Banking Case Digests August 23, 2017
(1) Salvacion v Central Bank
G.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997
Facts
(2) Marquez v Desierto
G.R. No. 135882 June 27, 2001
Facts
(3) Phil. Commercial Intl. Bank v CA
350 SCRA 246
G.R. No. 121413, 121479, 128604 January 29, 2001
Facts
(4) Bank of the Phil. Islands v CA and Benjamin Napiza
326 SCRA 641
G.R. No. 112392 February 29, 2000
Facts
Private respondent deposited in his Foreign Currency Deposit Unit Savings Account a
Managers Check, payable to cash, and duly endorsed by private respondent. Said check belonged to
Chan who went to the office of private respondent to ask that the check be deposited to the latters dollar
account by way of accommodation, for the purpose of clearing, which the latter acceded. Private
respondent then delivered to Chan a signed withdrawal slip, with the understanding that as soon as the
check is cleared, both of them would go to the bank to withdraw the amount of the check upon private
respondent's presentation to the bank of his passbook.
Subsequently, one Ruben Gayon, Jr., was able to withdraw from said dollar account of private
respondent. Notably however, the withdrawal slip was payable to Ramon and Agnes, both De Guzman.
Petitioner bank then received a communication from the drawee bank that the check in
question was a counterfeit, thus, it immediately informed private respondent, through his son who is
employed in the bank, that the check bounced. Thereafter, petitioner bank demanded for private
respondent to return the amount. Private respondent however, denied any liability of the withdrawn
amount. Hence, the filing of collection suit against private respondent.
The trial court dismissed the complaint, it held that to hold private respondent liable "would
render inutile the requirement of "clearance" from the drawee bank before the value of a particular foreign
check or draft can be credited to the account of a depositor making such deposit." This decision was
affirmed by the respondent 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 indicated therein in private respondent's account.
Issue
Was petitioner bank negligent in allowing the withdrawal?
Ruling
Yes. Ordinarily, private respondent may be held liable as an indorser of the check or even as
an accommodation party. However, to hold private respondent liable for the amount of the check he
deposited by the strict application of the law and without considering the attending circumstances in the
case would result in an injustice and in the erosion of the public trust in the banking system. The interest
of justice thus demands looking into the events that led to the encashment of the check.
By depositing the check with petitioner, private respondent was, in a way, merely designating
petitioner as the collecting bank. As such, after receiving the deposit, under its own rules, petitioner shall
credit the amount in private respondent's account or infuse value thereon only after the drawee bank shall
have paid the amount of 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 both petitioner bank and its depositors are duty-bound to observe. In this case, petitioner
violated its own rules by 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.
In sum, petitioner's personnel negligently handled private respondent's account to petitioner's
detriment.
(5) Phil. Bank of Commerce (absorbed by PCIB), et.al. v CA and Rommels Mktg. Corp.
269 SCRA 695
G.R. No. 97626 March 14, 1997
Facts
Private respondent is engaged in selling appliances and maintains two current accounts with
petitioner bank. From May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976, the former entrusted its funds to its secretary, Yabut,
for deposit in the latter bank. All these deposits however, were never credited to the account of private
respondent but instead, to the account of Cotas, Yabuts husband. During these period, petitioner bank
had, however, been regularly furnishing private respondent with monthly statements showing its current
accounts balances. Unfortunately, it had never been the practice of Lipana, the president, to check these
monthly statements of account reposing complete trust and confidence on petitioner bank.
Yabuts modus operandi is to accomplish two sets of deposit slip, the duplicate was allegedly
for record purposes, which would show the account number of Yabuts husband, while only the original
deposit slip would contain the name of Yabuts husband as the account holder and the duplicate was left
blank. After validation by the teller, Ms. Mabayad, Yabut would fill in the name of private respondent in
the space left blank and make it appear therein the latters account number.
Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, private respondent demanded from petitioner bank the
return of its money, but as its demand went unheeded, thus, it filed a collection suit.
The trial court finds the bank and the teller negligent, thus, liable jointly and severally. The
respondent court modified the decision by eliminating the exemplary and attorneys fees specified therein.
Issue
Was the respondent bank remiss in the discharge of its duty?
Ruling
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 slip was not compulsorily required by the bank in accepting deposits should not relieve the
petitioner bank of responsibility. The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy lacked one vital
information that of the name of the account holder should have already put teller on guard. Rather
than readily validating the incomplete duplicate copy, she should have proceeded more cautiously by
being more probing as to the true reason why the name of the account holder in the duplicate slip was left
blank while that in the original was filled up. She should not have been so naive in accepting hook, line
and sinker the too shallow excuse of Yabut to the effect that since the duplicate copy was only for her
personal record, she would simply fill up the blank space later on. A "reasonable man of ordinary
1 of 4
Banking Case Digests August 23, 2017

prudence" would not have given credence to such explanation and would have insisted that the space left because of the bouncing checks and confidence in it as a reliable debtor was diminished, thus, entitling
blank be filled up as a condition for validation. petitioner to moral damages.

Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but also on the part of the bank itself
in its lackadaisical selection and supervision of Ms. Mabayad.

It cannot be denied however, that private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its
monthly statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series of
frauds being 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.

(6) Simex Intl. (Manila), Inc. v CA and Traders Royal Bank

183 SCRA 408
G.R. No. 88013 March 19, 1990

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

2 of 4