City trust banking vs IAC

Facts:
Private respondent Emme Herrero filed a complaint for damages against petitioner citytrust.
Herrero alleged that she made a deposit of 31,500 with petitioner bank in order to amply cover six
postdated checks she issued. When presented, the checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Petitioner claimed that it was herrero’s fault for writing her account number incorrectly.
The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Upon appeal, the CA reversed the trial court’s
decision. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether the petitioner bank should be held liable.

Ruling:
Yes. Banking is 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. The teller should have noticed that
there were only seven numbers instead of eight. Besides, the use of numbers is simply for the
convenience of the bank and the depositor’s name should still be controlling.
Petitioner bank cannot disclaim liability for the negligence of its employees, because it failed to prove
not only that it exercised due diligence to prevent damage but it was not negligent in the selection and
supervision of its employees. (Go vs. IAC)