232 SCRA 559
Doctrine:
A bank is liable for dishonoring checks which are sufficiently funded, notwithstanding the fact that the depositor wrote down an inaccurate account number. The use of numbers is simply for the convenience of the bank but was never intended to disregard the real name of the depositor.
Facts:
The case emanated from a complaint filed by respondent Emme for damages against petitioner. Respondent deposited with petitioner several cash in order to amply cover the post dated checks she issued. When presented for encahsement upon maturity, all checks were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Petitioner in its answer averred that it was respondent’s fault that her checks were dishonoured because the account no. Reflected in the deposit slip which is 2900823 was not her correct no. Which is 29000823.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for damages on the dishonored checks.
The depositor expects the bank to treat his account with utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank is engaged in business impressed with public interest and it is its duty to protect in return its many clients and depositors who transact business with it. It is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. Hence, nominal damages may be awarded in order that a right of the plaintiff, which have been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
41. Tan vs.
Court of Appeals 239 SCRA 310
Doctrine:
A cashier's check is a primary obligation of the issuing bank and accepted in advance by its issuance. By its very nature, a cashier's check is a bank's order to pay, drawn upon itself, committing in effects its total resources, integrity and honor behind the check.
Facts:
Ramon Tan, a trader-businessman and community leader in Puerto Princesa, secured a Cashier's Check amounting P30, 000 from PCIB, Puerto Princesa. When in Manila, he deposited
the check in his account with RCBC Binondo. However, he used the wrong deposit slip (local instead of regional). Thus, RCBC erroneously sent the check for clearing, which was returned for having missent / misrouted. RCBC debited the amount from the account of Tan. Tan was not informed of this transaction until 42 days later. Thus, when he issued 2 checks, they were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Having suffered shame and humiliation in the business community, he instituted a case against the bank. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Tan. The CA revered the decision and absolved RCBC from liability. Hence this case.
Issue:
W/N RCBC is liable for damages Held:
Yes. There was no implied instruction from Tan (to clear the check with the Central Bank) arising from the wrong deposit slip. It is the duty of the Bank to check and determine transactions. A depositor does not have sufficient knowledge of banking procedures as much as bankers do. As the check passed through several bank personnel, it should have noticed the error and corrected it. The usage of the wrong deposit slip was not the proximate cause of the clearing fiasco. It was with the bank's failure of its duty to check and countercheck the transaction for possible errors. Thus, it should be held liable for damages. RCBC's defense that immediate payment without awaiting clearance of a cashier's
primary obligation of the issuing bank and accepted in advance by its mere issue. It is regarded substantially to be good as the money it represents. RCBC should have accepted the cashier's check of PCIB. Moral damages can be recovered despite the fact that there was no bad faith or malice by the bank. The bank is still liable for moral damages due to its negligence. This is not meant to enrich the petitioner but to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone. RCBC is liable for moral damages of P100, 000.
42. Papa vs.
A.U. Valencia and Co. Inc. 284 SCRA 643
Doctrine:
While it is true that the delivery of a check produces the effect of payment only when it is cashed pursuant to article 1249 of the civil code, the rule is otherwise if the debtor is prejudiced by the creditor's unreasonable delay in presentment.
Facts:
Myron Papa, acting as attorney-in-fact of Angela Butte, allegedly sold a parcel of land in La Loma, Quezon City to Felix Penarroyo. However, prior to the alleged sale, the land was mortgaged by Butte to Associated Banking Corporation along with other properties and after the alleged sale but prior to the property's release by delivery, Butte died. The Bank refused to release the property despite Penarroyo's unless and until the other mortgaged properties by Butte
have been redeemed and because of this Penarroyo settled to having the title of the property annotated. It was later discovered that the mortgage rights of the Bank were transferred to one Tomas Parpana, administrator of the estate of Ramon Papa Jr. and his since then been collecting rents. Despite repeated demands of Penarroyo and Valencia, Papa refused to deliver the property which led to a suit for specific performance. The trial court ruled in favor of Penarroyo and Valencia. On appeal to the CA, and ultimately in relation to negotiable instruments, Papa averred that the sale of the property was not consummated since the PCIB check issued by Penarroyo for payment worth 40000 pesos was not encashed by him. However, the CA saw the contrary and that Papa in fact encashed the check by means of a receipt. Finally on appeal to the SC, Papa cited that according to Art 1249 of the Civil Code, payment of checks only produce effect once they have been encashed and he insists that he never encashed the check. He further alleged that if check was encashed, it should have been stamped as such or at least a microfilm copy. It must be noted that the check was in possession of Papa for ten (10) years from the time payment was made to him.
Issue:
W/N the check was encashed and can be considered effective as payment?
Yes. The Court held that acceptance of a check implies an undertaking of due diligence in presenting it for payment, and if he from whom it is received sustains loss by want of such diligence, it will be held to operate as actual payment of the debt or obligation for which it is given. In this case, granting that check was never encashed, Papa's failure to do so for more than ten (10) years undoubtedly resulted in the impairment of the check through his unreasonable and unexplained delay. After more than ten (10) years from the payment in part by cash and in part by check, the presumption is that the check had been encashed.