Consolidated Bank VS CA

Consolidated Bank vs. Court of Appeals

[G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003]
Corporate Law: Corporate Negligence, Culpa Contractual
FACTS: Private respondent, L.C. Diaz instructed his employee, Calapre, to deposit in his savings
account in petitioner bank. Calapre left the passbook of L.C. Diaz to the teller of the petitioner bank
because it was taking time to accomplish the transaction and he had to go to another bank. When
he returned, the teller told him that somebody got it. The following day, an impostor succeeded in
withdrawing P300,000.00 by using said passbook and a falsified withdrawal slip. Private
respondent sued the bank for the amount withdrawn by the impostor. The trial court dismissed the
complaint but the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and held the bank liable.
L.C. Diaz demanded from Solidbank the return of its money but to no avail. Hence, L.C. Diaz filed a
Complaint for Recovery of a Sum of Money against Solidbank with the Regional Trial Court. After
trial, the trial court rendered a decision absolving Solidbank and dismissing the complaint. Court of
Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner bank is liable solely for the amount withdrawn by the impostor.
HELD: No. The bank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence or culpa contractual. The contract
between the bank and its depositor is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan.
Article 1172 of the Civil Code provides that responsibility arising from negligence in the
performance of every kind of obligation is demandable. The bank is liable to its depositor for
breach of the savings deposit agreement due to negligence or culpa contractual.
The tellers know, or should know, that the rules on savings account provide that any person in
possession of the passbook is presumptively its owner. If the tellers give the passbook to the wrong
person, they would be clothing that person presumptive ownership of the passbook, facilitating
unauthorized withdrawals by that person.
The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act
of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault

or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but
failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss. This doctrine is not applicable to the present case. The
contributory negligence of the private respondent or his last clear chance to avoid the loss would
not exonerate the petitioner from liability. However, it serves to reduce the recovery of damages by
the private respondent. Under Article 1172, the liability may be regulated by the courts, according
to the circumstances. In this case, respondent L.C. Diaz was guilty of contributory negligence in
allowing a withdrawal slip signed by its authorized signatories to fall into the hands of an impostor.
Thus, the liability of petitioner bank should be reduced.
In PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE VS. CA, the Supreme Court allocated the damages
between the depositor who is guilty of contributory negligence and the bank on a 40-60 ratio. The
same ruling was applied to this case. Petitioner bank must pay only 60% of the actual damages.