vehicles, making Villagracia presumptively negligent.

2. Whether or not Villagracia was negligent for failure to comply with traffic regulations
3. Whether or not Villagracia is guilty of contributory negligence

1. No. There is pertinent basis for segregating between motorized and non-motorized
vehicles. A motorized vehicle, unimpeded by the limitations in physical exertion. is
capable of greater speeds and acceleration than non-motorized vehicles. At the same
time, motorized vehicles are more capable in inflicting greater injury or damage in the
event of an accident or collision. This is due to a combination of factors peculiar to the
motor vehicle, such as the greater speed, its relative greater bulk of mass, and greater
combustibility due to the use of fuel.
No. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by the personal
judgment of the actor in a given situation, but rather, it is the law which determines what
would be reckless or negligent. Añonuevo FACTS: May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976: Romeo Lipana
claims to have entrusted RMC funds in the form of cash totalling P304, 979.74 to his secretary,
Irene Yabut, for the purpose of depositing said funds in the current accounts of RMC with
Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC). They were not credited to RMC's account but were instead
deposited to Account No. 53-01734-7 of Yabut's husband, Bienvenido Cotas. Romeo Lipana never
checked their monthly statements of account reposing complete trust and confidence on PBC. Irene
Yabut's modus operandi was to furnish 2 copies of deposit slip upon and both are always validated
and stamped by the teller Azucena Mabayad: original showed the name of her husband as depositor
and his current account number - retained by the bank and duplicate copy was written the account
number of her husband but the name of the account holder was left blank.

After validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the space left blank in the duplicate
copy and change the account number to RMC's account number. This went on in a span of more
than 1 year without private respondent's knowledge. Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC
demanded from PBC the return of its money and later on filed in the RTC.

RTC: PBC and Azucena Mabayad jointly and severally liable,

CA: affirmed with modification deleting awards of exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not applying the last clear chance, PBC's teller is negligent for failing to
avoid the injury by not exercising the proper validation procedure-YES
2. Whether or not there was contributory negligence by RMC - YES

HELD: 60-40 ratio. Only the balance of 60% needs to be paid by the PBC.

1. YES.
The fact that the duplicate slip was not compulsorily required by the bank in accepting deposits
should not relieve the PBC of responsibility. The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy
lacked one vital information (Name of the account holder) should have already put Ms. Mabayad
on guard. Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but also on the part of the
bank itself in its lack in selection and supervision of Ms. Mabayad. Mr. Romeo Bonifacio, then
Manager of the Pasig Branch of the petitioner bank and now its Vice-President, to the effect that,
while he o
2.