Moran V COA (SCRA)

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230
8/3/15 5:19 PM
VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994
799
Moran vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 105836. March 7, 1994.
SPOUSES GEORGE MORAN and LIBRADA P. MORAN,

petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.
Banks; Negotiable Instruments; Checks; Words and Phrases; A
check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on
demand.A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable
on demand. Thus, a check is a written order addressed to a bank or
persons carrying on the business of banking, by a party having
money in their hands, requesting them to pay on presentment, to a
person named therein or to bearer or order, a named sum of money.
Same; Same; Same; The relationship between the bank and the
depositor is that of a debtor and creditor.Fixed savings and
current deposits of money in bonks and similar institutions shall be
governed by the provisions concerning simple loan. In other words,
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.
Same; Same; Same; 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.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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2dafd9f63bc4b12000a0094004f00ee/p/AKG870/?username=Guest
Page 1 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
first show that he had on deposit sufficient funds to meet his

demand.
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Presumption of regularity; In the
absence of a contrary showing, it n presumed that the acts in
question were in conformity with the usual conduct of
business.Petitioners
________________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
800
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

argue that public respondent, by relying heavily on Rionistos

testimony, failed to consider the fact that the witness himself
admitted that he had no personal knowledge surrounding the
dishonor of the two checks in question. Thus, although he knew the
standard clearing procedure, it does not necessarily mean that the
same procedure was adopted with regard to the two checks. We do
not agree. Section 3(q), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides a
disputable presumption in law that the ordinary course of business
has been followed. In the absence of a contrary showing, it is
presumed that the acts in question were in conformity with the
usual conduct of business. In the case at bar, petitioners failed to
present countervailing evidence to rebut the presumption that the
checks involved underwent the same regular process for clearing of
checks followed by the bank since 1983.
Same; Same; Same; 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.Petitioners had no reason to complain, for they alone
were at fault. 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.
Page 2 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
Same; Same; Same; A bank is under no obligation to make part

payment on a check, up to only the amount of the drawer s
funds.A bank is under no obligation to make part payment on a
check, up to only the amount of the drawers funds, where the check
is drawn for an amount larger than what the drawer has on
deposit. Such a practice of paying checks in part has never existed.
Upon partial payment, the check holder could not be called upon to
surrender the check, and the bank would be without a voucher
affording a certain means of showing the payment. The rule is
based on commercial convenience, and any rule that would work
such manifest inconvenience should not be recognized A check is
intended not only to transfer a light to the amount named in it, but
to serve the further purpose of affording evidence for the bank of
the payment of such amount when the check is taken up.
Same; Same; Same; Banks letter written merely to maintain the
goodwill and continued patronage of a client could not be
construed as an admission of liability.We agree with respondent
Court of Appeals in its assessment and interpretation of the nature
of the letter of
801
VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994
801

Citytrust to Petrophil, dated December 16, 1983. As aptly and
correctly stated by said court, x x x the letter is not an admission of
liability as it was written merely to maintain the goodwill and
continued patronage of plaintiff-appellants. (This) cannot be
characterized as baseless, considering the totality of the
circumstances surrounding its writing. In the present case, the
actions taken by the bank after the incident clearly show that there
was neither malice nor bad faith, but rather a clear intent to mollify
an obviously agitated client. Raul Diaz, the branch manager, even
went for this purpose to the Moran residence to facilitate their
application for a managers check. Later, he went to the Petrophil
Corporation to personally redeem the checks. Still later, the letter
was sent by respondent bank to Petrophil explaining that the
dishonor of the checks was due to operational error. However, we
reiterate, it would be a mistake to construe that letter as an
admission of guilt on the part of the bank. It knew that it was
confronted with a client who obviously was not willing to admit any
Page 3 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
fault on his part, although the facts show otherwise. Thus,

respondent bank ran the risk of losing the business of an important
and influential member of the financial community if it did not do
anything to assuage the feelings of petitioners.
PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Gonzales, Batiller, Bilog & Associates for petitioners.
Agcaoili & Associates for private respondent.
REGALADO, J.:
Petitioner spouses George and Librada Moran are the
owners of the Wack-Wack Petron gasoline station located at
Shaw Boulevard, corner Old Wack-Wack Road,
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. They regularly purchased
bulk fuel and other related products from Petrophil
Corporation on cash on delivery (COD) basis. Orders for
bulk fuel and other related products were made by
telephone and payments were effected by personal checks
1
upon delivery.
Petitioners maintained three joint accounts, namely one
current account (No. 37-00066-7) and two savings accounts,
(Nos.
__________________
1
TSN, May 3, 1985, 6-8.

802
802

1037002387 and 1037001372) with the Shaw Boulevard

branch of Citytrust Banking Corporation. As a special
privilege to the Morans, whom it considered as valued
clients, the bank allowed them to maintain a zero balance in
their current account. Transfers from Savings Account No.
1037002387 to their current account could be made only
with their prior authorization, but they gave written
authority to Citytrust to automatically transfer funds from
their Savings Account No. 1037001372 to their Current
Account No. 37-00066-7 at any time whenever the funds in
their current account were insufficient to meet withdrawals
Page 4 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
from said current account. Such arrangement for automatic

transfer of funds
was called a pre-authorized transfer (PAT)
2
agreement.
The PAT letter-agreement entered into by the parties on
March 19, 1982 contained the following provisions:
x
1. The transfer may be effected on the day following the

overdrawing of the current account, but the check/s would
be honored if the Ravings account has sufficient balance to
cover the overdraft.
2. The regular charges on overdraft, and activity fees will be
imposed by the Bank.
3. This is merely an accommodation on our part and we have
the right, at all times and for any reason whatsoever, to
refuse to effect transfer of funds at our sole and absolute
option and discretion, reserving our right to terminate this
arrangement at any time without written notice to you.
4. You hold CITYTRUST free and harmless for any and all
omissions or oversight in executing this automatic transfer
3
of funds; x x x
x
On December 12, 1983, petitioners, through Librada Moran,

drew a check (Citytrust No. 041960) for P50,576.00 payable
4
to Petrophil Corporation. The next day, December 13, 1983,
petitioners, again through Librada Moran, issued another
check (Citytrust No. 041962) in the amount of P56,090.00 in
favor of the
________________
2
Ibid., id., 18-24.
Exhibit P, Original Record, 260.
Exhibit D, ibid., 223.

803
VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994
803

5
same corporation. The total sum of the two checks was

P106,666.00.
On December 14, 1983, Petrophil Corporation deposited
Page 5 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
the two aforementioned checks to its account with the

Pandacan branch of the Philippine National Bank (PNB),
the collecting bank. In turn, PNB, Pandacan branch
presented them for clearing with the Philippine Clearing
House Corporation in the afternoon of the same day. The
records show that on December 14, 1983, Current Account
No. 37-00066-7 had a zero balance, while Savings Account
No. 1037001372 (covered6 by the PAT) had an available
balance of P26,104.30
and Savings Account No.
7
1037002387 had an available balance of P43,268.39.
At about ten oclock in the morning of the following day,
December 15, 1983, petitioner George Moran went to the
bank, as was his regular practice, to personally oversee their
daily transactions with the bank. He deposited in their
Savings Account No. 1037002387 the amounts of
8
P10,874.58 and P6,754.25, and he likewise deposited in
their Savings Account No. 1037001372
the amounts of
9
P5,900.00, P35,100.00 and P30.00. The amount of
P40,000.00 was then transferred by him from Savings
Account No. 1037002387 to their current account by means
of a pro forma withdrawal form (a debit memorandum),
which was provided by the bank, authorizing the latter to
make the necessary transfer. At the same time, the amount
of P66,666.00 was transferred from Savings Account No.
1037001372 to the same current account through the pre10
authorized transfer (PAT) agreement.
Sometime on December 15 or 16, 1983, George Moran
was informed by his wife, Librada, that Petrophil refused to
deliver their orders on a credit basis because the two checks
they had previously issued were dishonored upon
presentment for payment. Apparently, the bank dishonored
11
the checks due to insufficiency of funds. The non-delivery
of gasoline forced petition________________
5
Exhibit E, ibid., 224.
Supra., Fn. 5.
Exhibit N, ibid., 254.
Exhibit B-1, ibid., 220.
Exhibit C-1, ibid., 222.
10
Supra., Fn. 5; TSN, June 7, 1985, 13-16.
11
TSN, June 7, 1986, 22-23.

804
Page 6 of 19
804
8/3/15 5:19 PM

ers to temporarily stop business operations, allegedly

causing them to suffer loss of earnings. In addition,
Petrophil cancelled their credit accommodation,
forcing
12
them to pay for their purchases in cash. George Moran,
furious and upset, demanded an explanation from Raul
Diaz, the branch manager. Failing to get a sufficient
explanation, he talked to a certain Villareal, a bank officer,
who allegedly told him that Amy Belen Ragodo,13 the
customer service officer, had committed a grave error.
On December 16 or 17, 1983, Diaz went to the Moran
residence to get the signatures of petitioners on an
application for a managers check so that the dishonored
checks could be redeemed. Diaz then went to Petrophil to
personally present the checks in payment for the two
14
dishonored checks.
In a chance meeting around May or June, 1984, George
Moran learned from one Constancio Magno, credit manager
of Petrophil, that the latter received from Citytrust, through
Diaz, a letter dated December 16, 1983, notifying them that
the two aforementioned checks were inadvertently
dishonored x x x due to operational error.
Said letter was
15
received by Petrophil on January 4, 1984.
On July 24, 1984, or a little over six months after the
incident, petitioners, through counsel, wrote Citytrust
claiming that the banks dishonor of the checks caused them
besmirched business and personal reputation, shame and
anxiety, hence they were contemplating the filing of the
necessary legal actions unless the bank issued a
certification clearing their name
and paid them
16
P1,000,000.00 as moral damages.
The bank did not act favorably on their demands, hence
petitioners filed a complaint for damages on September 8,
1984, with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 159 at Pasig,
Metro Manila, which was docketed therein as Civil Case No.
51549. In turn, Citytrust filed a counterclaim for damages,
alleging that the case filed against it was unfounded and
unjust.
_______________
12
Ibid., id., 38-40.
13
Ibid., id., 32-35.
Page 7 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
14
Ibid., id., 36-37.
15
Ibid., id., 49-51.
16
Rollo, 70.
805
VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994
805

After trial, a decision dated October 9, 1989 was rendered by
the trial court
dismissing both the complaint and the
17
counterclaim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered
judgment in CA-G.R. CV No. 25009 18on October 9, 1989
affirming the decision of the trial court.
We start with some basic and accepted rules, statutory
and doctrinal. A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank
19
payable on demand. Thus, a check is a written order
addressed to a bank or persons carrying on the business of
banking, by a party having money in their hands,
requesting them to pay on presentment, to a person20named
therein or to bearer or order, a named sum of money.
Fixed savings and current deposits of money in banks
and similar institutions 21
shall be governed by the provisions
concerning simple loan. In other words, the relationship
between22the 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
23
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
24
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
_________________
17
Original Record, 423-429; per Judge Maria Alicia M. Austria.
18
Rollo, 60; Justice Reynato S. Puno, ponente; Justices Emeterio C.
Cui and Salome A. Montoya, concurring.

19
Section 185, Negotiable Instruments Law.
Page 8 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
20
Martin, Philippine Commercial Laws, Vol. I, 1985 Ed., 375.
21
Article 1980, Civil Code.
22
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-25012, July 22, 1975, 65
SCRA 186 reiterated in Siao Tiao Hong vs. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, et al., G.R. No. 32075, September 1, 1992, 213 SCRA 164.
23
Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial
Laws of the Philippines, Vol. I, 1987 Ed., 464.

24
Browning vs. Bank of Vernal, 60 Utah 197, 207 Pac. 462.

806
806

25
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 26that he had on deposit
sufficient funds to meet his demand.
The present action for damages accordingly hinges on the
resolution of the inquiry as to whether or not petitioners
had sufficient funds in their accounts when the bank
dishonored the checks in question. In view of the factual
findings of the two lower courts the correctness of which are
challenged by what appear to be plausible arguments, we
feel that the same should properly be resolved by us. This
would necessarily require us to inquire into both the
savings and current accounts of petitioners in relation to the
PAT arrangement.
On December 14, 1983, when PNB, Pandacan branch,
presented the checks for collection, the available balance for
Savings Account No. 1037001372 was P26,104.30 while
Current Account No. 37-00066-7 expectedly had a zero
balance. On December 15, 1983, at approximately ten
oclock in the morning, petitioners, through George Moran,
learned that P26,666.00 from Savings Account No.
1037001372 was transferred to their current account.
Another P40,000.00 was transferred from Savings Account
No. 1037002387 to the current account. Considering that
the transfers were by then sufficient to cover the two checks,
it is asserted by petitioners that such fact should have
prevented the dishonor of the checks. It appears, however,
that it was not so.
As explained by respondent court in its decision, Gerard
E. Rionisto, head of the centralized clearing unit of
Citytrust, detailed on the witness stand the standard
Page 9 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
clearing procedure adopted by respondent bank and the

Philippine Clearing House Corporation, to wit:
Q Let me again re-phrase the question. Most of (sic) these
two checks issued by Mrs. Librada Moran under the
accounts of the plaintiffs with Citytrust Banking
Corporation were drawn dated December 12, 1983 and
December 13, 1983
________________
25
Goldstein vs. Jefferson Title and Trust Co., 95 Pa. Super Ct., 167.
26
O.E. Eads vs. Commercial National Bank of Phoenix, 62 Am. Law
Reports, 183.
807
VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994
807

(and) these two (2) checks were made payable to
Petrophil Corporation. On record, Petrophil Corporation
presented these two (2) checks for clearing with PNB
Pandacan Branch on December 14, 1983. Now in
accordance with the bank, what would happen with
these checks drawn with (sic) PNB on December 14,
1983?
A So these checks will now be presented by PNB with the
Philippine Clearing House on December 14, and then the
Philippine Clearing House will process it until midnight
of December 14. Citytrust will send a clearing
representative to the Philippine Clearing House at
around 2:00 oclock in the morning of December 15 and
then get the checks. The checks will now be processed at
the Citytrust Computer at around 3:00 oclock in the
morning of December 14 (sic) but it will be processed for
balance of Citytrust as of December 14 because for one,
we have not opened on December 15 at 3:00 oclock.
Under the clearing house rules, we are supposed to
process it on the date it was presented
for clearing. (tsn,
27
September 9, 1988, pp. 9-10).
Considering the clearing process adopted, as explained in
the aforequoted testimony, it is clear that the available
balance on December 14, 1983 was used by the bank in
determining whether or not there was sufficient cash
Page 10 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
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 December 15, 1983 was the actual
date when the checks were processed. As earlier stated,
when petitioners checks were dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds, the available balance of Savings
Account No. 1037001372, which was the subject of the PAT
agreement, was not enough to cover either of the two checks.
On December 14, 1983, when PNB, Pandacan branch
presented the checks for collection, the available balance for
Savings Account No. 1037001372, to repeat, was only
P26,104.30 while Current Account No. 37-0006-7 had no
available balance. It was only on December 15, 1983 at
around ten oclock in the morning that the necessary funds
were deposited, which unfortunately was too late to prevent
the dishonor of the checks.
Petitioners argue that public respondent, by relying
heavily
_________________
27
Annex A, Petition; Rollo, 55.

808
808

on Rionistos testimony, failed to consider the fact that the

witness himself admitted that he had no personal
knowledge surrounding the dishonor of the two checks in
question. Thus, although he knew the standard clearing
procedure, it does not necessarily mean that the same
procedure was adopted with regard to the two checks.
We do not agree. Section 3(q), Rule 131 of the Rules of
Court provides a disputable presumption in law that the
ordinary course of business has been followed. In the
absence of a contrary showing, it is presumed that the acts
in question were in conformity with the usual conduct of
business. In the case at bar, petitioners failed to present
countervailing evidence to rebut the presumption that the
checks involved underwent the same regular process for
clearing of checks followed by the bank since 1983.
Petitioners had no reason to complain, for they alone
were at fault. A drawer must remember his responsibilities
Page 11 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
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
28
immediate payment.
Moreover, between the time of the issuance of said checks
on December 12 and 13 and the time of their presentment
on December 14, petitioners had, at the very least, twentyfour hours to replenish their balances in the bank.
As previously noted, it was only during business hours in
the morning of December 15, 1983, that P66,666.00 was
automatically transferred from Savings Account No.
1037001372 to Current Account No. 37-00066-7, and
another P40,000.00 was transferred from Savings Account
No. 1037002387 to the same current account by a debit
memorandum. Petitioners argue that if indeed the checks
were dishonored in the early morning of December 15, 1983,
the bank would not have automatically transferred
P66,666.00 to said current account. They theorize that the
checks having already been dishonored, there was no
necessity to put
_________________
28
De Leon, The Law on Negotiable Instruments, 1989 Ed., 230-231.

809
VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994
809

into effect the pre-authorized transfer agreement.
That theory is incorrect. When the transfers from both
savings accounts to the current account were made, they
were done in the hope that the checks may be retrieved,
thus preventing their dishonor. Unfortunately, respondent
bank did not succeed in effectuating its good intentions. The
transfers were made to preserve its relations with
petitioners whom it knew were valued clients, hence it
wanted to prevent the dishonor of their checks, if the same
was at all possible. Although not admitting fault, it tried its
best to make sure that the checks would not bounce.
Under similar circumstances, it was held in Whitman vs.
Page 12 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
29
First National Bank that a bank performs its full duty

where, upon the receipt of a check drawn against an account
in which there are insufficient funds to pay it in full, it
endeavors to induce the drawer to make good his account so
that the check can be paid, and failing in this, it protests the
check on the following morning and notifies its
correspondent bank by telegraph of the protest. It cannot,
therefore, be held liable to the payee and holder of the check
for not protesting it upon the day when it was received. In
fact, the court added that the bank did more than it was
required to do by making an effort to induce the drawer to
deposit sufficient money to make the check good, and by
notifying its correspondent of the dishonor of the check by
telegram.
Petitioners maintain that at the time the checks were
dishonored, they had already deposited sufficient funds to
cover said checks. To prove their point, petitioners quoted in
their petition the following testimony of said witness
Rionisto, to wit:
Q Now according to you, you would receive the checks from
(being deposited to) the collecting bank which in this
particular example was the Pandacan Branch of PNB
which in turn will deliver it to the Philippine Clearing
House and the Philippine Clearing House will deliver it
to your office around 12:00 oclock in the evening of
December . . .?
A Around 2:00 oclock of December 15. We sent a clearing
representative.
Q And the checks will be processed in accordance with the
balance available as of December 14?
_________________
29
35 Pa. Super Ct., 125 (1907).

810
810

A Yes, sir.
Q And naturally you will place there drawn against
insufficient funds, December 14, 1983?
Page 13 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you sure about that?
30
A Yes, sir. x x x (tsn, September 9, 1988, p. 14).
Obviously, witness Rionisto was merely confused as to the

dates (December 14 and 15) because it did not jibe with his
previous testimony, wherein he categorically stated that
the checks will now be processed at the Citytrust Computer
at around 3:00 in the morning of December 14 (sic) but it
will be processed for balance of Citytrust as of December 14
because for one, we have not opened on December 15 at 3:00
oclock. Under the clearing house rules, we are supposed to
31
process it on the date it was presented for clearing.
Analyzing the procedure he had previously explained, and
analyzing his testimony in its entirety and not in truncated
portions, it would logically and ineluctably appear that he
actually meant December 15, and not December 14.
In the early morning of every business day, prior to
banking hours, the various branches of Citytrust would
receive a computer printout called the rejected
transactions report from the head office. The report
contains, among others, a listing of checks to be funded.
When Citytrust, Shaw Boulevard branch, received said
report in the early morning of December 15, 1983, the two
checks involved were included in the checks to be funded.
That report was used by the bank as its basis in dishonoring
the two checks in question. Petitioner contends that the
bank erred when it did so because on previous occasions, the
report was merely used by the bank as a basis for
determining whether or not it was necessary to notify them
of the need to deposit certain amounts in their accounts.
Amy Belen Rogado, a bank employee, testified that she
would normally copy the details stated in the report and
transfer it on a pink slip. These pink slips were then given
to George Moran. In turn, George Moran testified that he
would deposit the necessary
_________________
30
Rollo, 17.
31
Supra., Fn. 23.

811
VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994

811
Page 14 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM

funds stated in the pink slips. As a matter of fact, so
petitioner asseverated, not a single check written on the
notices was ever dishonored after he had funded said checks
with the bank. Thus, petitioner argues, the checks were not
yet dishonored after the bank received the report in the
early morning of December 15, 1983.
Said argument does not persuade. If ever petitioners 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 respondent bank. It was not
a requirement or a general banking practice, hence noncompliance therewith could not lay the bank open to blame
or rebuke. Legally, the bank had all the right to dishonor
the checks because there were no sufficient funds to speak of
in the first place. If the demand is by check, a drawer musts
have to his credit enough to cover the demand. If his credit
with the bank is less than the amount on the
face of the
32
check, the bank may lawfully refuse payment.
Pursuing this matter further, the bank could also not be
faulted for not accepting either of the two checks. The first
check issued was in the amount of P50,576.00, while the
second one was for P56,090.00. Savings Account No.
1037001372 then had a balance of only P26,104.30. This
being the case, Citytrust could not be expected to accept for
payment either one of the two checks nor partially honor
one check.
A bank is under no obligation to make part payment on a
check, up to only the amount of the drawers funds, where
the check is drawn for an amount larger than what the
drawer has on deposit. Such a practice of paying checks in
part has never existed. Upon partial payment, the check
holder could not be called upon to surrender the check, and
the bank would be without a voucher affording a certain
means of showing the payment. The rule is based on
commercial convenience, and any rule that would work such
manifest inconvenience should not be recognized. A check is
intended not only to transfer a right to the amount named
in it, but to serve the further purpose of affording
_________________
32
O.E. Eads vs. Commercial National Bank of Phoenix, 62 A.L.R.
Page 15 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
183.
812
812

evidence for the bank33of the payment of such amount when

the check is taken up.
On the other hand, assuming arguendo that Savings
Account No. 1037002387, which is not covered by a prearranged automatic transfer agreement, had enough
amount deposited to cover both checks (which is not so in
this case), the bank still had no obligation to honor said
checks as there was then no authority given to it to make
the transfer of funds. Where a depositor has two accounts
with a bank, an open account and a savings account, and
draws a check upon the open account for more money than
the account contains, the bank may rightfully refuse to pay
the check, and is under no
duty to make up the deficiency
34
from the savings account.
We agree with respondent Court of Appeals in its
assessment and interpretation of the nature of the letter of
Citytrust to Petrophil, dated December 16, 1983. As aptly
and correctly stated by said court, x x x the letter is not an
admission of liability as it was written merely to maintain
the goodwill and continued patronage of plaintiffappellants. (This) cannot be characterized as baseless,
considering
the totality of the circumstances surrounding its
35
writing.
In the present case, the actions taken by the bank after
the incident clearly show that there was neither malice nor
bad faith, but rather a clear intent to mollify an obviously
agitated client. Raul Diaz, the branch manager, even went
for this purpose to the Moran residence to facilitate their
application for a managers check. Later, he went to the
Petrophil Corporation to personally redeem the checks. Still
later, the letter was sent by respondent bank to Petrophil
explaining that the dishonor of the checks was due to
operational error. However, we reiterate, it would be a
mistake to construe that letter as an admission of guilt on
the part of the bank. It knew that it was confronted with a
client who obviously was not willing to admit any fault on
his part, although the facts show otherwise. Thus,
respondent bank ran the risk of
Page 16 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
_________________
33
Id., loc. cit.
34
Nauful vs. National Loan and Exchange Bank of Columbia, 97 S.E.
Reporter, 843.
35
Annex A, Petition; Rollo, 59.

813
VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994
813

losing the business of an important and influential member
of the financial community if it did not do anything to
assuage the feelings of petitioners.
It will be recalled that the credit standing of the Morans
with Petrophil Corporation was involved, which fact, more
than anything, displeased them, to say the least. On
demand of petitioners that their names be cleared, the bank
considered it more prudent to send the letter. It never
realized that it would thereafter be used by petitioners as
one of the bases of their legal action. It will be noted that
there was no reason for the bank to send the letter to
Petrophil Corporation since the latter was not a client nor
was it demanding any explanation. Clearly, therefore, the
letter was merely intended to accommodate the request of
the Morans and was part of the series of damage-control
measures taken by the bank to placate petitioners.
Respondent Court of Appeals perceptively observed that
all these somehow pacified plaintiffs-appellants (herein
petitioners) for they did not thereafter take immediate
punitive action against the defendant-appellee (herein
private respondent). As pointed out by the court a quo, it
took plaintiffs-appellants about six (6) months after the
dishonor of the checks to demand that defendant-appellee
pay them P1,000,000.00 as damages. At that time,
plaintiffs-appellants had discovered the letter of Mr. Diaz
attributing the dishonor of their checks to operational
error. The attempt
to unduly ride on the letter of Mr. Diaz
36
speaks for itself.
On the above premises which irresistibly commend
themselves to our acceptance, we find no cogent and
sufficient reason to award actual, moral, or exemplary
damages to petitioners. Although we take judicial notice of
the fact that there is a fiduciary relationship between a
Page 17 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
bank and its depositors, as well as the extent of diligence

expected
of it in handling the accounts entrusted to its
37
care, the bank may not be held responsible for such
damages in the absence of fraud, bad faith, malice, or
__________________
36
Ibid.; id., 60.
37
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et
al., G.R. No. 69162, February 21, 1992, 206 SCRA 408.
814
814

38
wanton attitude.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the
judgment appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED,
with costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Padilla and Nocon, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., No part.
Appealed judgment affirmed.
Note.An insolvent banking institution which has been
ordered closed by the Central Bank cannot be held liable to
pay interest on bank deposits (Fidelity Savings and
Mortgage Bank vs. Cenzon, 184 SCRA 141 [1990]).
o0o
__________________
38
Fidelity Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Cenzon, G.R. No. L-46208,
April 5, 1990, 184 SCRA 141.

815
Page 18 of 19
8/3/15 5:19 PM
Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 19 of 19

Moran V COA (SCRA)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moran V COA (SCRA)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moran V COA (SCRA)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230

VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994

Moran vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 105836. March 7, 1994.

SPOUSES GEORGE MORAN and LIBRADA P. MORAN,

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230

first show that he had on deposit sufficient funds to meet his

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

argue that public respondent, by relying heavily on Rionistos

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230

Same; Same; Same; A bank is under no obligation to make part

VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994

Moran vs. Court of Appeals

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230

fault on his part, although the facts show otherwise. Thus,

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

TSN, May 3, 1985, 6-8.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1037002387 and 1037001372) with the Shaw Boulevard

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230

from said current account. Such arrangement for automatic

1. The transfer may be effected on the day following the

On December 12, 1983, petitioners, through Librada Moran,

Ibid., id., 18-24.

Exhibit P, Original Record, 260.

Exhibit D, ibid., 223.

VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994

Moran vs. Court of Appeals

same corporation. The total sum of the two checks was

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230

the two aforementioned checks to its account with the

Exhibit E, ibid., 224.

Exhibit N, ibid., 254.

Exhibit B-1, ibid., 220.

Exhibit C-1, ibid., 222.

Supra., Fn. 5; TSN, June 7, 1985, 13-16.

TSN, June 7, 1986, 22-23.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ers to temporarily stop business operations, allegedly

Ibid., id., 38-40.

Ibid., id., 32-35.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230

Ibid., id., 36-37.

Ibid., id., 49-51.

VOL. 230, MARCH 7, 1994

Moran vs. Court of Appeals

Original Record, 423-429; per Judge Maria Alicia M. Austria.

Rollo, 60; Justice Reynato S. Puno, ponente; Justices Emeterio C.

Cui and Salome A. Montoya, concurring.

Section 185, Negotiable Instruments Law.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 230

Martin, Philippine Commercial Laws, Vol. I, 1985 Ed., 375.

Article 1980, Civil Code.

Republic vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-25012, July 22, 1975, 65

SCRA 186 reiterated in Siao Tiao Hong vs. Commissioner of Internal

Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial

Laws of the Philippines, Vol. I, 1987 Ed., 464.