5/27/2017 G.R.No.

157049

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila


THIRDDIVISION


CITYTRUSTBANKING G.R.No.157049
CORPORATION(nowBankof
thePhilippineIslands), Present:
Petitioner,
CARPIOMORALES.,Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
versus ABAD,*and
VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.

Promulgated:
CARLOSROMULON.CRUZ,
Respondent. August11,2010
xx


RESOLUTION

BERSAMIN,J.:


[1]
UnderreviewisthedecisionpromulgatedonOctober8,2002inC.A.G.R.CVNo.48928,
whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision dated January 13, 1995 of the
[2]
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch91,inQuezonCity, findingthepetitionerliabletopayto
the respondent moral damages of P100,000.00, exemplary damages of P20,000.00, and
attorneysfeesofP20,000.00.

Inthetimematerialtothecase,therespondent,anarchitectandbusinessman,maintained
savings and checking accounts at the petitioners Loyola Heights Branch. The savings account
wasconsideredclosedduetotheoversightcommittedbyoneofthelatterstellers.Theclosure
resultedintheextremeembarrassmentoftherespondent,forchecksthathehadissuedcouldnot
be honored although his savings account was sufficiently funded and the accounts were
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157049.htm 1/5
5/27/2017 G.R.No.157049

maintainedunderthepetitionerscheckomaticarrangement(wherebythecurrentaccountwas
maintained at zero balance and the funds from the savings account were automatically
transferredtothecurrentaccounttocoverchecksissuedbythedepositorliketherespondent).

Unmoved by the petitioners apologies and the adjustment made on his accounts by its
employees,therespondentsuedintheRTCtoclaimdamagesfromthepetitioner.

Aftertrial,theRTCruledintherespondentsfavor,andorderedthepetitionertopayhim
P100,000.00asmoraldamages,P20,000.00asexemplarydamage,andP20,0000.00asattorneys
fees.TheRTCfoundthatthepetitionerhadfailedtoproperlysuperviseitstellerandthatthe
petitioners negligence had made the respondent suffer serious anxiety, embarrassment and
[3]
humiliation,entitlinghimtodamages.

ThepetitionerappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CA),arguingthattheRTCerredinorderingit
topaymoralandexemplarydamages.

However, the CA affirmed the RTC, explaining that the erroneous closure of the
respondentsaccountwouldnothavebeencommittedinthefirstplaceifthepetitionerhadnot
beencarelessinsupervisingitsemployees.AccordingtotheCA,thefiduciaryrelationshipand
the extent of diligence that is to be expected from a banking institution, like herein appellant
Citytrust,inhandlingtheaccountsofitsdepositorscannotberelaxedbehindtheshadowofan
[4]
employeewhetherornothe/sheisnewonthejob. Moreover,theCAsaidthatthenegligence
ofthepetitionerspersonnelwastheproximatecausethathadsetinmotiontheeventsleadingto
thedamagecausedtotherespondenthence,theRTCcorrectlyopinedthatwhileabankisnot
expectedtobeinfallible,itmustbeartheblamefornotdiscoveringthemistakeofitstellerfor
[5]
lackofpropersupervision.

The petitioner sought reconsideration, but the CA denied its motion for reconsideration
forlackofmerit.

Hence, this appeal, in which the petitioner maintains that there were decisive fact
[6]
situations showing excusable negligence and good faith that did not justify the award of

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157049.htm 2/5
5/27/2017 G.R.No.157049

moralandexemplarydamagesandattorneysfees.

Thepetitionhasnomerit.

Firstly,theerrorssoughttobereviewedfocusedonthecorrectnessofthefactualfindingsofthe
CA.SuchreviewwillrequiretheCourttoagainassessthefacts.Yet,theCourtisnotatrierof
facts.Thus,theappealisnotproper,foronlyquestionsoflawcanbeelevatedtotheCourtvia
[7]
petitionforreviewoncertiorari.

Secondly,nothingfromthepetitionersargumentspersuasivelyshowedthattheRTCand
theCAerred.Thefindingsofbothlowercourtswerefullysupportedbytheevidenceadduced.

Unquestionably, the petitioner, being a banking institution, had the direct obligation to
supervise very closely the employees handling its depositors accounts, and should always be
mindfulofthefiduciarynatureofitsrelationshipwiththedepositors.Suchrelationshiprequired
itanditsemployeestorecordaccuratelyeverysingletransaction,andaspromptlyaspossible,
considering that the depositors accounts should always reflect the amounts of money the
depositors could dispose of as they saw fit, confident that, as a bank, it would deliver the
[8]
amounts to whomever they directed. If it fell short of that obligation, it should bear the
responsibility for the consequences to the depositors, who, like the respondent, suffered
particular embarrassment and disturbed peace of mind from the negligence in the handling of
theaccounts.

[9]
Thirdly, in several decisions of the Court, the banks, defendants therein, were made
liablefornegligence,evenwithoutsufficientproofofmaliceorbadfaithontheirpart,andthe
Court awarded moral damages of P100,000.00 each time to the suing depositors in proper
consideration of their reputation and their social standing. The respondent should be similarly
awardedforthedamagetohisreputationasanarchitectandbusinessman.

Lastly, the CA properly affirmed the RTCs award of exemplary damages and attorneys
fees.Itisneveroveremphasizedthatthepublicalwaysreliesonabanksprofessionofdiligence
[10]
andmeticulousnessinrenderingirreproachableservice. Itsfailuretoexercisediligenceand
meticulousnesswarranteditsliabilityforexemplarydamagesandforreasonableattorneysfees.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157049.htm 3/5
5/27/2017 G.R.No.157049

WHEREFORE, we deny the petition for review on certiorari, and affirm the decision
renderedonOctober8,2002bytheCourtofAppeals.


Costsofsuittobepaidbythepetitioner.

SOORDERED.




LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:




CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson





ARTUROD.BRIONROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice





MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157049.htm 4/5
5/27/2017 G.R.No.157049

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveResolutionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.




RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

*AdditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.843datedMay17,2010.
[1]
Rollo,pp.3949pennedbyAssociateJusticeDaniloB.Pine(retired),withAssociateJusticeRubenT.Reyes(lateraMemberof
theCourt,sinceretired)andAssociateJusticeAndresB.Reyes,Jr.(nowPresidingJusticeoftheCourtofAppeals)concurring.
[2]
Id.,pp.5664pennedbythenPresidingJudgeMarinaL.Buzon(lateranAssociateJusticeoftheCourtofAppeals).
[3]
Id.
[4]
Supra,atnote1,p.46.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Id.,p.30.
[7]
Section1,Rule45,RulesofCourt,specificallystatesthatthepetitionforreviewoncertiorarishallraiseonlyquestionsoflaw,
whichmustbedistinctlysetforth.
[8]
CitytrustBankingCorp.v.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.No.84281,27May1994,232SCRA559,564.
[9]
PrudentialBankv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.125536,March16,2000,328SCRA264PhilippineNationalBankv.Courtof
Appeals,G.R.No.126152,September28,1999,315SCRA309MetropolitanBankandTrustCompanyv.Wong,G.R.No.120859,
June26,2001,359SCRA608.
[10]
PrudentialBankv.CourtofAppeals,supra,atp.271.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/157049.htm 5/5