EQUITABLE PCI BANK V. ARCELITO B. TAN G.R. NO. 165339 AUGUST 23, 2010 FACTS:
Respondent Arcelito B.Tan maintained a current and savings account with petitioner Equitable PCI Bank. n !a" #$% #&&'% Tan issued PCIB Check (o. ')*#++ postdated !a" $+% #&&' in the amount o, P$-%*.)' in ,avor o, /ulpicio /ulpicio 0ines% Inc. As o, !a" #-% #&&'% respondent1s respondent1s balance with PCIB was P$*%#-).*&. n !a" #-% #&&'% /ulpicio 0ines% Inc. deposited the a,oresaid chec check k to its its acco accoun untt with with /oli /olid d Bank Bank%% Carbo Carbon n Bran Branch ch%% Cebu Cebu Cit" Cit".. A,ter ,ter clearing% the amount o, the check was immediatel" debited b" PCIB ,rom Tan1s Tan1s account leaving him with a balance o, onl" P**.). 2owever% ,rom !a" & to #3% #&&'% Tan issued three checks% speci4call"5 PCIB Check (o. ')*++ dated !a" &% #&&'% pa"able to Agusan del /ur Electric Cooperative Inc. 6A/E0C7 ,or the amount o, P3%-').38 PCIB Check (o. ')*+&) dated !a" #+% #&&' pa"able to Agusan del (orte Electric Cooperative Inc.% 6A(EC7 ,or the amount o, P3%-)'.+#8 and PCIB Check (o. $#-#+- dated !a" #3% #&&' pa"able in cash ,or the amount o, P#+%+++.++. Thus% when presented ,or pa"me pa"ment% nt% the three three checks checks were were dis dishon honor ored ed ,or being being drawn drawn against against insu9cient ,unds. As a result o, the dishonored checks pa"able to A/E0C and A(EC% the electric power suppl" ,or the two mini:sawmills owned and operated b" Tan was cut o; and was restored onl" a,ter several da"s. This prompted Tan to 4le with the RTC o, Cebu a complaint against PCIB ,or the pa"me pa"ment nt o, losses losses consis consistin ting g o, unreal unreali
,amil". In ever" case% the depositor e=pects the bank to treat his account with the utmost 4delit"% whether such account consists onl" o, a ,ew hundred peso pesos s or o, mill millio ions ns.. The The bank bank must must recor ecord d ever ever" " sing single le tran transa sact ctio ion n accuratel"% down to the last centavo% and as promptl" as possible. This has to be done i, the account is to re>ect at an" given time the amount o, mone" the depositor can dispose o, as he sees 4t% con4dent that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs.? directs.? @The bank on which the check is drawn% known as the drawee bank% is under strict liability to to pa" to the order o, the pa"ee in accordance with the
drawers instructions as re>ected on the ,ace and b" the terms o, the check. Thus% pa"ment made be,ore the date speci4ed b" the drawer is clearl" against the drawee bank1s dut" to its client.? ISSUE: !ET!ER OR NOT PCIB ACTED NEGLIGENTL# IN DEALING IT! TAN$S ACCOUNT. DECISION OF T!E RTC:
The RTC ruled in ,avor o, PCIB% holding that it did not act negligentl" and dismissed the complaint. Tan appealed. DECISION OF T!E CA:
The CA reversed respondent the sum o, damages% P*+%+++.++ P$+%+++.++. PCIB 4led a motion
the decision o, RTC and directed PCIB to pa" P#%3-%*++.++ actual damages% P*+%+++.++ moral e=emplar" damages and attorne"1s ,ees o, ,or reconsideration% which the CA denied.
SC RULING:
The /C a9rmed with modi4cations the decision o, CA% holding that PCIB acted negligentl". 2owever% the award o, moral damages was deleted and added the award o, temperate damages. The Court had alread" imposed on banks the same high standard o, diligence required under R.A. )&# at the time o, the untimel" debiting o, Tan1s account b" PCIB. In Simex International (Manila), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that as a business a;ected with public interest and because o, the nature o, its ,unctions% the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts o, its depositors with meticulous care% alwa"s having in mind the 4duciar" nature o, their relationship. The diligence required o, banks% there,ore% is more than that o, a good ,ather o, a ,amil". In ever" case% the depositor e=pects the bank to treat his account with the utmost 4delit"% whether such account consists onl" o, a ,ew hundred pesos or o, millions. The bank must record ever" single transaction accuratel"% down to the last centavo% and as promptl" as possible. This has to be done i, the account is to re>ect at an" given time the amount o, mone" the depositor can dispose o, as he sees 4t% con4dent that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. Based on the ,acts% it is clear that PCIB did not e=ercise the degree o, diligence that it ought to have e=ercised in dealing with its client. urthermore% the bank on which the check is drawn% known as the drawee bank% is under strict liability to pa" to the order o, the pa"ee in accordance with the drawers instructions as re>ected on the ,ace and b" the terms o, the check. Thus% pa"ment made be,ore the date speci4ed b" the drawer is clearl" against the drawee bank1s dut" to its client. As such% the Court 4nds that PCIBs negligence is the pro=imate cause o, Tans loss.
