediately informed private respondent, through his son who is employed in the bank, that contain the name of Yabuts husband as the account holder and the duplicate was left blank. After validation by
the check bounced. Thereafter, petitioner bank demanded for private respondent to return the amount. Private the teller, Ms. Mabayad, Yabut would fill in the name of private respondent in the space left blank and make it
respondent however, denied any liability of the withdrawn amount. Hence, the filing of collection suit against appear therein the latters account number.
private respondent. Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, private respondent demanded from petitioner bank the return
The trial court dismissed the complaint, it held that to hold private respondent liable "would render of its money, but as its demand went unheeded, thus, it filed a collection suit.
inutile the requirement of "clearance" from the drawee bank before the value of a particular foreign check or draft The trial court finds the bank and the teller negligent, thus, liable jointly and severally. The respondent
can be credited to the account of a depositor making such deposit." This decision was affirmed by the respondent court modified the decision by eliminating the exemplary and attorneys fees specified therein.
court and held that petitioner committed "clear gross negligence" in allowing Gayon, Jr. to withdraw the money
without presenting private respondent's passbook and, before the check was cleared and in crediting the amount Issue
indicated therein in private respondent's account. Was the respondent bank remiss in the discharge of its duty?
Issue Ruling
Was petitioner bank negligent in allowing the withdrawal? Yes. Considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors, banks are duty bound
to treat the accounts of their clients with the highest degree of care. In the case at bar, the fact that the duplicate
Ruling slip was not compulsorily required by the bank in accepting deposits should not relieve the petitioner bank of
Yes. Ordinarily, private respondent may be held liable as an indorser of the check or even as an responsibility. The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy lacked one vital information that of the
accommodation party. However, to hold private respondent liable for the amount of the check he deposited by name of the account holder should have already put teller on guard. Rather than readily validating the
the strict application of the law and without considering the attending circumstances in the case would result in an incomplete duplicate copy, she should have proceeded more cautiously by being more probing as to the true
injustice and in the erosion of the public trust in the banking system. The interest of justice thus demands looking reason why the name of the account holder in the duplicate slip was left blank while that in the original was filled
into the events that led to the encashment of the check. up. She should not have been so naive in accepting hook, line and sinker the too shallow excuse of Yabut to the
By depositing the check with petitioner, private respondent was, in a way, merely designating petitioner effect that since the duplicate copy was only for her personal record, she would simply fill up the blank space later
as the collecting bank. As such, after receiving the deposit, under its own rules, petitioner shall credit the amount on. A "reasonable man of ordinary prudence" would not have given credence to such explanation and would have
in private respondent's account or infuse value thereon only after the drawee bank shall have paid the amount of insisted that the space left blank be filled up as a condition for validation.
the check or the check has been cleared for deposit.
Moreover, the propriety of a withdrawal should be gauged by compliance with the rules thereon that Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but also on the part of the bank itself in its
both petitioner bank and its depositors are duty-bound to observe. In this case, petitioner violated its own rules by lackadaisical selection and supervision of Ms. Mabayad.
allowing the withdrawal of an amount that is definitely over and above the aggregate amount of private
respondent's dollar deposits that had yet to be cleared. It cannot be denied however, that private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its monthly
In sum, petitioner's personnel negligently handled private respondent's account to petitioner's statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series of frauds being
detriment. committed against it by its secretary. The damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an amount if only
the company, particularly its president, had exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission
by the company amounts to contributory negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the
private respondent.
2 of 3
Banking Case Digests August 23, 2017
Facts
Petitioner, a private corporation engaged in exportation of food products, maintained a checking
account with respondent bank. On May 25, 1981, petitioner deposited P100,000.00 in said bank, thus increasing
the balance thereof as of the even date. Subsequently, petitioner issued several checks against the checking
account, in favour of its suppliers, totalling less than the expected balance of deposits, but these checks were
dishonoured for insufficient funds. Consequently, demands for payment from suppliers, were received by
petitioner, some threatened for a prosecution and cancelled petitioners credit line, while others deferred action on
pending orders.
Petitioner complained to respondent bank on June 10, 1981. The subsequent investigation revealed
that the deposit ofP100,000.00 was not credited to petitioners account. The bank rectified the error only on June
17, 1981 and the previously dishonoured checks were paid after they were re-deposited.
Petitioner then demanded reparation from the respondent bank for its gross and wanton negligence,
but this demand was not met. Hence, petitioner sued bank for moral and exemplary damages.
The trial court denied the claim for said damages holding that its demand were not called for under
the circumstances, and instead, granted award for nominal damages. Respondent court affirmed in toto said
decision and further said that petitioner is not entitled to moral damages because the bank rectified its records in
less than a month and paid the dishonoured checks, thus, negating bad faith and negligence.
Issue
Was the respondent bank remiss in the discharge of its duty?
Ruling
Yes. As a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is
under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary
nature of their relationship. In the case at bar, it is obvious that the respondent bank was remiss in that duty and
violated that relationship. It bears repeating that the record does not contain any satisfactory explanation of why
the error was made in the first place and why it was not corrected immediately after its discovery. Such ineptness
comes under the concept of the wanton manner contemplated in the Civil Code that calls for the imposition of
exemplary damages.
Also, petitioner did suffer injury because of the private respondent's negligence that caused the
dishonour of the checks issued by it. The immediate consequence was that its prestige was impaired because of
the bouncing checks and confidence in it as a reliable debtor was diminished, thus, entitling petitioner to moral
damages.
3 of 3