Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
1. W/N applying the last clear chance, PBC's teller is negligent for failing to
FACTS:
HELD: 60-40 ratio. only the balance of 60% needs to be paid by the PBC
1. YES.
Cotas
Mabayad :
original showed the name of her husband as depositor and
Mabayad.
After validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the
space left blank in the duplicate copy and change the account number
to RMC's account number
where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one
is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible
Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC demanded from PBC
respondent's knowledge
husband but the name of the account holder was left blank
Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but also on
the part of the bank itself in its lack in selection and supervision of Ms.
The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy lacked one
vital information (Name of the account holder) should have already put
The fact that the duplicate slip was not compulsorily required by the
incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences
thereof
chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
diligence.
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
Issue: Whether or not petitioners had sufficient funds in their accounts when
the bank dishonored the checks in question.
Moran vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 798
Facts: Petitioner spouses Moran maintained three joint accounts with
respondent Citytrust Banking Corporation. As a special privilege to the
Morans, a pre-authorized transfer (PAT) agreement was entered into by the
parties. The PAT letter-agreement contained the following provisions:
(1) xxx the checks would be honored if the savings account has sufficient
balance to cover the overdraft; xxx
(3) that the bank has the right to refuse to effect transfer of funds at their sole
Held: No. Under the clearing house rules, a bank processes a check on the
date it was presented for clearing. The available balance of December 14,
1983 was used by the bank in determining whether or not there was sufficient
cash deposited to fund the two checks, although what was stamped on the
dorsal side of the two checks was DAIF/12-15-83, since December 15,
1983 was the actual date when the checks were processed. When
petitioners checks were dishonored, the available balance of the savings
account, which was subject of the PAT agreement, was not enough to cover
either of the two checks.
Petitioners wrote Citytrust claiming the dishonor of the checks caused them
besmirched business and personal reputation, shame and anxiety. Hence,
they were contemplating filing legal actions, unless the bank clears their
name and paid for moral damages.
The trial court dismissed the complaint. The CA affirmed.
balance of P26, 104.30 and SA2 had an available balance of P43, 268.39).
On December 15, 1983 at 10:00 AM, M went to the bank as was his regular
practice and deposited in their SA2 the amounts of P10, 874.58 and P6,
754.25, and he deposited likewise in the SA1 the amounts of P5, 900.00,
P35, 100.00 and 30.00. The amount of P40,000.00 was then transferred by
Second, the relationship between the bank and the depositor is that of a
him from SA2 to their CA1. At the same time, the amount of P66,666.00 was
debtor and creditor. By virtue of the contract of deposit between the banker
transferred from SA1 to the same current account through PAT agreement.
and its depositor, the banker agrees to pay checks drawn by the depositor
provided that said depositor has money in the hands of the bank.
to deliver their orders on a credit basis because the two checks they had
Thirdly, where the bank possesses funds of the depositor, it is bound to honor
his checks to the extent of the amount deposits. The failure of a bank to
damages. Conversely, a bank is not liable for its refusal to pay a check on
account of insufficient funds, notwithstanding the fact that a deposit may be
made later in the day. Before a bank depositor may maintain a suit to recover
a specific amount form his bank, he must first show that he had on deposit
Issue:
WON the bank is liable for damages for its refusal to pay a check on account
of insufficient funds considering the fact that a deposit may be made later in
the day.
Held:
No, Petitioners had no sufficient funds in their accounts when the bank
dishonoured the checks in question.
For deposit only with Bank of the Philippine Islands, to credit of account of
San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd.
San Carlos Milling Co. Ltd V. BPI (1993)G.R. No. L-37467 December 11,
For Agent
1993
FACTS:
San Carlos had frequently withdrawn currency for shipment to its mill
but never in so large an amount, and never under the sole
San Carlos Milling Co. Ltd. (San Carlos) was in the hands of Alfred
supervision of Dolores
Before delivering the money, the bank asked Dolores for P1 to cover
the cost of packing the money, and he left the bank and shortly
whom had been given a general power of attorney but without power
of substitution.
the crime was discovered and San Carlos filed against the BPI and
China Bank (after ammendment complaint)
forgery
The money was transferred by cable, and upon its receipt China
general agent
ISSUE: W/N BPI was bound to inspect the checks and shall therefore be
HELD: YES. judgment absolving the Bank of the Philippine Islands must
therefore be reversed
duty was upon the BPI, and the China Banking Corporation was not
bound to inspect and verify all endorsements of the check, even if
then was able to get the money. This eventually came to the knowledge of
plaintiff who filed an action against China Banking and BPI. The trial court
dismissed the case.
FACTS:
Respondent Tan is a businessman and a regular depositor-creditor of
the petitioner, Associated Bank. Sometime in September 1990, he deposited
a postdated check with the petitioner in the amount of P101,000 issued to
him by a certain Willy Cheng from Tarlac. The check was duly entered in his
bank record.
Allegedly, upon advice and instruction of petitioner that
theP101,000 check was already cleared and backed up by sufficient funds,
respondent, on the same date, withdrew the sum of P240,000 from his
account leaving a balance of P57,793.45. A day after, TAN deposited the
amount of P50,000 making his existing balance in the amount
of P107,793.45, because he has issued several checks to his business
partners. However, his suppliers and business partners went back to him
alleging that the checks he issued bounced for insufficiency of funds.
Thereafter, respondent informed petitioner to take positive steps regarding
the matter for he has adequate and sufficient funds to pay the amount of the
subject checks. Nonetheless, petitioner did not bother nor offer any apology
regarding the incident. Respondent Tan filed a Complaint for Damages on
December 19, 1990, with the RTC against petitioner. The trial court rendered
a decision in favor of respondent and ordered petitioner to pay damages and
attorneys fees. Appellate court affirmed the lower courts decision. CA ruled
that the bank should not have authorized the withdrawal of the value of the
deposited check prior to its clearing. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review
before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner has the right to debit the amount of the dishonored check from
the account of respondent on the ground that the check was withdrawn by
respondent prior to its clearing
HELD:
The real issue here is not so much the right of petitioner to debit respondents
account but, rather, the manner in which it exercised such right. Banks are
granted by law the right to debit the value of a dishonored check from a
depositors account but they must do so with the highest degree of care, so
as not to prejudice the depositor unduly. The degree of diligence required of
banks is more than that of a good father of a family where the fiduciary
nature of their relationship with their depositors is concerned. In this case,
petitioner did not treat respondents account with the highest degree of care.
Respondent withdrew his money upon the advice of petitioner that his money
was already cleared. It is petitioners premature authorization of the
withdrawal that caused the respondents account balance to fall to insufficient
levels, and the subsequent dishonor of his own checks for lack of funds.