SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 188412 : November 22, 2010

CITIBANK, N.A., Petitioner, v. ATTY. ERNESTO S. DINOPO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
!ENDO"A, J.:
This is a petition for review filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
questioning 1 the !ece"#er 1$, %&&' !ecisioncralaw
1
of the Court of (ppeals (CA), in C()*.R. C+ ,o.
'%%91, which affir"ed the -e#ruar. %&, %&&4 !ecision of the Regional Trial Court, /ranch %%$,
0ue1on Cit. (RTC), ordering petitioner Citi#an2, ,. (. (Citibank) to pa. respondent (tt.. 3rnesto 4.
!inopol (Atty. Dinopol) "oral da"ages and attorne.5s fees6 and % its 7une 19, %&&9 Resolution
den.ing petitioner5s "otion for the reconsideration thereof.
Records disclose that so"eti"e in !ece"#er 199$, (tt.. !inopol availed of Citi#an25s 5Read. Credit
Chec2#oo2s5 advertised offer. (fter approving his application, Citi#an2 granted (tt.. !inopol a credit
line li"it of P8&,&&&.&&. -or said reason, (tt.. !inopol received fro" Citi#an2 a chec2 #oo2let
consisting of several chec2s with a letter stating that the account was 5read. to use.5 9ater, Citi#an2
#illed (tt.. !inopol the su" of P1,545.&& representing Read. Credit !ocu"entar. 4ta"p and (nnual
:e"#ership -ee as reflected in his 4tate"ent of (ccount dated !ece"#er %$, 199$. Thereafter,
Citi#an2 #illed hi" the a"ount of P1,$%9.%1 for interest and charges as well as late pa."ent charges as
stated in his 4tate"ent of (ccount dated 7anuar. %$, 1997. (tt.. !inopol paid said interests and
charges on -e#ruar. %$, 1997.
;n :arch $, 1997, (tt.. !inopol issued a chec2 using his credit chec2#oo2 account with Citi#an2 in
the a"ount of P8&,&&&.&& in favor of one !r. :arietta :. *eon1on (Dr. Geonzon) for invest"ent
purposes in her restaurant #usiness. <owever, when the chec2 was deposited on :arch 1%, 1997, it was
dishonored for the reason, 5!rawn (gainst =nsufficient -unds5 or 5!(=-.5 <u"iliated #. the dishonor
and the de"and notice he received fro" !r. *eon1on, (tt.. !inopol filed a civil action for da"ages
against Citi#an2 #efore the RTC. (tt.. !inopol alleged that said #an2 was grossl. negligent and acted
in #ad faith in dishonoring his chec2.
=n defense, Citi#an2 averred that it was co"pletel. >ustified in dishonoring (tt.. !inopol5s chec2
#ecause the account did not have sufficient funds at the ti"e it was issued. Citi#an2 e?plained that
when said chec2 in the a"ount of P8&,&&&.&& was issued, his credit line was alread. insufficient to
acco""odate it. <is credit li"it had #een reduced #. the interests and penalt. charges i"posed as a
result of his late pa."ent. Citi#an2 argued that had (tt.. !inopol #een pro"pt in the pa."ent of his
o#ligations, he would not have incurred interests and penalt. charges and his credit line of P8&,&&&.&&
would have #een availa#le at the ti"e the chec2 was issued and presented for pa."ent.
;n -e#ruar. %&, %&&4, the RTC rendered a decisioncralaw
%
against Citi#an2, the dispositive portion of which
reads@chanro#les virtual law li#rar.
=n view of the foregoing, >udg"ent is here#. rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant #an2 as follows@ !efendant Citi#an2 ,.(. is here#. ordered to pa. the plaintiff (tt.. 3rnesto
4. !inopol@chanro#les virtual law li#rar.
1A P1&&,&&&.&& as and for "oral da"ages6chanro#lesvirtualawli#rar.
%A P5&,&&&.&& as and for attorne.5s fees6 and
8A Costs of suit.
4; ;R!3R3!.
The RTC reasoned out, a"ong others, that Citi#an2 failed to co"pletel. disclose the ter"s and
conditions of its 5Cit.#an2 Read. Credit (ccount5 when (tt.. !inopol applied for it. ;nl. the general
provisions of the agree"ent were e?plained to hi". The 4tandard <and#oo2 *uide which would have
guided hi" as to fees, charges and penalties that could #e #illed #. the #an2 was never given to hi".
-urther"ore, the RTC found that (tt.. !inopol was given a 5go signal5 #. Citi#an2 when he infor"ed
the latter that he was going to issue a chec2 in the a"ount of P8&,&&&.&&. Citi#an2 failed to advise hi"
that he still had an outstanding #alance of P5'.88 as of -e#ruar. %$, 1997. <ad he #een infor"ed, he
could have paid such a s"all a"ount and avoided the dishonor of his chec2. =n fact, when he issued the
chec2 on :arch $, 1997, no #ill had .et #een sent to hi" for the a"ount of P5'.88 #ecause he had >ust
paid P1,$%9.&& on -e#ruar. %$, 1997. The #illing state"ent, if an., would still #e due on :arch 15,
1997. ;n :arch 11, 1997, when the chec2 was presented for pa."ent, Citi#an2 could have called his
attention and he could have i""ediatel. re"itted the a"ount of P5'.&& within the sa"e #an2ing da.
so that the chec2 would #e honored.
Decision of the Court of Appeals
;n !ece"#er 1$, %&&', the C( affir"ed the RTC decision with "odification. =t increased the award of
"oral da"ages fro" P1&&,&&&.&& to P5&&,&&&.&& and awarded e?e"plar. da"ages in the a"ount of
P5&,&&&.&&.
=n its decision, the C( found that Citi#an2, as ad"itted #. its witness, :ar2 (ndre P. <ernando
(Hernando), displa.ed dishonest. in clai"ing that (tt.. !inopol was provided with the #an25s
Custo"er *uide#oo2. ,o proof to the contrar. was shown #. the #an2. =nstead of e?ercising good
faith #. providing a new account holder li2e (tt.. !inopol with the service guide#oo2, Citi#an2 argued
that since he was a law.er, the latter should have alread. #een fa"iliar with the ter"s and conditions
of his Read. Credit (ccount.
:oreover, the C( noted that #efore (tt.. !inopol issued the su#>ect chec2, he first consulted the #an2
if he could issue one. =t was onl. after #eing given the affir"ative response that he issued said chec2
which gave rise to this controvers.. The #an2 should have given the necessar. advice to (tt.. !inopol
and there#. avoid the dishonor of the chec2 for a "easl. a"ount of P5'.88.
-inall., the C( ruled that (tt.. !inopol was not .et delinquent when he issued the chec2 so as to
>ustif. the P5'.88 deduction fro" his P8&,&&&.&& credit line. /ased on the docu"entar. evidence, the
due date for the -e#ruar. %$, 1997 4tate"ent of (ccount was :arch 19, 1997. 4o, when (tt.. !inopol
issued the chec2 on :arch $, 1997, the period within which to settle his account was still running,
thus, rendering the P5'.88 deduction un>ustified.
=n "odif.ing the decision, the C( increased the a"ount of "oral da"ages fro" P1&&,&&&.&& to
P5&&,&&&.&& for the following reasons@ 1 (tt.. !inopol5s stature ) he was a law.er of good standing,
.et he was a#used #. Citi#an26 % the dishonest. displa.ed #. Citi#an2 in clai"ing that (tt.. !inopol
was given a service guide#oo2 despite lac2 of proof thereon6 8 the #ad faith displa.ed #. Citi#an2 in
using a "easl. a"ount of P5'.88 as #asis to >ustif. its dishonor Bdue to !(=-A of P8&,&&&.&& worth of
chec2 issued #. (tt.. !inopol6 and 4 the fact that Citi#an2 #es"irched (tt.. !inopol5s reputation and
has considera#l. caused hi" undue hu"iliation.
<ence, this petition.
ISS#E
C<3T<3R ;R ,;T T<3 C;DRT ;- (PP3(94 C(4 C;RR3CT =, RD9=,* T<(T
P3T=T=;,3R C=T=/(,E, ,.(. =4 9=(/93 T; R34P;,!3,T (TTF. 3R,34T; 4. !=,;P;9
-;R !(:(*34.
Position of the Petitioner
Citi#an2 argues that the dishonor of (tt.. !inopol5s chec2 was valid as it was done in the e?ercise of
its rights and prerogative under the ter"s and conditions of his Read. Credit -acilit.. =t insists that it
sent a cop. of the guide#oo2 to (tt.. !inopol after his application for the credit facilit. was approved.
=t also points out that upon the approval of (tt.. !inopol5s Read. Credit -acilit., the latter was initiall.
#illed with the a"ounts of P1,5&&.&& for the annual fee and P45.&& for the docu"entar. sta"p ta?. The
total a"ount of P1,545.&& was indicated in his 4tate"ent of (ccount dated !ece"#er %$, 199$,
#earing the due date on or #efore 7anuar. 1$, 1997. (tt.. !inopol, however, failed to pa. it on or
#efore said date. Thus, interest and late pa."ent charges accrued on his unpaid account as provided for
in the provisions of the guide#oo2.
-urther, Citi#an2 clai"s that a second state"ent of account dated 7anuar. %$, 1997 was sent to (tt..
!inopol which showed that the aggregate a"ount of P1,$%9.%1 was due and pa.a#le i""ediatel.. This
a"ount represents the unpaid su" of P1,545.&& for the annual fee and docu"entar. sta"p ta?, P1&.&&
as penalt. charge for the late pa."ent and P74.%1 as accrued interest. (tt.. !inopol paid the a"ount of
P1,$%9.%1 onl. on -e#ruar. %$, 1997. Thereafter, Citi#an2 sent hi" another state"ent of account
ac2nowledging receipt of his pa."ent and, at the sa"e ti"e, charging hi" the additional a"ount of
P5'.88 for penalties and other charges. 4ince the unpaid a"ount of P5'.88 was auto"aticall. #illed as
an avail"ent against his Read. Credit -acilit., his availa#le credit li"it at the ti"e of the issuance of
the su#>ect chec2 on :arch $, 1997 was alread. reduced #. P5'.88. (s a result, when the su#>ect
chec2 was negotiated, it had to #e returned due to 5!(=-.5
(ccordingl., Citi#an2 asserts that the dishonor of the su#>ect chec2 was due to (tt.. !inopol5s failure
to ti"el. settle his outstanding o#ligations despite receipt of his state"ents of account. =t cannot,
therefore, #e faulted #ecause it was >ust e?ercising its legal right under the ter"s and conditions of the
Read. Credit -acilit.. =t did not act fradulentl. or in #ad faith. ,o proof was shown that the dishonor
of the su#>ect chec2 was carried out in an ar#itrar., capricious, and "alicious "anner.
-inall., Citi#an2 advances that (tt.. !inopol, as a practising law.er, is presu"ed to have carefull.
considered, 2nown, and understood the provisions and legal effects of the contracts he entered into.
Position of the Respondent
=n answer to Citi#an25s assertions, (tt.. !inopol counters that the #an2 failed to prove that a cop. of
the guide#oo2 was sent to hi". =n fact, Citi#an25s own witness, <ernando, categoricall. ad"itted that
the #an2 did not send hi" the said guide#oo2. (ccording to (tt.. !inopol, Citi#an2 should have acted
in good faith and in a "anner deserving of the trust of its custo"ers.
<e also contends that the dishonor of the chec2 due to the non)pa."ent of the penalt. charges and
interests of P5'.88 was uncalled for. The pa."ent of said a"ount was not .et due on :arch $, 1997
when the chec2 was issued and even on :arch 1%, 1997 when it was dishonored. The state"ent of
account would show that the su" of P5'.88 was due onl. on :arch 19, 1997. This onl. shows that his
account was not .et delinquent, #oth at the ti"e when said chec2 was issued and when it was
eventuall. presented for pa."ent, there#. "a2ing the act of the #an2 of dishonoring the chec2 wanting
of an. legal #asis.
9astl., (tt.. !inopol charges Citi#an2 for having acted in #ad faith when it dishonered the su#>ect
chec2 for a "eager a"ount of P5'.88 and for i"posing highl. questiona#le charges against his credit
facilit. account. <e #elieves that the #an2, wilfull. or negligentl., wronged hi" and da"aged his
reputation. <ence, it is lia#le to pa. hi" da"ages.
The Court's Rulin
The general rule is that in petitions for review on certiorari, the Court will not re)e?a"ine the findings
of fact of the appellate court e?cept BaA when the latter5s findings are grounded entirel. on speculations,
sur"ises or con>ectures6 B#A when its inference is "anifestl. "ista2en, a#surd or i"possi#le6 BcA when
there is a grave a#use of discretion6 BdA when its findings of fact are conflicting6 and BeA when it goes
#e.ond the issues of the case.cralaw
8
Citi#an2 fails to convince the Court that the case falls under an. of the
e?ceptions. <ence, the findings of fact should no longer #e reviewed.
(t an. rate, the Courts agrees with the courts #elow in concluding that Citi#an2 was lia#le to (tt..
!inopol for "oral and e?e"plar. da"ages and attorne.5s fees.
( perusal of the evidentiar. records shows that Citi#an2 was at fault when it dishonored the su#>ect
chec2. -irst, Citi#an2 clai"s that, as a "atter of standard operating procedure, it sent to (tt.. !inopol
the Citi#an2 Read. Credit Custo"er *uide#oo2 upon the approval of his Read. Credit (ccount
application and so, he was aware of the ter"s and conditions stated therein. Fet, e?cept for its #are
allegation, no other su#stantial proof was presented #. Citi#an2 that the guide#oo2 was indeed sent to
(tt.. !inopol. =n fact, its witness, <ernando, ad"itted that the su#>ect hand#oo2 was not at all
delivered to hi".
4econd, when (tt.. !inopol issued the su#>ect chec2 for the full a"ount of P8&,&&&.&& and Citi#an2
dishonored it #ecause of insufficienc. of funds #. P5'.88 representing the a"ount charged on his
credit line for penalties and charges, the said a"ount was not .et overdue. The #an25s 4tate"ent of
(ccount dated 7anuar. %$, 1997cralaw
4
showed that he "ust pa. the total a"ount of P1,$%9.%1 representing
the annual "e"#ership fee of P1,5&&.&&, docu"entar. sta"p ta? of P45.&&, late charges of P1&.&& and
interestGcharges of P74.%1. ;n -e#ruar. %$, 1997, he i""ediatel. paid the $%&& a"ount of P1,$%9.%1 as
evidenced #. his credit card pa."ent slip.cralaw
5
The full pa."ent was reflected in his state"ent of
accountcralaw
$
dated -e#ruar. %$, 1997. The sa"e state"ent of accountcralaw
7
indicated that there were still
charges a"ounting to P5'.88 due for pa."ent on !'r() 1*, 1**+. To reiterate, the chec2 was issued
on !'r() ,, 1**+ cralaw
'
and dishonored on !'r() 12, 1**+,cralaw
9
#oth dates #eing da.s #efore the said due
date. Contrar. to Citi#an25s insistence, (tt.. !inopol was definitel. not .et a delinquent account
holder. :ore i"portantl., Citi#an2 failed to consider the fact that (tt.. !inopol issued the chec2 on
:arch $, 1997 after pa.ing the full a"ount of P1,$%9.%1 and clearing with the #an2 if he could issue a
chec2 in the a"ount of P8&,&&&.&&. Citi#an2 did not even refute the allegation that it gave (tt..
!inopol the go)signal to issue such a chec2.
Cith respect to da"ages, the Court is in agree"ent with the C( in awarding "oral and e?e"plar.
da"ages. <owever, the Court cannot sanction the "odification #. the C(, under the circu"stances
attending the case. =t is of the considered view that the award of the RTC would suffice su#>ect, of
course, to the pa."ent of legal interest.
The award of "oral da"ages should #e granted in reasona#le a"ounts depending on the facts and
circu"stances of the case.cralaw
1&
:oral da"ages are "eant to co"pensate the clai"ant for an. ph.sical
suffering, "ental anguish, fright, serious an?iet., #es"irched reputation, wounded feelings, "oral
shoc2, social hu"iliation and si"ilar in>uries un>ustl. caused.cralaw
11
(s to the award of e?e"plar. da"ages, the law allows it #. wa. of e?a"ple for the pu#lic good. The
#usiness of #an2ing is i"pressed with pu#lic interest and great reliance is "ade on the #an25s sworn
profession of diligence and "eticulousness in giving irreproacha#le service.cralaw
1%
Thus, the Court affir"s
the award as a wa. of setting an e?a"ple for the pu#lic good. =n addition, it also provided for
attorne.5s fees. /oth are su#>ect to legal interest.
=n an. event, Citi#an2 should have #een "ore cautious in dealing with its clients since its #usiness is
i"#ued with pu#lic interest. /an2s "ust alwa.s act in good faith and "ust win the confidence of
clients and people in general. =t is irrelevant whether the client is a law.er or not.
=t cannot #e over e"phasi1ed that the #an2ing #usiness is i"pressed with pu#lic interest. ;f para"ount
i"portance is the trust and confidence of the pu#lic in general in the #an2ing industr.. Consequentl.,
the diligence required of #an2s is "ore than that of a Ro"an pater !a"ilias or a good father of a
fa"il.. The highest degree of diligence is e?pected.
=n its declaration of polic., the *eneral /an2ing 9aw of %&&& requires of #an2s the highest standards
of integrit. and perfor"ance. ,eedless to sa., a #an2 is 5under o#ligation to treat the accounts of its
depositors with "eticulous care.5 The fiduciar. nature of the relationship #etween the #an2 and the
depositors "ust alwa.s #e of para"ount concern.cralaw
18
-.ERE/ORE, the !ece"#er 1$, %&&' !ecision of the Court of (ppeals is !ODI/IED to read as
follows@
=n view of the foregoing, >udg"ent is here#. rendered ordering defendant Citi#an2 ,.( to pa. plaintiff
(tt.. 3rnesto 4. !inopol the following@chanro#les virtual lawli#rar.
1 P1&&,&&&.&& as and for "oral da"ages6chanro#lesvirtualawli#rar.
% P5&,&&&.&& as and for e?e"plar. da"ages6chanro#lesvirtualawli#rar.
8 P5&,&&&.&& as and for attorne.5s fees6 and
4 Costs of suit,
plus interest at the legal rate rec2oned fro" the filing of the co"plaint.
SO ORDERED.
0OSE CATRA !ENDO"A
Asso#iate $usti#e
-E CONC#R:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Asso#iate $usti#e
Chairperson
ANTONIO ED#ARDO B. NAC.#RA
Asso#iate $usti#e
DIOSDADO !. PERATA
Asso#iate $usti#e
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Asso#iate $usti#e
A T T E S T A T I O N
= attest that the conclusions in the a#ove !ecision had #een reached in consultation #efore the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court5s !ivision.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Asso#iate $usti#e
Chairperson, %e#ond Di&ision
C E R T I / I C A T I O N
Pursuant to 4ection 18, (rticle +=== of the Constitution and the !ivision Chairperson5s (ttestation, =
certif. that the conclusions in the a#ove !ecision had #een reached in consultation #efore the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court5s !ivision.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chie! $usti#e
cralaw Endnotes:
cralaw
1
Rollo, pp. 1&)%5. Penned #. (ssociate 7ustice +icente 4.3.+eloso with (ssociate 7ustice Re#ecca !e *uia)4alvador and (ssociate 7ustice Ricardo R.
Rosario, concurring.
cralaw
%
=d. at 817)8%9.
cralaw
8
$. Hidalo 'y &. %pouses (edina, *.R. ,o. 17%541, (ugust ', %&1&.
cralaw
4
Rollo, p. %57.
cralaw
5
=d. at %5'.
cralaw
$
=d. at. %'4.
cralaw
7
=d.
cralaw
'
=d. at %59.
cralaw
9
=d. at %$&.
cralaw
1&
(anila )le#tri# Co"pany &. %pouses )dito and *eli#idad Chua and $ose!ina Pa+ueo, *.R. ,o. 1$&4%%, 7ul. 5, %&1&.
cralaw
11
Caunun &. Planters De&elop"ent ,ank, 51& Phil. 51, $%)$8 B%&&5A, citing %a"son, $r. & ,ank o! the Philippine-slands, 458 Phil. 577, 5'8 B%&&8A.
cralaw
1%
%olidbank Corporation.(etropolitan ,ank and Trust Co"pany &. Tan, *.R. ,o. 1$784$, (pril %, %&&7, 5%& 4CR( 1%8, 1%9.
cralaw
18
Philippine %a&ins ,ank &. Cho/kin *ood Corporation, *.R. ,o. 1775%$, 7ul. 4, %&&', 557 4CR( 81', 88&)881.