G.R. No.

115324 February 19, 2003

PRODUCERS BANK OF !E P!"#"PP"NES $%o& F"RS "NERNA"ONA# BANK', petitioner,
vs.
!ON. COUR OF APPEA#S AND FRANK#"N ("(ES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CA##E)O, SR., J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision
1
of the Court of Appeals dated June !, 1""1 in CA#
$.%. C& No. 11'"1 and of its %esolution

dated (a) !, 1""*, den)in+ the ,otion for reconsideration of said

decision -led .) petitioner /roducers 0an1 of the /hilippines.
So,eti,e in 1"'", private respondent 2ran1lin &ives was as1ed .) his nei+h.or and friend An+eles
Sanche3 to help her friend and town,ate, Col. Arturo Doronilla, in incorporatin+ his .usiness, the Sterela
(ar1etin+ and Services 45Sterela5 for .revit)6. Speci-call), Sanche3 as1ed private respondent to deposit in
a .an1 a certain a,ount of ,one) in the .an1 account of Sterela for purposes of its incorporation. She
assured private respondent that he could withdraw his ,one) fro, said account within a ,onth7s ti,e.
/rivate respondent as1ed Sanche3 to .rin+ Doronilla to their house so that the) could discuss Sanche37s
re8uest.
9
On (a) ", 1"'", private respondent, Sanche3, Doronilla and a certain Estrella Du,a+pi, Doronilla7s private
secretar), ,et and discussed the ,atter. Thereafter, rel)in+ on the assurances and representations of
Sanche3 and Doronilla, private respondent issued a chec1 in the a,ount of Two :undred Thousand /esos
4/;;,;;;.;;6 in favor of Sterela. /rivate respondent instructed his wife, (rs. Inocencia &ives, to
acco,pan) Doronilla and Sanche3 in openin+ a savin+s account in the na,e of Sterela in the 0uendia,
(a1ati .ranch of /roducers 0an1 of the /hilippines. :owever, onl) Sanche3, (rs. &ives and Du,a+pi went
to the .an1 to deposit the chec1. The) had with the, an authori3ation letter fro, Doronilla authori3in+
Sanche3 and her co,panions, 5in coordination with (r. %ufo Atien3a,5 to open an account for Sterela
(ar1etin+ Services in the a,ount of /;;,;;;.;;. In openin+ the account, the authori3ed si+natories were
Inocencia &ives and<or An+eles Sanche3. A pass.oo1 for Savin+s Account No. 1;#1!=' was thereafter
issued to (rs. &ives.
*
Su.se8uentl), private respondent learned that Sterela was no lon+er holdin+ o>ce in the address
previousl) +iven to hi,. Alar,ed, he and his wife went to the 0an1 to verif) if their ,one) was still intact.
The .an1 ,ana+er referred the, to (r. %ufo Atien3a, the assistant ,ana+er, who infor,ed the, that part
of the ,one) in Savin+s Account No. 1;#1!=' had .een withdrawn .) Doronilla, and that onl) /";,;;;.;;
re,ained therein. :e li1ewise told the, that (rs. &ives could not withdraw said re,ainin+ a,ount
.ecause it had to answer for so,e postdated chec1s issued .) Doronilla. Accordin+ to Atien3a, after (rs.
&ives and Sanche3 opened Savin+s Account No. 1;#1!=', Doronilla opened Current Account No. 1;#;9;
for Sterela and authori3ed the 0an1 to de.it Savin+s Account No. 1;#1!=' for the a,ounts necessar) to
cover overdrawin+s in Current Account No. 1;#;9;. In openin+ said current account, Sterela, throu+h
Doronilla, o.tained a loan of /1'!,;;;.;; fro, the 0an1. To cover pa),ent thereof, Doronilla issued three
postdated chec1s, all of which were dishonored. Atien3a also said that Doronilla could assi+n or withdraw
the ,one) in Savin+s Account No. 1;#1!=' .ecause he was the sole proprietor of Sterela.
!
/rivate respondent tried to +et in touch with Doronilla throu+h Sanche3. On June ", 1"'", he received a
letter fro, Doronilla, assurin+ hi, that his ,one) was intact and would .e returned to hi,. On Au+ust 19,
1"'", Doronilla issued a postdated chec1 for Two :undred Twelve Thousand /esos 4/1,;;;.;;6 in favor
of private respondent. :owever, upon present,ent thereof .) private respondent to the drawee .an1, the
chec1 was dishonored. Doronilla re8uested private respondent to present the sa,e chec1 on Septe,.er
1!, 1"'" .ut when the latter presented the chec1, it was a+ain dishonored.
=
/rivate respondent referred the ,atter to a law)er, who ,ade a written de,and upon Doronilla for the
return of his client7s ,one). Doronilla issued another chec1 for /1,;;;.;; in private respondent7s favor
.ut the chec1 was a+ain dishonored for insu>cienc) of funds.
'
/rivate respondent instituted an action for recover) of su, of ,one) in the %e+ional Trial Court 4%TC6 in
/asi+, (etro (anila a+ainst Doronilla, Sanche3, Du,a+pi and petitioner. The case was doc1eted as Civil
Case No. ***?!. :e also -led cri,inal actions a+ainst Doronilla, Sanche3 and Du,a+pi in the %TC.
:owever, Sanche3 passed awa) on (arch 1=, 1"?! while the case was pendin+ .efore the trial court. On
Octo.er 9, 1""!, the %TC of /asi+, 0ranch 1!', pro,ul+ated its Decision in Civil Case No. ***?!, the
dispositive portion of which reads@
IN &IEA O2 T:E 2O%E$OIN$, Bud+,ent is here.) rendered sentencin+ defendants Arturo J. Doronila,
Estrella Du,a+pi and /roducers 0an1 of the /hilippines to pa) plaintiC 2ran1lin &ives Bointl) and severall) D
4a6 the a,ount of /;;,;;;.;;, representin+ the ,one) deposited, with interest at the le+al rate
fro, the -lin+ of the co,plaint until the sa,e is full) paidE
4.6 the su, of /!;,;;;.;; for ,oral da,a+es and a si,ilar a,ount for eFe,plar) da,a+esE
4c6 the a,ount of /*;,;;;.;; for attorne)7s feesE and
4d6 the costs of the suit.
SO O%DE%ED.
?
/etitioner appealed the trial court7s decision to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated June !, 1""1,
the appellate court a>r,ed in toto the decision of the %TC.
"
It li1ewise denied with -nalit) petitioner7s
,otion for reconsideration in its %esolution dated (a) !, 1""*.
1;
On June 9;, 1""*, petitioner -led the present petition, ar+uin+ that D
I.
T:E :ONO%A0GE COH%T O2 A//EAGS E%%ED IN H/:OGDIN$ T:AT T:E T%ANSACTION 0ETAEEN T:E
DE2ENDANT DO%ONIGGA AND %ES/ONDENT &I&ES AAS ONE O2 SI(/GE GOAN AND NOT ACCO((ODATIONE
II.
T:E :ONO%A0GE COH%T O2 A//EAGS E%%ED IN H/:OGDIN$ T:AT /ETITIONE%7S 0ANI (ANA$E%, (%.
%H2O ATIENJA, CONNI&ED AIT: T:E OT:E% DE2ENDANTS IN DE2%AHDIN$ /ETITIONE% 4Sic. Should .e
/%I&ATE %ES/ONDENT6 AND AS A CONSEKHENCE, T:E /ETITIONE% S:OHGD 0E :EGD GIA0GE HNDE% T:E
/%INCI/GE O2 NATH%AG JHSTICEE
III.
T:E :ONO%A0GE COH%T O2 A//EAGS E%%ED IN ADO/TIN$ T:E ENTI%E %ECO%DS O2 T:E %E$IONAG T%IAG
COH%T AND A22I%(IN$ T:E JHD$(ENT A//EAGED 2%O(, AS T:E 2INDIN$S O2 T:E %E$IONAG T%IAG
COH%T AE%E 0ASED ON A (ISA//%E:ENSION O2 2ACTSE
I&.
T:E :ONO%A0GE COH%T O2 A//EAGS E%%ED IN DECGA%IN$ T:AT T:E CITED DECISION IN SAGHDA%ES &S.
(A%TINEJ, " SC%A '*!, H/:OGDIN$ T:E GIA0IGITL O2 AN E(/GOLE% 2O% ACTS CO((ITTED 0L AN
E(/GOLEE IS A//GICA0GEE
&.
T:E :ONO%A0GE COH%T O2 A//EAGS E%%ED IN H/:OGDIN$ T:E DECISION O2 T:E GOAE% COH%T T:AT
:E%EIN /ETITIONE% 0ANI IS JOINTGL AND SE&E%AGGL GIA0GE AIT: T:E OT:E% DE2ENDANTS 2O% T:E
A(OHNT O2 /;;,;;;.;; %E/%ESENTIN$ T:E SA&IN$S ACCOHNT DE/OSIT, /!;,;;;.;; 2O% (O%AG
DA(A$ES, /!;,;;;.;; 2O% EME(/GA%L DA(A$ES, /*;,;;;.;; 2O% ATTO%NEL7S 2EES AND T:E COSTS O2
SHIT.
11
/rivate respondent -led his Co,,ent on Septe,.er 9, 1""*. /etitioner -led its %epl) thereto on
Septe,.er !, 1""!. The Court then re8uired private respondent to su.,it a reBoinder to the repl).
:owever, said reBoinder was -led onl) on April 1, 1""', due to petitioner7s dela) in furnishin+ private
respondent with cop) of the repl)
1
and several su.stitutions of counsel on the part of private
respondent.
19
On Januar) 1', ;;1, the Court resolved to +ive due course to the petition and re8uired the
parties to su.,it their respective ,e,oranda.
1*
/etitioner -led its ,e,orandu, on April 1=, ;;1 while
private respondent su.,itted his ,e,orandu, on (arch , ;;1.
/etitioner contends that the transaction .etween private respondent and Doronilla is a si,ple loan
4,utuu,6 since all the ele,ents of a ,utuu, are present@ -rst, what was delivered .) private respondent
to Doronilla was ,one), a consu,a.le thin+E and second, the transaction was onerous as Doronilla was
o.li+ed to pa) interest, as evidenced .) the chec1 issued .) Doronilla in the a,ount of /1,;;;.;;,
or /1,;;; ,ore than what private respondent deposited in Sterela7s .an1 account.
1!
(oreover, the fact
that private respondent sued his +ood friend Sanche3 for his failure to recover his ,one) fro, Doronilla
shows that the transaction was not ,erel) +ratuitous .ut 5had a .usiness an+le5 to it. :ence, petitioner
ar+ues that it cannot .e held lia.le for the return of private respondent7s /;;,;;;.;; .ecause it is not
priv) to the transaction .etween the latter and Doronilla.
1=
It ar+ues further that petitioner7s Assistant (ana+er, (r. %ufo Atien3a, could not .e faulted for allowin+
Doronilla to withdraw fro, the savin+s account of Sterela since the latter was the sole proprietor of said
co,pan). /etitioner asserts that Doronilla7s (a) ?, 1"'" letter addressed to the .an1, authori3in+ (rs.
&ives and Sanche3 to open a savin+s account for Sterela, did not contain an) authori3ation for these two to
withdraw fro, said account. :ence, the authorit) to withdraw therefro, re,ained eFclusivel) with
Doronilla, who was the sole proprietor of Sterela, and who alone had le+al title to the savin+s
account.
1'
/etitioner points out that no evidence other than the testi,onies of private respondent and (rs.
&ives was presented durin+ trial to prove that private respondent deposited his /;;,;;;.;; in Sterela7s
account for purposes of its incorporation.
1?
:ence, petitioner should not .e held lia.le for allowin+ Doronilla
to withdraw fro, Sterela7s savin+s account.1a\^/phi1.net
/etitioner also asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in a>r,in+ the trial court7s decision since the
-ndin+s of fact therein were not accord with the evidence presented .) petitioner durin+ trial to prove that
the transaction .etween private respondent and Doronilla was a ,utuu,, and that it co,,itted no wron+
in allowin+ Doronilla to withdraw fro, Sterela7s savin+s account.
1"
2inall), petitioner clai,s that since there is no wron+ful act or o,ission on its part, it is not lia.le for the
actual da,a+es suCered .) private respondent, and neither ,a) it .e held lia.le for ,oral and eFe,plar)
da,a+es as well as attorne)7s fees.
;
/rivate respondent, on the other hand, ar+ues that the transaction .etween hi, and Doronilla is not a
,utuu, .ut an acco,,odation,
1
since he did not actuall) part with the ownership of his /;;,;;;.;; and
in fact as1ed his wife to deposit said a,ount in the account of Sterela so that a certi-cation can .e issued
to the eCect that Sterela had su>cient funds for purposes of its incorporation .ut at the sa,e ti,e, he
retained so,e de+ree of control over his ,one) throu+h his wife who was ,ade a si+nator) to the savin+s
account and in whose possession the savin+s account pass.oo1 was +iven.

:e li1ewise asserts that the trial court did not err in -ndin+ that petitioner, Atien3a7s e,plo)er, is lia.le for
the return of his ,one). :e insists that Atien3a, petitioner7s assistant ,ana+er, connived with Doronilla in
defraudin+ private respondent since it was Atien3a who facilitated the openin+ of Sterela7s current account
three da)s after (rs. &ives and Sanche3 opened a savin+s account with petitioner for said co,pan), as
well as the approval of the authorit) to de.it Sterela7s savin+s account to cover an) overdrawin+s in its
current account.
9
There is no ,erit in the petition.
At the outset, it ,ust .e e,phasi3ed that onl) 8uestions of law ,a) .e raised in a petition for review -led
with this Court. The Court has repeatedl) held that it is not its function to anal)3e and wei+h all over a+ain
the evidence presented .) the parties durin+ trial.
*
The Court7s Burisdiction is in principle li,ited to
reviewin+ errors of law that ,i+ht have .een co,,itted .) the Court of Appeals.
!
(oreover, factual
-ndin+s of courts, when adopted and con-r,ed .) the Court of Appeals, are -nal and conclusive on this
Court unless these -ndin+s are not supported .) the evidence on record.
=
There is no showin+ of an)
,isapprehension of facts on the part of the Court of Appeals in the case at .ar that would re8uire this
Court to review and overturn the factual -ndin+s of that court, especiall) since the conclusions of fact of
the Court of Appeals and the trial court are not onl) consistent .ut are also a,pl) supported .) the
evidence on record.
No error was co,,itted .) the Court of Appeals when it ruled that the transaction .etween private
respondent and Doronilla was a co,,odatu, and not a ,utuu,. A circu,spect eFa,ination of the
records reveals that the transaction .etween the, was a co,,odatu,. Article 1"99 of the Civil Code
distin+uishes .etween the two 1inds of loans in this wise@
0) the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either so,ethin+ not consu,a.le so that
the latter ,a) use the sa,e for a certain ti,e and return it, in which case the contract is called a
co,,odatu,E or ,one) or other consu,a.le thin+, upon the condition that the sa,e a,ount of the sa,e
1ind and 8ualit) shall .e paid, in which case the contract is si,pl) called a loan or ,utuu,.
Co,,odatu, is essentiall) +ratuitous.
Si,ple loan ,a) .e +ratuitous or with a stipulation to pa) interest.
In co,,odatu,, the .ailor retains the ownership of the thin+ loaned, while in si,ple loan, ownership
passes to the .orrower.
The fore+oin+ provision see,s to i,pl) that if the su.Bect of the contract is a consu,a.le thin+, such as
,one), the contract would .e a ,utuu,. :owever, there are so,e instances where a co,,odatu, ,a)
have for its o.Bect a consu,a.le thin+. Article 1"9= of the Civil Code provides@
Consu,a.le +oods ,a) .e the su.Bect of co,,odatu, if the purpose of the contract is not the
consu,ption of the o.Bect, as when it is ,erel) for eFhi.ition.
Thus, if consu,a.le +oods are loaned onl) for purposes of eFhi.ition, or when the intention of the parties
is to lend consu,a.le +oods and to have the ver) sa,e +oods returned at the end of the period a+reed
upon, the loan is a co,,odatu, and not a ,utuu,.
The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall .e accorded pri,ordial consideration in
deter,inin+ the actual character of a contract.
'
In case of dou.t, the conte,poraneous and su.se8uent
acts of the parties shall .e considered in such deter,ination.
?
As correctl) pointed out .) .oth the Court of Appeals and the trial court, the evidence shows that private
respondent a+reed to deposit his ,one) in the savin+s account of Sterela speci-call) for the purpose of
,a1in+ it appear 5that said -r, had su>cient capitali3ation for incorporation, with the pro,ise that the
a,ount shall .e returned within thirt) 49;6 da)s.5
"
/rivate respondent ,erel) 5acco,,odated5 Doronilla
.) lendin+ his ,one) without consideration, as a favor to his +ood friend Sanche3. It was however clear to
the parties to the transaction that the ,one) would not .e re,oved fro, Sterela7s savin+s account and
would .e returned to private respondent after thirt) 49;6 da)s.
Doronilla7s atte,pts to return to private respondent the a,ount of /;;,;;;.;; which the latter deposited
in Sterela7s account to+ether with an additional /1,;;;.;;, alle+edl) representin+ interest on the
,utuu,, did not convert the transaction fro, a co,,odatu, into a ,utuu, .ecause such was not the
intent of the parties and .ecause the additional /1,;;;.;; corresponds to the fruits of the lendin+ of
the /;;,;;;.;;. Article 1"9! of the Civil Code eFpressl) states that 5NtOhe .ailee in co,,odatu, ac8uires
the use of the thin+ loaned .ut not its fruits.5 :ence, it was onl) proper for Doronilla to re,it to private
respondent the interest accruin+ to the latter7s ,one) deposited with petitioner.
Neither does the Court a+ree with petitioner7s contention that it is not solidaril) lia.le for the return of
private respondent7s ,one) .ecause it was not priv) to the transaction .etween Doronilla and private
respondent. The nature of said transaction, that is, whether it is a ,utuu, or a co,,odatu,, has no
.earin+ on the 8uestion of petitioner7s lia.ilit) for the return of private respondent7s ,one) .ecause the
factual circu,stances of the case clearl) show that petitioner, throu+h its e,plo)ee (r. Atien3a, was partl)
responsi.le for the loss of private respondent7s ,one) and is lia.le for its restitution.
/etitioner7s rules for savin+s deposits written on the pass.oo1 it issued (rs. &ives on .ehalf of Sterela for
Savin+s Account No. 1;#1!=' eFpressl) states thatP
5. Deposits and withdrawals ,ust .e ,ade .) the depositor personall) or upon his written authorit) dul)
authenticated, and neither a deposit nor a withdrawal will .e per,itted eFcept upon the production of the
depositor savin+s .an1 .oo1 in which will .e entered .) the 0an1 the a,ount deposited or withdrawn.5
9;
Said rule notwithstandin+, Doronilla was per,itted .) petitioner, throu+h Atien3a, the Assistant 0ranch
(ana+er for the 0uendia 0ranch of petitioner, to withdraw therefro, even without presentin+ the
pass.oo1 4which Atien3a ver) well 1new was in the possession of (rs. &ives6, not Bust once, .ut several
ti,es. 0oth the Court of Appeals and the trial court found that Atien3a allowed said withdrawals .ecause
he was part) to Doronilla7s 5sche,e5 of defraudin+ private respondent@
M M M
0ut the sche,e could not have .een eFecuted successfull) without the 1nowled+e, help and cooperation
of %ufo Atien3a, assistant ,ana+er and cashier of the (a1ati 40uendia6 .ranch of the defendant .an1.
Indeed, the evidence indicates that Atien3a had not onl) facilitated the co,,ission of the fraud .ut he
li1ewise helped in devisin+ the ,eans .) which it can .e done in such ,anner as to ,a1e it appear that
the transaction was in accordance with .an1in+ procedure.
To .e+in with, the deposit was ,ade in defendant7s 0uendia .ranch precisel) .ecause Atien3a was a 1e)
o>cer therein. The records show that plaintiC had su++ested that the /;;,;;;.;; .e deposited in his
.an1, the (anila 0an1in+ Corporation, .ut Doronilla and Du,a+pi insisted that it ,ust .e in defendant7s
.ranch in (a1ati for 5it will .e easier for the, to +et a certi-cation5. In fact .efore he was introduced to
plaintiC, Doronilla had alread) prepared a letter addressed to the 0uendia .ranch ,ana+er authori3in+
An+eles 0. Sanche3 and co,pan) to open a savin+s account for Sterela in the a,ount of /;;,;;;.;;, as
5per coordination with (r. %ufo Atien3a, Assistant (ana+er of the 0an1 F F F5 4EFh. 16. This is a clear
,anifestation that the other defendants had .een in consultation with Atien3a fro, the inception of the
sche,e. Si+ni-cantl), there were testi,onies and ad,ission that Atien3a is the .rother#in#law of a certain
%o,eo (irasol, a friend and .usiness associate of Doronilla.1awphi1.nt
Then there is the ,atter of the ownership of the fund. 0ecause of the 5coordination5 .etween Doronilla and
Atien3a, the latter 1new .efore hand that the ,one) deposited did not .elon+ to Doronilla nor to Sterela.
Aside fro, such fore1nowled+e, he was eFplicitl) told .) Inocencia &ives that the ,one) .elon+ed to her
and her hus.and and the deposit was ,erel) to acco,,odate Doronilla. Atien3a even declared that the
,one) ca,e fro, (rs. &ives.
Althou+h the savin+s account was in the na,e of Sterela, the .an1 records disclose that the onl) ones
e,powered to withdraw the sa,e were Inocencia &ives and An+eles 0. Sanche3. In the si+nature card
pertainin+ to this account 4EFh. J6, the authori3ed si+natories were Inocencia &ives Q<or An+eles 0.
Sanche3. Atien3a stated that it is the usual .an1in+ procedure that withdrawals of savin+s deposits could
onl) .e ,ade .) persons whose authori3ed si+natures are in the si+nature cards on -le with the .an1. :e,
however, said that this procedure was not followed here .ecause Sterela was owned .) Doronilla. :e
eFplained that Doronilla had the full authorit) to withdraw .) virtue of such ownership. The Court is not
inclined to a+ree with Atien3a. In the -rst place, he was all the ti,e aware that the ,one) ca,e fro, &ives
and did not .elon+ to Sterela. :e was also told .) (rs. &ives that the) were onl) acco,,odatin+ Doronilla
so that a certi-cation can .e issued to the eCect that Sterela had a deposit of so ,uch a,ount to .e sued
in the incorporation of the -r,. In the second place, the si+nature of Doronilla was not authori3ed in so far
as that account is concerned inas,uch as he had not si+ned the si+nature card provided .) the .an1
whenever a deposit is opened. In the third place, neither (rs. &ives nor Sanche3 had +iven Doronilla the
authorit) to withdraw.
(oreover, the transfer of fund was done without the pass.oo1 havin+ .een presented. It is an accepted
practice that whenever a withdrawal is ,ade in a savin+s deposit, the .an1 re8uires the presentation of
the pass.oo1. In this case, such reco+ni3ed practice was dispensed with. The transfer fro, the savin+s
account to the current account was without the su.,ission of the pass.oo1 which Atien3a had +iven to
(rs. &ives. Instead, it was ,ade to appear in a certi-cation si+ned .) Estrella Du,a+pi that a duplicate
pass.oo1 was issued to Sterela .ecause the ori+inal pass.oo1 had .een surrendered to the (a1ati .ranch
in view of a loan acco,,odation assi+nin+ the savin+s account 4EFh. C6. Atien3a, who undou.tedl) had a
hand in the eFecution of this certi-cation, was aware that the contents of the sa,e are not true. :e 1new
that the pass.oo1 was in the hands of (rs. &ives for he was the one who +ave it to her. 0esides, as
assistant ,ana+er of the .ranch and the .an1 o>cial servicin+ the savin+s and current accounts in
8uestion, he also was aware that the ori+inal pass.oo1 was never surrendered. :e was also co+ni3ant that
Estrella Du,a+pi was not a,on+ those authori3ed to withdraw so her certi-cation had no eCect
whatsoever.
The circu,stance surroundin+ the openin+ of the current account also de,onstrate that Atien3a7s active
participation in the perpetration of the fraud and deception that caused the loss. The records indicate that
this account was opened three da)s later after the /;;,;;;.;; was deposited. In spite of his disclai,er,
the Court .elieves that Atien3a was ,indful and posted re+ardin+ the openin+ of the current account
considerin+ that Doronilla was all the while in 5coordination5 with hi,. That it was he who facilitated the
approval of the authorit) to de.it the savin+s account to cover an) overdrawin+s in the current account
4EFh. 6 is not hard to co,prehend.
Clearl) Atien3a had co,,itted wron+ful acts that had resulted to the loss su.Bect of this case. F F F.
91
Hnder Article 1?; of the Civil Code, e,plo)ers shall .e held pri,aril) and solidaril) lia.le for da,a+es
caused .) their e,plo)ees actin+ within the scope of their assi+ned tas1s. To hold the e,plo)er lia.le
under this provision, it ,ust .e shown that an e,plo)er#e,plo)ee relationship eFists, and that the
e,plo)ee was actin+ within the scope of his assi+ned tas1 when the act co,plained of was
co,,itted.
9
Case law in the Hnited States of A,erica has it that a corporation that entrusts a +eneral
dut) to its e,plo)ee is responsi.le to the inBured part) for da,a+es Rowin+ fro, the e,plo)ee7s wron+ful
act done in the course of his +eneral authorit), even thou+h in doin+ such act, the e,plo)ee ,a) have
failed in its dut) to the e,plo)er and diso.e)ed the latter7s instructions.
99
There is no dispute that Atien3a was an e,plo)ee of petitioner. 2urther,ore, petitioner did not den) that
Atien3a was actin+ within the scope of his authorit) as Assistant 0ranch (ana+er when he assisted
Doronilla in withdrawin+ funds fro, Sterela7s Savin+s Account No. 1;#1!=', in which account private
respondent7s ,one) was deposited, and in transferrin+ the ,one) withdrawn to Sterela7s Current Account
with petitioner. Atien3a7s acts of helpin+ Doronilla, a custo,er of the petitioner, were o.viousl) done in
furtherance of petitioner7s interests
9*
even thou+h in the process, Atien3a violated so,e of petitioner7s
rules such as those stipulated in its savin+s account pass.oo1.
9!
It was esta.lished that the transfer of
funds fro, Sterela7s savin+s account to its current account could not have .een acco,plished .) Doronilla
without the invalua.le assistance of Atien3a, and that it was their connivance which was the cause of
private respondent7s loss.
The fore+oin+ shows that the Court of Appeals correctl) held that under Article 1?; of the Civil Code,
petitioner is lia.le for private respondent7s loss and is solidaril) lia.le with Doronilla and Du,a+pi for the
return of the/;;,;;;.;; since it is clear that petitioner failed to prove that it eFercised due dili+ence to
prevent the unauthori3ed withdrawals fro, Sterela7s savin+s account, and that it was not ne+li+ent in the
selection and supervision of Atien3a. Accordin+l), no error was co,,itted .) the appellate court in the
award of actual, ,oral and eFe,plar) da,a+es, attorne)7s fees and costs of suit to private respondent.
*!EREFORE, the petition is here.) DENIED. The assailed Decision and %esolution of the Court of Appeals
are A22I%(ED.
SO O%DE%ED.