Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION (now Bank of the Philippine
Petitioner, -versus - CARLOS ROMULO N. CRUZ,
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 157049 Present: CARPIO MORALES., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, ABAD,* and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: August 11, 2010 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U
T I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Under
review is the decision promulgated on October 8, 2002 in C.A.- G.R. CV No.
48928,[1]
whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision dated January 13, 1995
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 91, in Quezon City,[2]
finding the petitioner liable to pay to the respondent moral damages of P100,000.00, exemplary damages of P20,000.00, and attorney’s fees of P20,000.00.
In the time material to the case, the
respondent, an architect and businessman, maintained savings and checking
accounts at the petitioner’s Loyola Heights Branch. The savings account was
considered closed due to the oversight committed by one of the latter’s
tellers. The closure resulted in the extreme embarrassment of the respondent,
for checks that he had issued could not be honored although his savings account
was sufficiently funded and the accounts were maintained under the petitioner’s
check-o-matic arrangement (whereby the current account was maintained at zero
balance and the funds from the savings account were automatically transferred
to the current account to cover checks issued by the depositor like the
respondent).
Unmoved by the petitioner’s apologies
and the adjustment made on his accounts by its employees, the respondent sued
in the RTC to claim damages from the petitioner.
After trial, the RTC ruled in the
respondent’s favor, and ordered the petitioner to pay him P100,000.00 as
moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damage, and P20,0000.00 as
attorney’s fees. The RTC found that the petitioner had failed to properly
supervise its teller; and that the petitioner’s negligence had made the
respondent suffer serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation, entitling him
to damages.[3]
The
petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred in
ordering it to pay moral and exemplary damages.
However, the CA affirmed the RTC, explaining
that the erroneous closure of the respondent’s account would not have been
committed in the first place if the petitioner had not been careless in
supervising its employees. According to the CA, “the fiduciary relationship and
the extent of diligence that is to be expected from a banking institution, like
herein appellant Citytrust, in handling the accounts of its depositors cannot
be relaxed behind the shadow of an employee whether or not he/she is new on the
job.”[4]
Moreover, the CA said that the negligence of the petitioner’s personnel was the
proximate cause that had set in motion the events leading to the damage caused
to the respondent; hence, the RTC correctly opined that “while a bank is not
expected to be infallible, it must bear the blame for not discovering the
mistake of its teller for lack of proper supervision.”[5]
The petitioner sought
reconsideration, but the CA denied its motion for reconsideration for lack of
merit.
Hence, this appeal, in which the
petitioner maintains that there were “decisive fact situations showing
excusable negligence and good faith”[6]
that did not justify the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s
fees.
The
petition has no merit.
Firstly,
the errors sought to be reviewed focused on the correctness of the factual
findings of the CA. Such review will require the Court to again assess the
facts. Yet, the Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, the appeal is not proper,
for only questions of law can be elevated to the Court via petition for review on certiorari.[7]
Secondly, nothing from
the petitioner’s arguments persuasively showed that the RTC and the CA erred.
The findings of both lower courts were fully supported by the evidence adduced.
Unquestionably, the
petitioner, being a banking institution, had the direct obligation to supervise
very closely the employees handling its depositors’ accounts, and should always
be mindful of the fiduciary nature of its relationship with the depositors.
Such relationship required it and its employees to record accurately every single transaction, and as
promptly as possible, considering that the depositors’ accounts should always
reflect the amounts of money the depositors could dispose of as they saw fit,
confident that, as a bank, it would deliver the amounts to whomever they
directed.[8]
If it fell short of that obligation, it should bear the responsibility for the
consequences to the depositors, who, like the respondent, suffered particular
embarrassment and disturbed peace of mind from the negligence in the handling
of the accounts.
Thirdly, in several
decisions of the Court,[9] the banks, defendants
therein, were made liable for negligence, even without sufficient proof of
malice or bad faith on their part, and the Court awarded
moral damages of P100,000.00 each time to
the suing depositors in proper consideration of their reputation and their
social standing. The respondent should be similarly awarded for the damage to
his reputation as an architect and businessman.
Lastly, the CA properly
affirmed the RTC’s award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. It is never
overemphasized that the public always relies on a bank’s profession of
diligence and meticulousness in rendering irreproachable service.[10]
Its failure to exercise diligence and meticulousness warranted its liability
for exemplary damages and for reasonable attorney’s fees.
WHEREFORE, we deny the petition for review on certiorari, and affirm the
decision rendered on
October 8, 2002 by the Court of Appeals.
Costs of suit to be paid by the
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
*
Additional member per Special
Order No. 843 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 39-49; penned by Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine (retired), with Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (later a Member of the Court, since retired) and Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals) concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4] Supra, at note 1, p. 46.
[5]
[6]
[7] Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court, specifically states that the petition for review on certiorari “shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth.”
[8] Citytrust
Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 84281,
[9] Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125536, March 16, 2000, 328 SCRA 264; Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126152, September 28, 1999, 315 SCRA 309; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Wong, G.R. No. 120859, June 26, 2001, 359 SCRA 608.
[10] Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 271.