G.R. No.

157833

October 15, 2007

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner,

vs.
GREGORIO C. ROXAS, Respondent.
Facts:

Gregorio C. Roxas, delivered stocks of vegetable oil to spouses Cawili and was issued a
personal check in the amount of P348,805.50 howevern hwhen he tried to enchash the check it
was dishonoured due to lack of funds. On March 31, 1993 Couples Cawili then replaced the
bounced check with a cashiers check from the bank of the Philippine Island.
The following day, respondent tried encash the cashiers check but it was dishonoured and was
told that the account was closed on that date.
Issue:
Whether or not the Bank of the Philippines Islands is liable for payment of the
dishonoured check?
Held:
Yes the disputed check is a cashiers check. In International Corporate Bank v.
Spouses Gueco,3 this Coujrt held that a cashiers check is really the banks own
check and may be treated as a promissory note with the bank as the maker. The
check becomes the primary obligation of the bank which issues it and
constitutes a written promise to pay upon demand. In New Pacific Timber &
Supply Co. Inc. v. Seeris,4 this Court took judicial notice of the "well-known and
accepted practice in the business sector that a cashiers check is deemed as cash."
This is because the mere issuance of a cashiers check is considered
acceptance thereof. Petitioner bank became liable to respondent from the
moment it issued the cashiers check

G.R. No. 88013 March 19, 1990

SIMEX INTERNATIONAL (MANILA), INCORPORATED, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and TRADERS ROYAL BANK,
respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner is a private corporation engaged in the exportation of food products and is
a depositor in respondent bank. On May 25, 1981, the petitioner deposited to its
account in the said bank the amount of P100,000.00, thus increasing its balance as
of that date to P190,380.74. Petitioner then issued several checks to several
business partners however all of the checks bounced due to insufficient funds
resulting to the ill will of petitioners business partners towards them and causing
damage to their business.
Peitioner now asks for payment of the damage done to their business due to the
negligence of respondent bank
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Traders royal bank should be held liable for payment of
damages?
Held:
Yes, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always
having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. It is obvious that the respondent bank was remiss
in that duty and violated that relationship. What is especially deplorable is that, having been informed of
its error in not crediting the deposit in question to the petitioner, the respondent bank did not immediately
correct it but did so only one week later or twenty-three days after the deposit was made In every case,
the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such account consists
only of a few hundred pesos or of millions.

G.R. No. 104612 May 10, 1994

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (successor-in- interest of COMMERCIAL AND TRUST CO.), petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EASTERN PLYWOOD CORP. and BENIGNO D. LIM, respondents.

Facts:
Eastern Plywood Corporation and Benigno D. Lim (Lim), an officer and
stockholder of Eastern, held at least one joint bank account with petitioner.
Sometime in March 1975, Mariano Velasco opened a joint checking account with Lim
which was opened by with funds withdrawn from the account of Eastern and/or Lim.
Velasco died on 7 April 1977. At the time of his death, the outstanding balance of
the account stood at P662,522.87. Half of this amount was released while the other
half was transferred to another joint account.
Eastern then obtained a loan of 73,000 from CBTC and also entered into a
Hold-out agreement covering the joint bank account of eastern and Lim as security.
Meanwhile, the heirs of Velasco managed to gain authorization from the
courts to withdraw and claim as part of the estate of Velasco the joint account of
Velasco and Lim and petitioner bank released the funds.
Upon merging with BPI, petitioner filed a complaint demanding the payment
of the Loan which was countered by respondents for the return of the amount
covered in the hold-out agreement.
Issue:
Whether or not BPI is still liable to the private respondents on the account subject of the
Holdout Agreement after its withdrawal by the heirs of Velasco?
Held:
Yes, The counterclaim of Eastern and Lim for the return of the P331,261.44 20 was equivalent to a
demand that they be allowed to withdraw their deposit with the bank. Article 1980 of the Civil Code
expressly provides that "[f]ixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions
shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan." In Serrano vs. Central Bank of the
Philippines, 21 we held that bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits; they are really loans
because they earn interest. The relationship then between a depositor and a bank is one of creditor and
debtor. The deposit under the questioned account was an ordinary bank deposit; hence, it was payable
on demand of the depositor.

G.R. No. 186063

January 15, 2014

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,

vs.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Respondent.
On July 1, 1996, respondent San Miguel Corporation Agreement with a certain Rodolfo R.
Goroza wherein the latter was given by SMC sell its various beer products.
Goroza then applied for and was granted a letter of credit by the PNB in the amount of
(P4,400,000.00). Under the credit agreement, the PNB has the obligation to release the proceeds
of Goroza's credit line to SMC upon presentation of the invoices and official receipts of Goroza's
purchases of SMC beer products to the PNB, Butuan Branch.
Initially, Goroza was able to pay his credit purchases with SMC. Sometime in January 1998,
however, Goroza started to become delinquent with his accounts. Demand was then made for the
unpaid sums by SMC against PNB and Goroza.
PNB then made a motion to terminate the proceedings since The regional Trial court then held
Goroza liable and in default but the motion was denied.

Issue:
Whether or not PNB is still liable to pay SMC?
Held:

in a letter of credit transaction, such as in this case, where the credit is stipulated as irrevocable,
there is a definite undertaking by the issuing bank to pay the beneficiary provided that the
stipulated documents are presented and the conditions of the credit are complied with. Precisely,
the independence principle liberates the issuing bank from the duty of ascertaining compliance
by the parties in the main contract. As the principle's nomenclature clearly suggests, the
obligation under the letter of credit is independent of the related and originating contract. In
brief, the letter of credit is separate and distinct from the underlying transaction.27
In other words, PNB cannot evade responsibility on the sole ground that the RTC judgment
found Goroza liable and ordered him to pay the amount sought to be recovered by SMC. PNB's
liability, if any, under the letter of credit is yet to be determined.

FRANCISCO LIM, Petitioner,

vs.
EQUITABLE PCI BANK, now known as the BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.,*
Respondent.
Facts:

Petitioner Francisco Lim Authorized his brother Franco lim to mortgage his property through a
special power of attorney. Banco De Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank released a loan in favour
of Franco Lim.
On December 28, 1992, the loan was fully paid by Franco.7
On June 14, 1996, petitioner, Franco, and their mother Victoria Yao Lim obtained from
respondent Equitable PCI Bank a loan in the amount of P30 million and used the same property
as security. However, when the loan was not paid, respondent foreclosed the mortgaged
property.1
Petitioner now contends that his signature was forged and neither his nor his wifes consent was taken
into consideration by the bank thus it was negligent for failing to exercise the proper diligence in the
transaction.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent Banco De Oro lacked the required diligence required in the mortgage
transaction?
Held:
No, respondent did not lack the required diligence in the mortgage transaction. I n this case,
no evidence was presented to show that respondent did not exercise due diligence
or that it was negligent in accepting the mortgage.50 That petitioner was
erroneously described as single and a Filipino citizen in the mortgage contract,
when in fact he is married and an American citizen, cannot be attributed to
respondent considering that the title of the mortgaged property was registered
under "FRANCISCO LIM and FRANCO LIM, both Filipino citizens, of legal age, single."

WESTMONT BANK (formerly ASSOCIATED BANKING CORP.), petitioner,

vs.
EUGENE ONG, respondent.
Facts:

Respondent Eugene Ong maintained a current account with petitioner. He then sold certain
shares of stocks through Island Securities Corporation which was paid in managers
checks.However such checks was gotten hold by a certain Paciano Tanlimco who forged Ogns
signature and deposited them with petitioner. Even with Ongs specimen signature in fule
petitioner proceeded to credit the checks in favour of Tanlimco who then withdrew it
immediately and absconded.
Ong then sought the help of Tanlimcos family and the Central Bank but both failed. He
then filed a complaint against petitioner demanding the amount to be paid claiming negligence
on the part of Petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner had been negligent in accepting the forged checks and should
be held liable to pay the full amoun to respondent?
Held:
gcYes, Petitioner Westmont bank is grossly negligent in performing its duties. Banks are engaged
in a business impressed with public interest, and it is their duty to protect in return their many
clients and depositors who transact business with them.25 They have the obligation to treat their
clients account meticulously and with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary
nature of their relationship. Given that they already have a specimen signature of the respondent
they had failed to make a verification of the signatures of the checks or even the slightest
comparison. Petitioner is liable to plaintiff for the proceeds of the checks in question.

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Petitioner,

vs.
TEOFILO C. RAMOS, Respondent.
On December 22, 1983, the petitioner United Coconut Planters Bank Granted a loan to
Zamboanga Development Corporation with the Spouses Teofilo Ramos, Sr. and Amelita Ramos
as sureties but the latter failed to pay the loan and a judgment was rendered in favour to
petitioners. To satisfy the judgment Sheriff Villapea searched for real property belonging to the
Ramos wherein he found a residential lot in Quezon City under the name of Teofilo C. Ramos
Chairman of Ramdustrial Corporation and married to Rebecca F. Ramos.
The sheriff then, without verifying nor talking to the owner of the property filed a report
of the appraisal of the property and issued a notice of levy. Teofilo C. Ramos then found out
about the Levy and issued an affidavit of denial that he is not the same person as the one in the
Civil Case and asks for the cancellation of the levy. Some then passed and teofilio found out that
the cancellation was not acted upon and was advice to go to court to cancel the levy in which he
subsequently did and a decision to cancel the levy was rendered. Teofilio now sues Petitioner for
damages.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner acted negligently and should be held liable for damages?
Issue:
Yes, Considering

the testimonial and documentary evidence on record, we are convinced that the
petitioner failed to act with the reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation.
The petitioner has access to more facilities in confirming the identity of their judgment debtors.
It should have acted more cautiously, especially since some uncertainty had been reported by the
appraiser whom the petitioner had tasked to make verifications. It appears that the petitioner
treated the uncertainty raised by appraiser Eduardo C. Reniva as a flimsy matter. It placed more
importance on the information regarding the marketability and market value of the property,
utterly disregarding the identity of the registered owner thereof.