G.R. No.

154469             December 6, 2006

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioners,

Facts

Petitioner Metrobank is a banking institution duly organized and existing as such under
Philippine laws Respondent Cabilzo was one of Metrobank’s clients who maintained a current
account with Metrobank Pasong Tamo Branch.

Cabilzo had issued a check for the amount of P1,000 pesos postdated on 24 November 1994 and
was paid by him to a certain Mr. Marquez for a sales commission. Cabilzo then found out on 16
November 1994 that the check he issued was altered to P91,000 pesos and the date was
changed to 14 November 1994. The same demanded for Metrobank to re-credit the among of
P90,000 to the former’s account.

Metrobank replied that upon receiving the stated check through the PCHC on November 14,
1994, it inspected the drawer's signature and the technical entries on the check, including the
amount in numbers and words, for modifications, erasures, superimpositions, or intercalations,
but found none. Further, the bank stated that it should be Westmont Bank which was the
collecting Bank and last indorser that shall be held liable.

Issue

WON Metrobank is liable

Held

YES. The court held that the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost
fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record
every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be
done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money the depositor can dispose of as
he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. As banks are businesses
affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to
treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of
their relationship. The appropriate degree of diligence required of a bank must be a high degree of
diligence, if not the utmost diligence. Further, Metrobank’s contention that it relied on the strength of
collecting bank’s indorsement may be merely a lame excuse to evade liability, or may be indeed an
actual banking practice.
G.R. No. 88013 March 19, 1990

SIMEX INTERNATIONAL (MANILA), INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
and TRADERS ROYAL BANK, respondents.

FACTS:

The petitioner was a depositor of the respondent bank and maintained a checking account in its branch
at Romulo Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City. On May 1981, the petitioner deposited to its account in the said
bank the amount of P100,000.00, thus increasing its balance as of that date to P190,380.74.
Subsequently, the petitioner issued eight checks against its deposit but was surprised to learn later that
they had been dishonored for insufficient funds.

As a consequence, several suppliers sent a letter of demand to the petitioner, threatening prosecution
if the dishonored check issued to it was not made good and also withheld delivery of the order made by
the petitioner.

The petitioner complained to the respondent bank. Investigation disclosed that the sum of P100,000.00
deposited by the petitioner had not been credited to it. The error was rectified only a month after, and
the dishonored checks were paid after they were re-deposited. The petitioner then filed a complaint in
the then Court of First Instance of Rizal against the bank for its gross and wanton negligence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the bank can be held liable for negligence by reason of its unjustified dishonor of a
check

RULING

The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as
possible.

Article 2205 of the Civil Code provides that actual or compensatory damages may be received "(2) for
injury to the plaintiff s business standing or commercial credit." There is no question that the petitioner
did sustain actual injury as a result of the dishonored checks and that the existence of the loss having
been established "absolute certainty as to its amount is not required."
 In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such
account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. This has to be done if the account is to
reflect at any given time the amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that
the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. The bank is under obligation to treat the accounts
of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. In
the case at bar, it is obvious that the respondent bank was remiss in that duty and violated that
relationship. What is especially deplorable is that, having been informed of its error in not crediting the
deposit in question to the petitioner, the respondent bank did not immediately correct it but did so only
one week later or twenty-three days after the deposit was made.
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138569, September 11, 2003

FACTS:

Respondent L.C. Diaz, through its messenger, Calapre, was instructed to deposit money with Solidbank.
Since the transaction took time and Calapre had to make another deposit for L.C. Diaz with Allied Bank,
he left the passbook with Solidbank. When the latter returned to Solidbank to retrieve the passbook,
Teller No. 6 informed him that somebody else got the passbook. Subsequently, an unauthorized
withdrawal of P300,000 from its savings account were made which bore the signatures of the authorized
signatories of L.C. Diaz, namely Diaz and Rustico L. Murillo. The signatories, however, denied signing the
withdrawal slip. A certain Noel Tamayo received the P300,000.

Consequently, respondent, through its counsel demanded from Solidbank the return of its money. RTC
absolved Solidbank and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Did Solidbank exercise that degree of diligence required of banks in this case?

RULING:

NO. The law imposes on banks high standards in view of the fiduciary nature of banking. Section 2 of
Republic Act No. 8791 ("RA 8791"), which took effect on 13 June 2000, declares that the State
recognizes the "fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance."
This new provision in the general banking law, introduced in 2000, is a statutory affirmation of Supreme
Court decisions, starting with the 1990 case of Simex International v. Court of Appeals, holding that "the
bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in
mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.

Article 1172 of the Civil Code provides that "responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of
every kind of obligation is demandable." For breach of the savings deposit agreement due to negligence,
or culpa contractual, the bank is liable to its depositor.

The passbook was still in the hands of the employees of Solidbank for the processing of the deposit
when Calapre left Solidbank. Solidbank’s rules on savings account require that the "deposit book should
be carefully guarded by the depositor and kept under lock and key, if possible." When the passbook is in
the possession of Solidbank’s tellers during withdrawals, the law imposes on Solidbank and its tellers an
even higher degree of diligence in safeguarding the passbook.
Likewise, Solidbank’s tellers must exercise a high degree of diligence in insuring that they return the
passbook only to the depositor or his authorized representative. The tellers know, or should know, that
the rules on savings account provide that any person in possession of the passbook is presumptively its
owner. If the tellers give the passbook to the wrong person, they would be clothing that person
presumptive ownership of the passbook, facilitating unauthorized withdrawals by that person. For
failing to return the passbook to Calapre, the authorized representative of L.C. Diaz, Solidbank and Teller
No. 6 presumptively failed to observe such high degree of diligence in safeguarding the passbook, and in
insuring its return to the party authorized to receive the same.

Central Bank vs. Citytrust Bank, Gr. No. 141835, February 4,2009

Facts: Respondent bank maintained a demand deposit with petitioner Central Bank, now BSP. They then
furnished petitioner with the names, signatures, and ID cards of five of its officers to serve as indorsers
for its account, issued to roving tellers, one oh whom was Flores. There had been failure on the part of
petitioner’s staff to note the discrepancy with the name written in the check. A year after, Citytrust filed
a complaint for estafa against Flores, alleging the checks were already cancelled because they were
stolen.

Issue/s: Whether Citytrust can collect sum of money as damages from the Central Bank / Whether
Central Bank is negligent

Ruling: YES. Petitioner is the government body mandated to supervise and regulate banking and other
financial institutions, and the law imposes on banks high standards in view of the fiduciary nature of
banking. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8791 ("RA 8791") declares that the State recognizes the "fiduciary
nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance." The fiduciary nature of
banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a family.