BPI vs.

IAC, 206 SCRA 408, February 21, 1992

Facts: When the respondent spouses opened their joint current account, the “new accounts” teller of the bank by
mistake, placed the old existing separate personal account number of Arthur Canlas on the deposit slip for the new
joint checking account of the spouses so that the initial deposit for the joint checking account was miscredited to
Arthur’s personal account .

Because of this, one of the checks issued by one of the spouse was dishonoured for insufficient funds prompting
private respondents to file a complaint for damages against petitioner bank. Petitioner bank argues that it is not
considered negligent and liable for damages on account of the inadvertence of its bank employee considered that
it was an honest mistake and not tainted with malice and bad faith.

Issue: WON the petitioner bank was guilty of gross negligence in the handling of private respondents’ bank
account.

Held: There is no merit in petitioner’s argument that it should not be considered negligent, much less held liable
for damages on account of the inadvertence of its bank employee for Article 1173 of the Civil Code only requires it
to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family.

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 (Simex vs CA, 183 SCRA 360).

Civil Law; Commercial Law; Banks and Banking; Negligence; No merit in petitioner’s argument that it would not be
considered negligent much less liable for damages on account of the inadvertence of its bank employees for Article
1173 of the Civil
Code only requires it to exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family.—There is no merit in petitioner’s argument that it should not be considered negligent, much less held liable
for damages on account of the inadvertence of its bank employee for Article 1173 of the Civil Code only requires it
to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family.

Same; Same; Same; Same; 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 Simex International (Manila), Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals (183
SCRA 360, 367), this Court stressed the fiduciary nature of the relationship between a bank and its depositors and
the extent of diligence expected of it in handling the accounts entrusted to its care. “In every case, the depositor
expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few
hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo,
and as promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money
the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. A
blunder on the part of the bank, such as the dishonor of a check without good reason, can cause the depositor not
a little embarrassment if not also financial loss and perhaps even civil and criminal litigation. “The point is that 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. x x x.”

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; While the bank’s negligence may not have been attended with malice and bad
faith, nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation to the private respondents for which
they are entitled to recover reasonable moral damages.—While the bank’s negligence may not have been attended
with malice and bad faith, nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation to the private
respondents for which they are entitled to recover reasonable moral damages (American Express
International, Inc. vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 209). The award of reasonable attorney’s fees is proper for the private
respondents were compelled to litigate to protect their interest (Art. 2208, Civil Code). However, the absence of
malice and bad faith renders the award of exemplary damages improper.