Prudential Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 125536, March 16, 2000

FACTS: Private respondent Leticia Tupasi-Valenzuela opened an account in the Petitioner Prudential bank. On June 1, 1988, herein private respondent deposited P35,271.60 drawn against the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB). Thereafter, private respondent issued Prudential Bank check in the amount of P11,500 post-dated June 20, 1988 in favor of one Belen Legaspi. Legaspi, who was in jewelry trade, endorsed the check to Philip Lhuiller, a businessman in the same field. When the check was deposited with the PCIB, it was dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. Private respondent asked why her check was dishonored where there was sufficient funds. The bank officer told her there was no need to review the passbook because the bank ledger was the best proof that she did not have sufficient funds. Then he abruptly faced his typewriter and started typing. Later, it was found out that the bank misposted private respondent’s check deposit to another account and delayed the posting of the same to the proper account. The bank admitted that it was at fault. But since it is not the first time that private respondent experienced this scenario, she commenced a suit for damages.


ISSUE: Can damages be awarded to private respondent on account of the bank’s negligence ?


HELD: Yes. The trial court found “that the misposting is a clear proof of lack of supervision on the part of the defendant bank”. The appellate court also found out that “while it may be true that the bank’s negligence in dishonoring the properly funded check might not have been attended with malice and bad faith, as appellee submits, nevertheless, it is the result of lack of due care and caution expected of an employee of a firm engaged in so sensitive and accurately demanding task as banking”.

In Simex International vs. CA, 183 SCRA 360,367 (1990), and BPI vs. IAC, 206 SCRA 408, this court had occasion to stress the fiduciary nature of the relationship between a bank and its depositors and the extent of diligence expected from the former in handling the accounts entrusted to its care.

In the case of PNB vs. CA, we held that “a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or millions of pesos. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is demandable. While petitioner’s negligence in this case may not have been attended with malice and bad faith, nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation”.