Professional Documents
Culture Documents
112576 October 26, 1994 plaintiffs, explaining the circumstances that gave rise to the
(CA-GR CV No. 26571) bouncing checks situation. Metrobank's negligence arising
from their messenger's misrouting of the credit advice resulting
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, in the return of the checks in question, despite daily reporting
vs. of credit memos and a corresponding daily radio message
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RURAL BANK OF PADRE confirmation, and Mr. Dungo's improper handling of clients led
GARCIA, INC. and ISABEL R. KATIGBAK, respondents. to the messenger's dismissal from service and Mr. Dungo's
transfer from Metro Manila to Mindoro.
FACTS:
Katigbak is the president and director of RBPG, while MBTC is RTC: in favour of plaintiff; defendant is ordered to pay
the rural bank's depository bank, where Katigbak maintains temperate(50k), moral(500k), including attorney's fees,
current accounts. litigation expenses and the costs of the suit(100k); did not
award actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00
April 6, 1982, MBTC received from the CB a credit memo representing the amount of the two (2) checks payable to Dr.
dated April 5, 1982 that its demand deposit account was Felipe C. Roque and Mrs. Elisa Roque.
credited with P304,000.00 for the account of RBPG, CA: delete temperate damages, reduce moral(50k-RBPC;
representing loans granted by the Central Bank to RBPG. 100k-Katigbak); atty’s fees(50k)
Katigbak issued several checks in the total amount of ISSUE: Whether RBPG and Rodriguez are legally entitled to
P300,000.00, payable to Dr. Felipe and Mrs. Eliza Roque for moral damages and attorney's fees – YES
P25,000.00 each.
Dr. and Mrs. Roque deposited the checks with PBC, but the HELD:
checks were returned by MBTC with the annotations "DAIF — There is no merit in petitioner's argument that it should not be
TNC" (Drawn Against Insufficient Funds — Try Next Clearing) considered negligent, much less be held liable for damages on
so they were redeposited on April 14, 1982, which was again account of the inadvertence of its bank employee as Article
dishonored for the following reason: "DAIF — TNC — NO 1173 of the Civil Code only requires it to exercise the diligence
ADVICE FROM CB." of a good pater familias.
The Roques went to Katigbak and the latter paid them in
P50,000 cash. As borne out by the records, the dishonoring of the
respondent's checks committed through negligence by the
While Katigbak was on a business-vacation trip, she received petitioner bank on April 6, 1982 was rectified only on April 15,
overseas phone calls from Mrs. San Juan informing her that a 1992 or nine (9) days after receipt of the credit memo. Clearly,
certain Mr. Dungo, Assistant Cashier of MBTC insisted on petitioner bank was remiss in its duty and obligation to treat
talking to Mrs. San Juan (Dungo thought she is Isabel private respondent's account with the highest degree of care,
Katigbak), berating her about the checks which bounced, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The bank
saying "Nag-issue kayo ng tseke, wala namang pondo." is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with
meticulous care, whether such account consists only of a few
Mrs. Katigbak asked Mrs. San Juan to request MBTC to check hundred pesos or of millions. It must bear the blame for failing
and verify the records regarding the CB credit memo for to discover the mistake of its employee despite the established
P304,000.00 but Mrs. San Juan received another insulting call procedure requiring bank papers to pass through bank
from Mr. Dungo ("Bakit kayo nag-issue ng tseke na wala personnel whose duty it is to check and countercheck them for
namang pondo, Three Hundred Thousand na.") When Mrs. possible errors. Responsibility arising from negligence in the
San Juan explained to him the need to verify the records performance of every kind of obligation is demandable. While
regarding the Central Bank memo, he merely brushed it aside, the bank's negligence may not have been attended with malice
telling her sarcastically that he was very sure that no such and bad faith, nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety,
credit memo existed. embarrassment and humiliation to private respondents for
which they are entitled to recover reasonable moral damages.
Subsequent events led to hospitalization of Katigbak for 2
days. It was established that when Mrs. Katigbak learned that her
checks were not being honored and Mr. Dungo repeatedly
MBTC also issued 4 debit memos representing service and made the insulting phone calls, her wounded feelings and the
penalty charges for the returned checks. mental anguish suffered by her caused her blood pressure to
rise beyond normal limits, necessitating medical attendance for
RBPG and Isabel Katigbak filed an action for damages against two (2) days at a hospital.
MBTC.
The damage to private respondents' reputation and social
It was established later that the reason why the CM did not standing entitles them to moral damages. Moral damages
reflect in RBPG’s account was due to the inadvertence and include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
mishandling of the messenger which resulted to the CM not anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
being delivered to the department in charge of processing the shock, social humiliation and similar injury.
same; consequently, when MBTC received from the clearing
department the checks in question, the stated balance in The CA justified its deletion of temperate damages when
RBPG's account was only P5,498.58 which excluded the MBTC reasoned out that the amount of P50,000.00 is not part
unprocessed credit advice of P304,000.00 resulting in the of the relief prayed for in the complaint, aside from the fact that
dishonor of the aforementioned checks. the amount allegedly suffered by Mrs. Katigbak is susceptible
of proof.
MBTC also contends that the bank and its officers acted with
no deliberate intent on their part to cause injury or damage to
The carelessness of petitioner bank, aggravated by the lack of
promptness in repairing the error and the arrogant attitude of
the bank officer handling the matter, justifies the grant of moral
damages, which are clearly not excessive and unconscionable.
ISSUE NO3:
WHETHER THE ACT OF ISSUANCE OF RECEIPT PROPER -
NO
HELD NO3:
Finally, we find petitioner's act of issuing the manager's checks
and corresponding receipt before payment thereof was
completely counted reckless and grossly negligent. It is an
appalling breach of bank procedures and must never be
repeated.