Professional Documents
Culture Documents
97626 March 14, 1997 In the ordinary and usual course of banking operations, current
account deposits are accepted by the bank on the basis of deposit
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE, now absorbed by slips prepared and signed by the depositor, or the latter's agent or
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, ROGELIO representative, who indicates therein the current account number to
LACSON, DIGNA DE LEON, MARIA ANGELITA PASCUAL, et which the deposit is to be credited, the name of the depositor or
al., petitioners, current account holder, the date of the deposit, and the amount of
vs. the deposit either in cash or checks. The deposit slip has an upper
THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROMMEL'S MARKETING CORP., portion or stub, which is detached and given to the depositor or his
represented by ROMEO LIPANA, its President & General agent; the lower portion is retained by the bank. In some instances,
Manager, respondents. however, the deposit slips are prepared in duplicate by the depositor.
The original of the deposit slip is retained by the bank, while the
duplicate copy is returned or given to the depositor.
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.: From May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976, petitioner Romeo Lipana claims
to have entrusted RMC funds in the form of cash totalling
P304,979.74 to his secretary, Irene Yabut, for the purpose of
Challenged in this petition for review is the Decision dated February depositing said funds in the current accounts of RMC with PBC. It
28, 19911 rendered by public respondent Court of Appeals which turned out, however, that these deposits, on all occasions, were not
affirmed the Decision dated November 15, 1985 of the Regional Trial credited to RMC's account but were instead deposited to Account
Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch CLX (160), Pasig No. 53-01734-7 of Yabut's husband, Bienvenido Cotas who likewise
City, in Civil Case No. 27288 entitled "Rommel's Marketing maintains an account with the same bank. During this period,
Corporation, etc. v. Philippine Bank of Commerce, now absorbed by petitioner bank had, however, been regularly furnishing private
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank." respondent with monthly statements showing its current accounts
balances. Unfortunately, it had never been the practice of Romeo
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the private respondent Lipana to check these monthly statements of account reposing
Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC for brevity), represented by complete trust and confidence on petitioner bank.
its President and General Manager Romeo Lipana, to recover from
the former Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC for brevity), now Irene Yabut's modus operandi is far from complicated. She would
absorbed by the Philippine Commercial International Bank, the sum accomplish two (2) copies of the deposit slip, an original and a
of P304,979.74 representing various deposits it had made in its duplicate. The original showed the name of her husband as
current account with said bank but which were not credited to its depositor and his current account number. On the duplicate copy
account, and were instead deposited to the account of one was written the account number of her husband but the name of the
Bienvenido Cotas, allegedly due to the gross and inexcusable account holder was left blank. PBC's teller, Azucena Mabayad,
negligence of the petitioner bank. would, however, validate and stamp both the original and the
duplicate of these deposit slips retaining only the original copy
RMC maintained two (2) separate current accounts, Current Account despite the lack of information on the duplicate slip. The second copy
Nos. 53-01980-3 and 53-01748-7, with the Pasig Branch of PBC in was kept by Irene Yabut allegedly for record purposes. After
connection with its business of selling appliances. validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the space left
blank in the duplicate copy and change the account number written
thereon, which is that of her husband's, and make it appear to be
RMC's account number, i.e., C.A. No. 53-01980-3. With the daily On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the foregoing decision with
remittance records also prepared by Ms. Yabut and submitted to modifications, viz:
private respondent RMC together with the validated duplicate slips
with the latter's name and account number, she made her company WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from herein is
believe that all the while the amounts she deposited were being MODIFIED in the sense that the awards of
credited to its account when, in truth and in fact, they were being exemplary damages and attorney's fees specified
deposited by her and credited by the petitioner bank in the account therein are eliminated and instead, appellants are
of Cotas. This went on in a span of more than one (1) year without ordered to pay plaintiff, in addition to the principal
private respondent's knowledge. sum of P304,979.74 representing plaintiff's lost
deposit plus legal interest thereon from the filing of
Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC demanded from the complaint, P25,000.00 attorney's fees and costs
petitioner bank the return of its money, but as its demand went in the lower court as well as in this Court.3
unheeded, it filed a collection suit before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig, Branch 160. The trial court found petitioner bank negligent Hence, this petition anchored on the following grounds:
and ruled as follows:
1) The proximate cause of the loss is the negligence
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered of respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation and
sentencing defendant Philippine Bank of Commerce, Romeo Lipana in entrusting cash to a dishonest
now absorbed by defendant Philippine Commercial employee.
& Industrial Bank, and defendant Azucena Mabayad
to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, and without
2) The failure of respondent Rommel Marketing
prejudice to any criminal action which may be
Corporation to cross-check the bank's statements of
instituted if found warranted:
account with its own records during the entire period
of more than one (1) year is the proximate cause of
1. The sum of P304,979.72, representing plaintiffs the commission of subsequent frauds and
lost deposit, plus interest thereon at the legal rate misappropriation committed by Ms. Irene Yabut.
from the filing of the complaint;
3) The duplicate copies of the deposit slips
2. A sum equivalent to 14% thereof, as exemplary presented by respondent Rommel Marketing
damages; Corporation are falsified and are not proof that the
amounts appearing thereon were deposited to
3. A sum equivalent to 25% of the total amount due, respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation's
as and for attorney's fees; and account with the bank,
. . . . Even if Yabut had the fraudulent intention to At this juncture, it is worth to discuss the degree of diligence ought to
misappropriate the funds entrusted to her by plaintiff, be exercised by banks in dealing with their clients.
she would not have been able to deposit those funds
in her husband's current account, and then make The New Civil Code provides:
plaintiff believe that it was in the latter's accounts
wherein she had deposited them, had it not been for Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
bank teller Mabayad's aforesaid gross and reckless consists in the omission of that diligence which is
negligence. The latter's negligence was thus the required by the nature of the obligation and
proximate, immediate and efficient cause that corresponds with the circumstances of the persons,
brought about the loss claimed by plaintiff in this of the time and of the place. When negligence
case, and the failure of plaintiff to discover the same shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and
soon enough by failing to scrutinize the monthly 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
statements of account being sent to it by appellant
bank could not have prevented the fraud and If the law or contract does not state the diligence
misappropriation which Irene Yabut had already
which is to be observed in the performance, that
completed when she deposited plaintiff's money to which is expected of a good father of a family shall
the account of her husband instead of to the latter's
be required. (1104a)
accounts. 18
In the case of banks, however, the degree of diligence required is
Furthermore, under the doctrine of "last clear chance" (also referred more than that of a good father of a family. Considering the fiduciary
to, at times as "supervening negligence" or as "discovered peril"),
nature of their relationship with their depositors, banks are duty
petitioner bank was indeed the culpable party. This doctrine, in bound to treat the accounts of their clients with the highest degree of
essence, states that where both parties are negligent, but the care. 21
negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other,
As elucidated in Simex International (Manila), Inc. v. Court of Yabut and bank teller Mabayad. Ms. Mabayad was negligent in the
Appeals, 22 in every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his performance of her duties as bank teller nonetheless. Thus, the
account with the utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only petitioners are entitled to claim reimbursement from her for whatever
of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record every they shall be ordered to pay in this case.
single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as
promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that, indeed,
at any given time the amount of money the depositor can dispose as private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its monthly
he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have
he directs. A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the failure to been alerted to the series of frauds being committed against RMC by
duly credit him his deposits as soon as they are made, can cause the its secretary. The damage would definitely not have ballooned to
depositor not a little embarrassment if not financial loss and perhaps such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had
even civil and criminal litigation. exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This
omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall
The point is that as a business affected with public interest and mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private
because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to respondent 23 under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code, to wit:
treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always
having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. In the case . . . When the plaintiff's own negligence was the
before us, it is apparent that the petitioner bank was remiss in that immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
duty and violated that relationship. cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and proximate
Petitioners nevertheless aver that the failure of respondent RMC to cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due
cross-check the bank's statements of account with its own records care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
during the entire period of more than one (1) year is the proximate courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
cause of the commission of subsequent frauds and misappropriation
committed by Ms. Irene Yabut. In view of this, we believe that the demands of substantial
justice are satisfied by allocating the damage on a 60-40
We do not agree. ratio. Thus, 40% of the damage awarded by the respondent
appellate court, except the award of P25,000.00 attorney's
While it is true that had private respondent checked the monthly fees, shall be borne by private respondent RMC; only the
statements of account sent by the petitioner bank to RMC, the latter balance of 60% needs to be paid by the petitioners. The
would have discovered the loss early on, such cannot be used by the award of attorney's fees shall be borne exclusively by the
petitioners to escape liability. This omission on the part of the private petitioners.
respondent does not change the fact that were it not for the wanton
and reckless negligence of the petitioners' employee in validating the WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is
incomplete duplicate deposit slips presented by Ms. Irene Yabut, the modified by reducing the amount of actual damages private
loss would not have occurred. Considering, however, that the fraud respondent is entitled to by 40%. Petitioners may recover from Ms.
was committed in a span of more than one (1) year covering various Azucena Mabayad the amount they would pay the private
deposits, common human experience dictates that the same would respondent. Private respondent shall have recourse against Ms.
not have been possible without any form of collusion between Ms.
Irene Yabut. In all other respects, the appellate court's decision is
AFFIRMED.
Proportionate costs.
SO ORDERED.