CASE: UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK vs. TEOFILO C. RAMOS G.R. No. 147800 Novembe 11!

"00# FACTS: The petitioner United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) granted a loan of P2,800,000 to a!"oanga #evelop!ent Corporation ( #C) $ith %enicio &a!os and the 'pouses Teofilo &a!os, 'r. and (!elita &a!os as sureties. Teofilo &a!os, 'r. $as the )*ecutive +fficer of the ,glesia ni Cristo. #C failed to pa- its account despite repeated de!ands so petitioner "rought the !atter to the &TC, $hich ruled in its favor and granted the $rit of e*ecution applied for. Petitioner, re.uested &eniva, an appraiser of the petitioner/s Credit and (ppraisal ,nvestigation #epart!ent to ascertain if the defendants had an- levia"le real and personal propert-, and reported that there $as a propert- "elonging to Teofilo C. &a!os, President and Chair!an of the Board of #irectors of the &a!dustrial Corporation, !arried to &e"ecca 0. &a!os Thereafter, the sheriff sent a notice of lev- to Teofilo &a!os and caused an annotation thereof "- the &egister of #eeds on the said title. Because of this, &a!dustrial/s loan $ith UCPB $as dela-ed as its propert- $as initiall- denied as securit"ecause of the annotation, $hich caused &a!dustrial to fail to 1oin "idding at the 'an 2iguel Corporation. This ulti!atel- caused its "usiness to $eaken. ISSUE: 3+4 UCPB $as negligent in causing the annotation on the title of Teofilo C. &a!os $hen he is not even a part- to the loan entered into "- #C, $ith Teofilo &a!os 'r as suret-. $ELD: 5es RATIO: 6#id the defendant in doing the negligent act use that reasona"le care and caution $hich an ordinarilprudent person $ould have used in the sa!e situation7 ,f not, then he is guilt- of negligence.8 Considering the testi!onial and docu!entar- evidence on record, $e are convinced that the petitioner failed to act $ith the reasona"le care and caution $hich an ordinaril- prudent person $ould have used in the sa!e situation. ,t should have acted !ore cautiousl-, especiall- since so!e uncertaint- had "een reported "- the appraiser $ho! the petitioner had tasked to !ake verifications. ,t appears that the petitioner treated the uncertaint- raised "- appraiser )duardo C. &eniva as a fli!s!atter. ,t placed !ore i!portance on the infor!ation regarding the !arketa"ilit- and !arket value of the propert-, utterl- disregarding the identit- of the registered o$ner thereof. ,t "ehooved the petitioner to ascertain $hether the defendant Teofilo &a!os,in the civil case $as the sa!e person $ho appeared as the o$ner of the propert- covered "- the said title. ,f the petitioner had done so, it $ould have surel- discovered that the respondent $as not the suret- and the 1udg!ent de"tor in the civil case. The petitioner failed to do so, and !erel- assu!ed that the respondent and the 1udg!ent de"tor Teofilo &a!os, 'r. $ere one and the sa!e person. ,n su!, the court found that the petitioner acted negligentl- in causing the annotation of notice of lev- in the title of the herein respondent, and that its negligence $as the pro*i!ate cause of the da!ages sustained "- the respondent.

CASE: SPOUSES GEORGE MORAN %&' LIBRADA P. MORAN vs. T$E $ON. COURT OF APPEALS %&' CIT(TRUST BANKING CORPORATION G.R. No. 10)8#* M% +, 7! 1--4 FACTS: 'pouses 2oran o$ns a Petron gas station situated in +ld 3ack 3ack. The- get deliveries of gasoline fro! Petrophil Corp. The agree!ent $ith Petrophil states that the spouses !ust pa- C.+.#. (cash on deliver-) "ut due to their good credit reputation Petrophil has "een accepting their pa-!ents via personal check. The spouses/ pa-!ents via check are done through the near"- Cit-trust Bank. ,n said "ank, spouses held three accounts9 a Current and t$o 'avings accounts. (s a special privilege to the 'pouses 2oran, the "ank allo$ed the petitioners to !aintain a :ero "alance in their current account. The 'pouses also e*ecuted a P(T (pre;authori:ed transfer) agree!ent $ith the "ank, stating that checks issued "- the 'pouses $ill "e honored even if their current account contains insufficient funds as long as their savings account has sufficient "alance to cover the value of the checks that the- have issued. The P(T agree!ent covered onl- one of their savings accounts. +n #ec. <2, =i"rada 2oran issued a check for P>0, 000 as pa-!ent for gas deliveries. +n #ec. <?, =i"rada 2oran again issued a check, this ti!e $orth P>@, 000, again as pa-!ent for gas deliveries "- Petrophil. Petrophil then deposited the checks $ith their "ank, P4B (collecting "ank) $hich then presented the checks to the Philippine Clearing Aouse Corp. The records sho$ that +n #ec. <B the current account of the 'pouses 2oran had a :ero "alance $hilst their savings account $ith the P(T had P2@,000 and their other savings account hadPB?,000. +n #ec. <> Ceorge 2oran $ent to Cit-trust, as $as his dail- practice, to oversee their dail- transactions $ith the "ank. 3hile there Ceorge 2oran !ade deposits and replenished the !onies in their current and savings account. +n #ec <> or <@ the 'pouses 2oran $as infor!ed "- Petrophil that their checks had "ounced and "ecause of that the- $ill no longer "e allo$ed to pa- on a credit "asis ("- check). ISSUED 3+4 Cit-trust is lia"le for da!ages to the 'pouses 2oran "ecause their dishonor of the checks the- issued caused the! "es!irched "usiness and personal reputation, sha!e and an*iet-. $ELD:4+. RATIO: The relationship "et$een the "ank and depositor is that of a creditor and de"tor. The action for da!ages of the 'pouses 2oran hinges on $hether or not the petitioners had sufficient funds in their accounts $hen the "ank dishonored the checks in .uestion. The ans$er is clearl- 4+. +n #ec. <B $hen the checks $ere presented for clearing the accounts of the 'pouses did not contain enough !one- to cover the value of the t$o checks issued. ,t $as onl- on #ec. <> at a"out <0a! that Ceorge 2oran $ent to Cit-trust and deposited the necessar- funds to cover the checks, unfortunatel- it $as too late to prevent the dishonor of the checks. The "ank valuing the patronage of the 'pouses 2oran tried its ver- "est in preventing the check fro! "ouncing. The Bank 2anager of Cit-trust even !ade personal visits to the 'pouses and to Petrophil in an atte!pt to present a !anager/s check so that the dishonored checks could "e redee!ed. ,n addition the "ank also sent a letter of apolog- to Petrophil on "ehalf of the 'pouses 2oran to tr- and restore the good credit and "usiness reputation of the spouses. The dishonor of the checks issued "- the 'pouses $as of their o$n fault, it $as their responsi"ilit- to keep track of their transactions and ensure that their account $ith Cit-trust had enough funds to cover the sa!e. Cit-trust is not lia"le for an- da!ages.

CASE: AGUSTIN (. GO %&' T$E CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION .So/0'b%&12 vs. $ONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT %&' FLO3ERTO 4A5MIN G.R. No. L6*81#8 M%7 1#! 1--1

FACTS: 0loverto Ea:!in is an (!erican citi:en and retired e!plo-ee of the United 'tates 0ederal Covern!ent. Ae had "een a visitor in the Philippines since <FG2 residing at ?B 2aravilla 'treet, 2angatare!, Pangasinan. (s pensionado of the U.'. govern!ent, he received annuit- checks for disa"ilit- and retire!ent pa- through the 2angatare! post office. Ae used to encash the checks at the Prudential Bank "ranch at Clark (ir Base, Pa!panga. Ea:!in failed to receive his su"se.uent pensions on ti!e. Ae in.uired fro! the post offices at 2angatare! and #agupan Cit- "ut the result of his in.uiries proved unsatisfactor-, so he $rote the U.'. Civil 'ervice Co!!ission, Bureau of &etire!ent at 3ashington, #.C. co!plaining a"out the dela- in receiving his check. Thereafter, he received a su"stitute check $hich he encashed at the Prudential Bank at Clark (ir Base. This case arose $hen petitioner (gustin Co, in his capacit- as "ranch !anager of the then 'olid"ank in Baguio Cit-, allo$ed a person na!ed H0loverto Ea:!inH to open a 'avings (ccount "- depositing t$o (2) U. '. treasur- checks, "oth pa-a"le to the order of 0loverto Eas!in of Maranilla 't., 2angatare!, Pangasinan and dra$n on the 0irst 4ational CitBank, 2anila. The depositor indicated therein that he $as 0loverto Jazmin $ith !ailing address at 2angatare!, Pangasinan and ho!e address at Maravilla 't., 2angatare!, Pangasinan. Thereafter, the deposited checks $ere sent to the dra$ee "ank for clearance. ,nas!uch as 'olid"ank did not receive an- $ord fro! the dra$ee "ank, after three (?) $eeks, it allo$ed the depositor to $ithdra$ the a!ount indicated in the checks. 2ore than a -ear later, the t$o dollar cheeks $ere returned to 'olid"ank $ith the notation that the a!ounts $ere altered. Conse.uentl-, Co reported the !atter to the Philippine Consta"ularin Baguio Cit-. Thus, Ea:!in received radio !essages re.uiring hi! to appear "efore the Philippine Consta"ularhead.uarters in Benguet for investigation regarding the co!plaint filed "- Co against hi! for estafa "- passing altered dollar checks. The investigators found that the person na!ed H0loverto Ea:!inH $ho !ade the deposit and $ithdra$al $ith 'olid"ank $as an i!postor. Ea:!in filed $ith the then Court of 0irst ,nstance of Pangasinan, Branch ,, at =inga-en a co!plaint against (gustin 5. Co and the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation for !oral and e*e!plar- da!ages. Ea:!in alleged that due to the reckless act of Co in reporting the incident to the Philippine Consta"ular-, instead of reporting it to the Central Bank, $hich is the proper action, petitioner e*perienced e!"arrass!ent. ,n its decision, the &TC ordered Co and 'old Bank to 1ointl- and solidaril- pa- petitioner da!ages. The lo$er court found that Co $as negligent in failing to e*ercise H!ore care, caution and vigilanceH in accepting the checks for deposit and encash!ent. ,t noted that the checks $ere pa-a"le to the order of 0loverto Jasmin, Maranilla 't., 2angatare!, Pangasinan and not to 0loverto Jazmin, Maravilla 't., 2angatare!, Pangasinan and that the differences in na!e and address should have put Co on guard. ,t held that !ore care should have "een e*ercised "Co in the encash!ent of the U.'. treasur- checks as there $as no ti!e li!it for returning the! for clearing unlike in ordinar- checks $herein a t$o to three;$eek li!it is allo$ed. The C( affir!ed the decision ISSUE: $ELD: 5es RATIO: The facts of this case reveal that da!ages in the for! of !ental anguish, !oral shock and social hu!iliation $ere suffered "- private respondent onl- after the filing of the petitionersI co!plaint $ith the Philippine Consta"ular-. ,t $as onl- then that he had to "ear the inconvenience of travelling to Benguet and =inga-en for the investigations as it $as onl- then that he $as su"1ected to e!"arrass!ent for "eing a suspect in the unauthori:ed alteration of the treasurchecks. 3+4 the Petitioner "ank is 1ointland solidarillia"le $ith Co.

(lthough this Court has consistentl- held that there should "e no penalt- on the right to litigate and that error alone in the filing of a case "e it "efore the courts or the proper police authorities, is not a ground for !oral da!ages, $e hold that under the peculiar circu!stances of this case, private respondent is entitled to an a$ard of da!ages. ,ndeed, it $ould "e un1ust to overlook the fact that petitionersI negligence $as the root of all the inconvenience and e!"arrass!ent e*perienced "- the private respondent al"eit the- happened after the filing of the co!plaint $ith the consta"ular- authorities. Petitioner CoIs negligence in fact led to the s$indling of his e!plo-er. Aad Co e*ercised the diligence e*pected of hi! as a "ank officer and e!plo-ee, he $ould have noticed the glaring disparit- "et$een the pa-eeIs na!e and address on the treasur- checks involved and the na!e and address of the depositor appearing in the "ankIs records. The situation $ould have "een different if the treasur- checks $ere ta!pered $ith onl- as to their a!ounts "ecause the alteration $ould have "een unnoticea"le and hard to detect as the herein altered check "earing the a!ount of J F<?.B0 sho$s. But the error in the na!e and address of the pa-ee $as ver- patent and could not have escaped the trained e-es of "ank officers and e!plo-ees. There is therefore, no other conclusion than that the "ank through its e!plo-ees (including the tellers $ho allegedl- conducted an identification check on the depositor) $as grossl- negligent in handling the "usiness transaction herein involved. 3hile at that stage of events private respondent $as still out of the picture, it definitel- $as the start of his conse.uent involve!ent as his na!e $as illegall- used in the illicit transaction. (gain, kno$ing that its via"ilitdepended on the confidence reposed upon it "- the pu"lic, the "ank through its e!plo-ees should have e*ercised the caution e*pected of it. ,n cri!es and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall "e lia"le for all da!ages $hich are the natural and pro"a"le conse.uences of the act or o!ission co!plained of. ,t is not necessar- that such da!ages have "een foreseen or could have reasona"l- "een foreseen "- the defendant. (s CoIs negligence $as the root cause of the co!plained inconvenience, hu!iliation and e!"arrass!ent, Co is lia"le to private respondents for da!ages. (nent petitioner "ankIs clai! that it is not Hco;e.uall- lia"leH $ith Co for da!ages, under the fifth paragraph of (rticle 2<80 of the Civil Code, H())!plo-ers shall "e lia"le for the da!ages caused "- their e!plo-ees . . . acting $ithin the scope of their assigned tasks.H Pursuant to this provision, the "ank is responsi"le for the acts of its e!plo-ee unless there is proof that it e*ercised the diligence of a good father of a fa!il- to prevent the da!age. Aence, the "urden of proof lies upon the "ank and it cannot no$ disclai! lia"ilit- in vie$ of its o$n failure to prove not onl- that it e*ercised due diligence to prevent da!age "ut that it $as not negligent in the selection and supervision of its e!plo-ees.

CASE: PRUDENTIAL BANK vs. COURT OF APPEALS %&' LETICIA TUPASI63ALEN5ULA 8o0&e' b7 ,9:b%&' F %&+0:+o 3%/e&;9e/% G.R. No. 1"))#* M% +, 1*! "000 FACTS: