Gestión y evaluación del currículo para el alcance de las competencias

230 SCRA 799; GR 105836; Regalado; Mar 7, 1994

~ajang~

FACTS

-Spouses George and Librada Moran are the owners of the Wack-Wack Petron. They regularly purchased bulk fuel and other related products from Petrophil Corporation on a cash on delivery (COD) basis.

Orders were made by telephone and payments were effected by personal checks upon delivery.

-The Morans maintained 3 joint accounts (1 current and 2 savings accounts). As a special privilege to the Morans, as valued clients, the bank allowed them to maintain a zero balance in their current account.

Transfers from one of the savings account to the current account could only be made with prior authorization, while transfers from the other savings account can be made be the bank automatically through a Pre-Authorized Transfer agreement or PAT.

-On 12 December 1983, the Morans, drew a check for P50,576.00 payable to Petrophil Corporation. The next day, the Moran issued another check in the amount of P56,090.00. The totalling to P106,666.00.

Petrophil deposited the two checks to its account with the Pandacan branch of PNB, the collecting bank. In turn, PNB presented them for clearing with the Philippine Clearing House Corporation in the afternoon of the same day. The records show that on 14 Dec 1983, Moran’s Current Account had a zero balance, while Savings Account covered by the PAT had an available balance of P26,104.30 and the other Savings Account had P43,268.39.

-The following day, at around 10am, George Moran went to the bank, as was his regular practice, to personally oversee their daily transactions with the bank. He deposited money to the 2 savings account.

He then withdrew P40k from Savings Account A and deposited the amount to the current account.

P66,666 was also transferred from the other Savings Account to the current account through the PAT agreement.

-Librada (wife) told George that Petrophil refused to deliver their orders on a credit basis because the two checks were dishonored due to "insufficiency of funds. Non-delivery of gasoline forced Morans to temporarily stop business operations. In addition, Petrophil cancelled their credit accommodation.

Furious and upset, George Moran demanded an check on account of insufficient funds but wherein a deposit may be made later in the day.

HELD: NO.

-The relationship between the bank and the depositor is that of a debtor and creditor. By virtue of the contract

of deposit between the banker and its depositor, the banker agrees to pay checks drawn by the depositor provided that said depositor has money in the hands of the bank. Hence, where the bank possesses funds of a depositor, it is bound to honor his checks to the extent of the amount of his deposits. The failure of a bank to pay the check of a merchant or a trader, when the deposit is sufficient, entitles the drawer to substantial damages without any proof of actual damages. Conversely, a bank is not liable for its refusal to pay a check on account of insufficient funds, notwithstanding the fact that a deposit may be made later in the day. Before a bank depositor may maintain a suit to recover a specific amount from his bank, he must first show that he had on deposit sufficient funds to meet his demand.

-The available balance on 14 December 1983 was used by the bank in determining whether or not there was sufficient cash deposited to fund the two checks, although what was stamped on the dorsal side of the two checks in question was "DAIF/12-15-83," since 15 December 1983 was the actual date when the checks were processed. When the Morans' checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds, the available balance of Savings Account which was the subject of the PAT agreement, was not enough to cover either of the two checks. On 14 December 1983, when PNB, Pandacan branch presented the checks for collection, the available balance for Savings Account 1037001372 was only P26,104.30 while Current Account 37-0006-7 had no available balance. It was only on 15 December 1983 at around 10:00 a.m. that the necessary funds were deposited, which unfortunately was too late to prevent the dishonor of the checks.

-The bank was also under no obligation to give notice before dishonoring checks drawn upon insufficient funds. If ever the spouses Moran on previous occasions were given notices every time a check was presented for clearing and payment and there were no adequate funds in their accounts, these were, at most, mere accommodations on the part of CityTrust. Legally, the bank had all the right to dishonor the checks because there were no sufficient funds to speak of in the first place.

-A drawer must remember his responsibilities every time he issues a check. He must personally keep track of his available balance in the bank and not rely on the bank to notify him of the necessity to fund certain checks he previously issued.A check, as distinguished from an ordinary bill of exchange, is supposed to be drawn against a previous deposit of funds for it is ordinarily intended for immediate payment. In the present case, between the time of issuance of the checks on Dec 12 and 13 and presentment on Dec 14, Morans had, at the very least, 24 hours to replenish their balance in the bank.

ARANETA V BANK OF AMERICA No. L-25414 July 30, 1971; 40 SCRA 144

~ricky~

Dishonored and stamped “Account Closed”

despite sufficiency of drawer’s deposit balance.

Upon inquiry, Bank acknowledged error and sent a letter of apology to payee Harry Gregory of Hongkong and requesting that no adverse reflection be made on drawer. Matter considered closed. However, similar events occurred later.

SUBJECT 2: Check for $500 payable to cash drawn against the same bank. Stamped “Account Closed” and returned to clearing bank despite sufficiency of drawer’s deposit balance.

SUBSEQUENT INDORSEMENT: To Rufina Saldaña who deposited it to her account with First National City Bank of New York which in turn cleared it through the Federal Reserve Bank. It was actually paid by the drawee to First National City Bank but later claimed it was inadvertently

SUBJECT 3: Check for $150 payable to cash drawn against the same bank. Stamped “Account Closed” and returned to clearing bank (Wells Fargo Bank) despite sufficiency of drawer’s deposit balance.

-Because of these incidents, Araneta filed suit for the recovery of the ff: (1) Actual damages P30,000;

(2) Moral damages P20,000; (3) Temperate damages P50,000; (4) Exemplary damages P10,000; and (5) Attorney’s fees P10,000. TC awarded all items. CA eliminated actual and temperate (for failure to prove an alleged purchase of jewels for profit) and reduced moral damages to P8,000, exemplary to P1,000 and attorney’s fees to P1,000.

ISSUES

1. WON the CA erred in eliminating temperate damages.

2. WON the CA erred in not granting moral damages for mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, social humiliation, etc., separate and distinct from the damages recoverable for injury to business reputation.

HELD 1. YES.

Ratio The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset, it being a significant part of the foundation of his business. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some material loss to him.

Reasoning The Bank cites Art 2224 which provides that “temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less that compensatory damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty,” and contends that Araneta failed to show such loss in this case which the CA upheld. The question is WON there is reason to conclude that Araneta did sustain some pecuniary loss although no sufficient proof of the amount has been adduced.

-From the nature of some cases, (citing the Code Commission) definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered although the court is convinced that there has been such loss. For instance, injury to one’s commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show with certainty in terms of money. The judge temperate damages is legally justified.

Considering, however, the small size of Araneta’s account with the Bank, the amounts of the checks involved & the fact that the Bank tried to rectify the error, although belatedly, an award of P5T by way of temperate damages is sufficient.

2. NO.

Reasoning Araneta contends that moral damages should have been granted for the injury to his business standing or commercial credit, separately from his wounded feelings and mental anguish. It is true that under Art 2217, besmirched reputation is a ground upon which moral damages may be claimed but the CA did take this element into consideration in adjudging the sum of P8T in his favor. The CA considered his reputation as an established and well known international trader as well as his wounded feelings and the mental anguish he suffered which caused his blood pressure to rise beyond unusual limits necessitating medical attendance for an extended period.

Disposition Judgment of the CA MODIFIED by awarding temperate damages of P5,000 and increasing attorney’s fees to P4,000.

WOODY V NATIONAL BANK OF ROCKY MOUNT 194 N.C. 549, 140 S.E. 150 (1927)

~joey~

FACTS

SUBJECT: check for $6 DRAWER: Woody

DRAWEE: Bank of Rocky Mount PAYEE: E.L. Hollingworth INDORSEE: Kingston Garage

-The check was dishonored and marked “No Account”

by drawee bank although, at that time, drawer had on deposit $50. Drawer was arrested and tried on the charge of having given a worthless check. He was acquitted.

-This action for compensatory and punitive damages alleges that drawee’s act was willful, negligent, wanton and malicious. Demurrer sustained in TC.

ISSUE

WON drawer may recover compensatory and punitive damages from drawee

HELD: YES

-Upon the refusal or failure of the bank to pay the check of its depositor, the bank is liable for a breach of its contract. The depositor may recover of the bank the amount of his check, with interest and cost; the action being on contract, the recovery is limited to the amount of the check, with interest from date of demand and refusal,

and, by virtue of the statute, the costs of the action.

-Notwithstanding that the relation of the bank to its depositor is that of debtor and creditor, a bank may be held liable in tort to its depositor whose check it has wrongfully refused or failed to pay.

-A depositor, whose check has been wrongfully dishonored by the refusal or failure of the bank on which it was drawn to pay the same, may maintain an action against the bank, not only in contract but also in tort, to recover the damages which he has sustained, and that the jury may, when the plaintiff is a merchant or trader, assess not only nominal but also substantial damages;

when the plaintiff is not a merchant or trader, he may recover such sum as special damages as the jury shall find, upon the facts, will compensate him for the injury resulting from the wrong done him by the defendant.

-Even if such actual loss or injury is not shown, yet more than nominal damages may be given. It can hardly be possible that a customer’s check can be wrongfully refused payment without some impeachment of his credit, which must in fact be an actual injury, though he cannot from the nature of the case furnish independent, distinct proof thereon.

Disposition Judgment reversed.

SINGSON V BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS 23 SCRA 1117; Concepcion; June 27, 1968

~chriscaps~

FACTS

-Singson was one of defendants in civil case where judgment was rendered against him and co-defendants Lobregat and Villa-Abrille, to pay.

Singson and Lobregat appealed, but not Villla-Abrille. Writ of garnishment was served upon BPI in w/c Singson had account, insofar as Villa-Abrille’s credit against the bank were concerned.

-Clerk of bank, upon reading name of plaintiff and w/o informing himself that garnishment was merely for deposits of Villa-Abrillle and Bona, prepared letter for Bank President’s signature, informing Singson of the garnishment of his deposits.

-2 checks issued by Singson in favor of Lega Corp, drawn against said bank, were deposited by

drawee. Believing that Singson had no more control over his deposits, bank dishonored the checks.

-Singson commenced present action against bank and its president for damages because of illegal freezing of account. CFI dismissed complaint.

ISSUE

WON damages may be awarded HELD: YES

-Existence of a contract between parties doesn’t bar commission of a tort by one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages therefore.

SPEROFF V FIRST-CENTRAL TRUST CO 140 Ohio st. 415, 79 N.E. 2s 119 (1948)

~’del~

FACTS

-Vassil Speroff had drawn a check on First-Central Trust Co. (FCTC).

-He eventually notified FCTC that said check be not paid.

-Now, he sues FCTC to recover the amount of said check.

-FCTC admitted to the drawing of the check and to having received the notice not to pay. However, it interposed the defense that Speroff signed a document stating that Speroff agreed to indemnify FCTC against any loss resulting from the nonpayment of said check and that it is expressly understood that it will not be held responsible if it paid the check through inadvertency or oversight.

-TC rendered a judgment for FCTC. CA reversed saying that said statement of release was void as it was contrary to public policy and void for want of consideration. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

WON the statement of release signed by Speroff constitutes a valid defense

HELD: NO.

The Court upheld the CA’s two grounds for avoiding the statement of release.

On want of consideration

-Under the reciprocal rights and obligations inherent in the relationship existing between a bank and

its depositors, it was the duty of FCTC NOT to pay after it had received the order of Speroff.

-Hence, when Speroff was asked to sign a statement or release to the effect that the bank wouldn’t be held responsible if it would pay the check, this was a new element in the relationship. What consideration or benefit was received by Speroff as promisor and what detriment was suffered by FCTC as promise as a result of this statement?

NONE so clearly there was no compliance with either of the fundamental requirements as to consideration.

On contrary to public policy

-It is elementary that a bank is required by law to act in good faith and exercise reasonable care in its relationship with its depositors.

-In this case, the obtaining from Speroff of a purported release from liability for inadvertency or oversight as a condition of the order to stop payment of the check was contrary to public policy and did not relieve

FCTC from its duty to act in good faith and exercise reasonable care.

-The Court distinguished that FCTC’s defense of purported release was a void and invalid defense. However, the FCTC’s defense of exercising good faith and reasonable care (which it interposed in its amended answer) is a valid defense so the Court remanded the case back to the Court of Common Pleas for trial on that issue.

Disposition Judgment was modified and cause remanded.

CHASE NATL BANK OF CITY OF NY V BATTAT Ny Court of Appeals; 297 N.Y. 185, 78 N.E. 2d, 465 (1948)

~jaja~

FACTS

SUBJECT: a check for $25,000 as payment for the purchase of sugar

DRAWER: Arbeedee

PAYEE: Caracanda Bros. Co & Ltd.

DRAWEE: Chase National Bank of City of New York Arbeedee and defendant Caracanda entered into an

agreement for the purchase of sugar which provided that Arbeedee and should deliver a check for $25,000 to Caracanda to bind the transaction and that an amount would be returned upon receipt by Caracanda of a letter of credit to obtained by Arbeedee. Arbeedee drew such a check on its account in the plaintiff bank and delivered it to Caracanda. Thereafter Arbeedee requested plaintiff to stop payment on the check. Caracanda presented the check for certification and it was certified by plaintiff through mistake. The following day, Caracanda presented it for payment and plaintiff paid it.

When advised of the payment of the check Arbeedee insisted that plaintiff make no debit against it account asserting that Caracanda has no legal right to the money. Plaintiff thereupon demanded payment of the $25,000 from Caracanda. That was refused. The complaint alleges due demand upon both defendants and

nonpayment and prays for judgment in the sum of $25,000 against Arbeedee “and/or”

Caracanda.

ISSUE

WON the complaint fails to state a cause of action against Arbeedee

HELD: YES

-The complaint failed to allege ratification by Arbeedee after learning of the payment by plaintiff to Caracanda and there are no alternative allegations of fact upon which to rest such a cause of action. Our courts have never permitted a bank in a commercial transaction to such as this, after breaching its depositor's instructions to involve him against his will in litigation with a third party in order that the bank may recoup a potential loss resulting from its own error. The doctrine of subrogation or equitable assignment is not properly applicable under such circumstances. A bank may protect itself by contract with its depositor so as to limit liability on a stop payment order. When that has not been done, the common law liability is absolute in the absence of ratification. Judgment affirmed.

LAWLESS V TEMPLE