Friday, August 7, 2009

Civil Law: Torts and Damages

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS
GR. No. 112576, October 26, 1994

ROMERO, J.: (Bank’s Negligence as Source of Liability) Isabel Katigbak, president and owner of 65% shares of Rural Bank of Padre Garcia, Inc., maintains a current accounts with Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company. MBTC received from Central Bank a credit memo that its demand deposit account was credited with P304k for the account of RBPG, representing loans granted by the CB. On the basis of credit memo, Katigbak issued several checks against its account with MBTC, two of which were payable to Dr. and Mrs. Roque. The checks were deposited with Philippine Banking Corp. however the same bounced when they were forwarded to MBTC. It was twice dishonored. Dr. Roque went to RBPG for the bounced checks. RBPG paid Dr. Roque an amount of P50k representing the checks. Katigbak, who was on vacation in Hongkong with her family, received overseas call from Mrs. Maris Katigbak-San Juan at her residence in Makati that Mr. Dungo, Asst. Cashier of MBTC, berating her about the bounced checks and saying “Nag-issue kayo ng tseke, wala naming pondo”. Mrs. San Juan was instructed by Katigbak to check and verify regarding the credit memo of CB for P304K in favor of RBPG as she was certain that the checks were covered by the credit memo. Mrs. San Juan another insulting phone call from Mr. Dungo (“Bakit kayo nag-iisue ng tseke na wala namang pondo, P300K na”). He also brushed aside the request to check and verify the credit memo, telling her sarcastically that he was very sure that no such credit memo existed. Katigbak had to cut short her vacation and went back home. She then called MBTC and she was able to talk to Mr. Dungo who arrogantly said “Bakit kayo magagalit, wala naman kayog pondo?” This shocked Katigbak which caused her blood pressure to rise to a dangerous level and she had to undergo medical treatment at the Makati Medical Center for two days. MBTC did not only dishonored the check, it also issued four debit memos representing service and penalty charges for the returned checks. Katigbak filed the civil case in RTC Lipa against MBTC for damages. RTC rendered decision in favor of petitioner. The same was affirmed by CA with deletion as to temperate damages, and deduction as to amount of moral damages.

ISSUE: Is there a basis as to negligent act of MBTC as the ground for the awarding of damages in the civil suit of Katigbak?

HELD: YES. The presence of malice and the evidence of besmirched reputation or loss of credit and business standing, as well as a reappraisal of its probative value, involves factual matters which have been determined by the lower court. There is no merit in petitioner’s argument that it should not be considered negligent, much less be held liable for damages on account of inadvertence of its bank employee as Art. 1173 of the Civil Code only requires it to exercise the diligence of a good pater familias. The dishonoring of the respondent’s checks committed through negligence by the petitioner was rectified nine days after receipt of the credit memo. MBTC was remiss in its duty and obligation to treat private respondent account with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The bank is under the obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is demandable. While the bank’s negligence may not have been attended with malice and bad faith, nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation to private respondents for which they are entitled to recover reasonable moral damages. Insult was added to injury by petitioner bank’s issuance of debit memoranda representing service and penalty charges for the returned checks, not to mention the insulting remarks from its Asst. Cashier. Moral and temperate damages which are not susceptible of pecuniary estimation are not awarded to penalize the petitioner but to compensate the respondents from injuries suffered as a result of the former’s fault and negligence. AFFIRMED.


RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS., INC. v. COURT APPEALS
GR. No. 79578, March 13, 1991

SARMIENTO, J.: (Negligence by a party engaged in business affected with public interest) Spouses Minerva and Flores Timan sent a telegram of condolence to their cousins, Mr. and Mrs. Hilario Midoranda at Trinidad, Calbayog City, through RCPI at Cubao, Quezon City, to convey their deepest sympathy for the death of the mother-in-law of Hilario Midoranda. The condolence telegram was correctly transmitted as far as written text was concerned. However, the condolence message was typewritten on a “Happy Birthday” card and placed inside a “Christmasgram” envelope. It is not surprising that when the telegram reached their cousin, it became the joke of the Midorandas’ friend, relatives, and associates. The incident caused embarrassment and distress to respondent Minerva Timan, she suffered nervousness and hypertension resulting her confinement for three days in Capitol Medical Center in QC. The civil action was then instituted against RCPI for such transmittal was done intentionally and with gross breach of contract resulting to redicule, contempt, and humiliation of the private respondent and the addressees. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Timans spouses. It was affirmed in toto by CA.

ISSUE: Is there a negligence of the part of RCPI to award damages to respondent spouses?

HELD: YES. RCPI, a corporation dealing in telecommunications and offering its services to the public, is engaged in a business affected with public interest, As such, it is bound to exercise the degree of diligence expected of it in the performance of its obligation. It is evident that a telegram of condolence is intended and meant to convey a message of sorrow and sympathy. It seems out of this world; therefore, to place that message of condolence in a birthday card and deliver the same in a Christmas envelope for such acts of carelessness and incompetence not render only violence to good taste and common sense, they depict a bizarre presentation of the sender’s feelings. They ridiculed the deceased’s loved ones and destroy the atmosphere of grief and respect for the departed. It is clear that when RCPI typed the message of condolence in a birthday card and delivered the same in a colorful Christmasgram envelope; it committed a breach of contract as well as gross negligence. Its excuse that it runs out of social condolence card is unacceptable. It bears stress that this botchery exposed not only the petitioner’s gross negligence but also its callousness and disregard for the sentiments of its clientele, which tantamount to wanton misconduct, for which it must be held liable for damages. Decision is AFFIRMED in toto.


MANDARIN VILLA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS
GR. No. 119850, June 20, 1996

FRANCISCO, J.: (Negligence arising from non-following of POS Guidelines) Atty. Clodualdo de Jesus hosted a dinner for his friends at petitioner’s restaurant, the Mandarin Villa Seafiood Village. After dinner the waiter handed him the bill in the amount of P2,658.50. Atty. De Jesus offered to pay through his BANKARD credit card. The card was accepted however after validation the waiter returned and audibly informed Atty. De Jesus that his credit card had expired. Atty. De Jesus replied saying that the same is about to expire on September 1990 as embossed on its face. Atty. De Jesus and his two guests went to cashier to verify again the card. The computer said “CARD EXPIRED”. They then returned to their table. Prof. Lirag, another guest, uttered the following remarks: “ Clody, may problema ba? Baka kailangang maghugas na kame ng pinggan?”. He then left to get his BPI Express Credit card from his car. The same was honored and accepted. After the incident, he instituted the civil suit for damages against BANKARD and petitioner. The trial court ordered the defendants to pay Atty. De Jesus jointly and severally for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The CA modified the decision finding petitioner solely liable for the damages, reduced the monetary award for moral and exemplary damages, and deleting the award for attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Is petitioner negligent based on the facts and if so, is its negligent act is the proximate cause of the damage suffered by Atty. De Jesus?

HELD: YES. Petitioner cites its good faith in checking, not just once but twice, the validity of the aforementioned card prior its dishonor. It argued that since the computer flashed an information that the credit card expired, petitioner could not be expected to honor the same much less be adjudged negligent for dishonoring it. The test for determining the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The Point of Sale Guidelines which outlined the steps that petitioner must follow must follow under the circumstances provides: CARD EXPIRED 1. check expiry date on card, 2. if unexpired, refer to CB, 2.1 if valid, honor up to maximum of SPL only, 2.2 if in CB as Lost, do procedures 2a to 2e. 2.3 if in CB as Suspended/Cancelled, do not honor the card, 3. if expired, do not honor the card. Cleary, it has not yet expired in October 1989, when the same was wrongfully dishonored. Hence, petitioner did not use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation and as such petitioner is guilty of negligence. The humiliation and embarrassment of the private respondent was brought about not by such remark of Prof. Lirag but by the fact of dishonor by petitioner of credit card. The remark of Prof. Lirag served only to aggravate the embarrassment then felt by Atty. De Jesus albeit silently within himself. The appeal is DISMISSED.

No comments:

Post a Comment