Ong Vs Metropolitan

Ong vs metropolitan Facts: Dominador Ong, 14-year old son of plaintiffs, in company with two of his brothers went
to swim at the defendants swimming pool. After paying the admission fee they went to one of the small pools where the water was shallow. Later Dominador told his brothers that he was going to the locker room in an adjoining building to drink a bottle of coke. Upon hearing this, his two brothers went to the bigger pool. Later another boy in the swimming pool informed a lifeguard employed by the defendant that somebody was swimming underwater for quite a long time. The lifeguard immediately jumped into the big swimming pool and retrieved te apparently lifeless body of Dominador Ong from the bottom. Artificial respiration and a resuscitator were applied by employees of the defendant upon Dominador for the purpose of reviving him. A doctor was summoned by employees of the defendant to revive the boy but all to no avail. This action was instituted by the parents of the boy to recover damages from the defendant for the death of their son. Held: There is sufficient evidence to show that the defendant has taken all necessary precautions to avoid danger to the lives of its patrons or prevent accident which may cause their death. The swimming pools were provided with a ring buoy, toy roof, towing line, oxygen resuscitator and first aid medicine kit. The bottom of the pool was painted with black colors to ensure clear visibility. Rules and regulations were displayed in a conspicuous place. Six trained lifeguards were employed and their schedules were arranged so that tow guards were on duty at a time. A male nurse, a sanitary inspector and security guards were also employed. When the body of Dominador was retrieved the employees of the defendant did everything possible to bring him back to life. Under these circumstances the defendant proved that it did what was humanly possible to restore the life of the deceased. Defendant was, therefore, absolved from liability to the plaintiffs. PNB vs Pike Facts: Norman Pike often traveled to and from Japan as a gay entertainer in said country. Sometime in 1991, he opened U.S. Dollar Savings Account with PNB Buendia branch for which he was issued a passbook. The complaint alleged that before Pike left for Japan on 18 March 1993, he kept the passbook inside a cabinet under lock and key,in his home. A few hours after he arrived from Japan, he discovered that some of his valuables were missing including the passbook; that he immediately reported the incident to the police which led to the arrest andprosecution of a certain Mr. Joy Manuel Davasol. Pike also discovered that Davasol made 2 unauthorized withdrawals from his U.S. Dollar Savings Account. Pike went to PNBs Buendia branch and verbally protested the unauthorized withdrawals and likewise demanded the return of the total withdrawn amount of U.S. $7,500.00, on the ground that he never authorized anybody to withdraw from his account as the signatures appearing on the subject withdrawal slips were clearly forgeries. PNB refused to credit said amount back to Pikes U.S. Dollar Savings Account , and instead, the bankwrote him that it exercised due diligence in the handling of said account.Pike filed a case against PNB. PNB, on the other hand, claimed that before Pike went to Japan, he andDavasol went to see PNB AVP Mr. Lorenzo Val and
instructed the latter to honor all withdrawals to be made byDavaso l. After the loss of Pikes passbook, he allegedly withdraw the balance from his passbook and executed an affidavit promising not to hold responsible the bank and its officers for the withdrawal made.The trial court ruled that the bank is liable for the unauthorized withdrawals. The bank was negligent inthe performance of its duties such that unauthorized withdrawals were made in the deposit of Pike. The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC that indeed defendant-appellant PNB was negligent in exercising the diligence required of a business imbued with public interest such as that of the banking industry, however, it modified the rate of interest and award for damages. Issue: Whether or not the bank is liable HELD: Yes. PNB was held liable due to the negligence of its employees in allowing the unauthorized withdrawal. This was shown by the lackadaisical attitude of its employees in treating Pike's US dollar account, an act which resulted to the loss of $7,500. Such warrants for the award of damages. The slips used were in breach of the standard operating procedure of the bank in the ordinary and usual course of business. Even if it is the employees who are negligent, the bank's liability as the obligor is not merely vicarious but primary since banks are expected to exercise the degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.

Ong Vs Metropolitan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ong Vs Metropolitan

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Ong Vs Metropolitan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ong vs metropolitan Facts: Dominador Ong, 14-year old son of plaintiffs, in company with two of his brothers went

You might also like