Digest Bank of America

Bank of America NT & SA v. Phil. Racing Club; G.R. No. 15!!"# $ul% # !' ()CTR*N+,SBanks have the obligation to treat their clients account meticulously and with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship.The diligence required of banks, therefore, is more than that of a good father of a family (Extraordinary iligence! octrine of "ast #lear #hance $ the one who had a last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. •

•

ACTS%&#' %resident and % left and entrusted pre$signed blank checks with the company accountant before they went to a business trip abroad. )uch checks were obtained by an employee of %&# and the latter encashed the checks from petitioner drawee bank. There were noticeable irregularities in the checks such (i.e. %ay to *#+)- but below it is written */,///*/,///- in words!. espite the highly irregular entries on the face of the checks, petitioner bank, without as much as verifying and0or confirming the legitimacy of the checks, encashed said checks. %&# claims damages against bank for alleged negligence of the latter. "ower court awarded damages. d amages. #+ affirmed. affirmed. Bank of +merica filed petition for review on certiorari. •

•

• • •

*SS/+,S. 123 bank bank only complie complied d with its its duty in in accordance accordance with with )ection )ection 45 45 and 67 of the the 3'"8 3'"8 4. 123 bank bank can presume presume,, upon presentm presentment ent,, that that the checks checks were validly validly issued issued pursuan pursuantt to )ections 5 and 6 of the 3'"8 9. 1ho 1ho is is mos mostt lia liabl ble8 e8 0+(. 32. There There is no disput dispute e that that the signatur signatures es appeari appearing ng on the sub:ec sub:ectt checks were were genuine genuine signatures of authori;ed %&#' officers. owever, the presence of irregularities in each check should have alerted the petitioner bank to be cautious before proceeding to e ncash them which it did not do. The misplacement of the typewritten entries for the payee and the amount on the same same blank blank and the repeti repetitio tion n of the amount amount using using a check check write writerr were were glarin glaringly gly obviou obvious s irregularities on the face of the check. #learly, someone made a mistake in filling up the checks and the repetition of the entries was possibly an attempt to rectify the mistake. +lso, if the check had been filled up by the person who customarily accomplishes the checks of respondent, it should have occurred to the bank
ispositive= >2'?'E. Bank was held liable for 5/@ of the damages while %&#' was held liable for  the A/@