JULIAN SINGSON v.

BPI; SANTIAGO FREIXAS, president of BPI

27 June 1968; Concepcion, CJ. / Digest Prepared by: Hans Santos
FACTS
PHILIPPINE MILLING CO had filed a case against SINGSON, CELSO LOBREGAT
and VILLA-ABRILLE & CO in the CFI-Manila. The CFI had ruled against the defendants
but SINGSON and LOBREGAT were able to file their appeal but VILLA-ABRILLE was
not. Thus, judgment against it became final and executory.
Thus, a WRIT OF GARNISHMENT was served upon BPI. SINGSON had a current
account with BPI but the garnishment was for the credits of VILLA-ABRILLE with the
said bank.
The clerk in charge of matters relating to execution and garnishment
read the name of SINGSON in the title of the WRIT as party defendant but
did not read the body of the WRIT, which stated that it was only for the credits
of VILLA-ABRILLE. Thus, the account of SINGSON was garnished and letters
were sent to SINGSON and the sheriff to that effect.
This resulted in the dishonor of two checks, one being issued to BM
GLASS CORP for P383 and the other being issued to LEGA CORP for P100. BM
GLASS wrote SINGSON informing him that his check had been dishonored due to the
garnishment of his account, and that they were constrained to close his credit
account with them.
SINGSON wrote to BPI informing them that his name was not included in the
WRIT. Upon receipt of the letter, BPI President FREIXAS immediately took
steps to verify the information, lifted the garnishment, and sent letters to
SINGSON and the sherif to inform them that the garnishment had been lifted.
SINGSON filed a complaint against BPI and FREIXAS with the CFI-Manila for
moral, exemplary, and nominal damages as well as attorneys fees in consequence
of the illegal freezing of the account. The CFI dismissed the complaint on the
ground that SINGSON cannot recover on quasi-delict, there being a contractual
relationship between the parties; that the case does not fall under Article 2219 of
the Civil Code setting forth the cases in which moral damages may be recovered;
and that plaintiffs had not established the amount of damages sustained by them.
ISSUES-HELD-RATIO
WON the existence of a contract between two parties bars the commission
of a tort by one against another and the subsequent recovery of damages:
NO

In Air France v. Carrascoso, involving the airplane passenger who was ousted
from his seat in first class despite having a first-class ticket, the Court held
that the passenger was entitled to recover upon the ground of tort. Although
the relation between a passenger and a carrier is contractual both in origin
and in nature, the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.

However, in view of the facts of this case, particularly the prompt action of
the bank president in remedying the harm, the Court found an award of
P1,000 nominal damages and P500 attorneys fees was sufficient to vindicate
SINGSONs rights.

CFI Judgment REVERSED. BPI ordered to pay P1,000 nominal damages and P500
attorneys fees.