PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK (PSBank) VS. CHOWKING FOOD CORPORATION (Chowking)
G.R. No. 177526, July 04, 2008
Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the CA
REYES, R.T., J.:
Facts: The RTC ordered petitioner PSBank and its Bustos Branch Head, Erlinda O. Santos, to reimburse respondent Chowking the amount corresponding to five (5) illegally encashed checks. The total amount of the subject checks reached P556,981.86. On the respective due dates of each check, Chowking's acting accounting manager, Rino T. Manzano, endorsed and encashed said checks with the Bustos branch of respondent PSBank. All the five checks were honored by defendant Santos, even with only the endorsement of Manzano approving them. The signatures of the other authorized officers of respondent corporation were absent in the five (5) checks, contrary to usual banking practice. Unexpectedly, Manzano absconded with and misappropriated the check proceeds. When Chowking found out Manzano's scheme, it demanded reimbursement from PSBank. When PSBank refused to pay, Chowking filed a complaint for a sum of money with damages before the RTC. In its Answer, petitioner did not controvert the foregoing facts, but denied liability to respondent for the encashed checks. RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent. On motion for reconsideration of the plaintiff, the RTC reversed its earlier decision and dismissed Chowking's complaint. In its appeal, CA granted the petition reinstating the first decision of the RTC.
Issue: WON banks' required diligence is that of pater familias.
Ruling: CA decision affirmed. Petition Denied.
It cannot be over emphasized that the banking business is impressed with public interest. Of paramount importance is the trust and confidence of the public in general in the banking industry. Consequently, the diligence required of banks is more than that of a Roman pater familias or a good father of a family. The highest degree of diligence is expected. In its declaration of policy, the General Banking Law of 2000 requires of banks the highest standards of integrity and performance. Needless to say, a bank is "under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care. The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the bank and the depositors must always be of paramount concern.
"Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done....Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
x x x xEmployers shall be liable for the damage caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even though the former are not engaged in any business or activity.
x x x xThe responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage."x x x
However, with banks like PSB, the degree of diligence required is more than that of a good father of a family considering that the business of banking is imbued with public interest due to the nature of its functions. Highest degree of diligence is needed which PSB, in this case, failed to observe. x x x Its argument that it should no be held responsible for the negligent acts of Santos because those were independent acts x x x perpetrated without its knowledge and consent is without basis in fact and in law. Assuming that PSB did not err in hiring Santos for her position, its lack of supervision over her made it solidarily liable for the unauthorized encashment of the checks involved. In the supervision of employees, the employer must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose disciplinary measures for the breach thereof. The appellee, in this case, presented no evidence that it formulated rules/guidelines for the proper performance of functions of its employees and that it strictly implemented and monitored compliance therewith. x x x
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
People vs. Bagnate
PEOPLE VS. BAGNATE
FACTS: Amado Bagnate was found guilty of murder in Criminal Case No. T-2874 for killing his grandmother, Aurea Brona and rape with homicide in Criminal Case No. T-2875 for killing and raping his niece, Rosalie Rayala. Accused was convicted on the strength of his extra- judicial confession. The RTC, aside from the punishment of death penalty awarded P50,000.00 each to the victim.
ISSUE: W/N the grant of damages is correct.
RULING: The award of civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages, which is based on a different jural foundation and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion. Considering that the prosecution failed to show any proof that the heirs of Aurea Broña are entitled to moral damages, the same may not be awarded. In accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of the civil liability if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Considering the generic aggravating circumstances of disregard of age of the victim and dwelling, the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is in order.
The Court, however, has to modify the award of civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of Rosalie Rayala. Recent rulings increased the amount of civil indemnity in cases of rape with homicide to P100,000.00. The heirs of Rosalie must be awarded the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof, in view of the rape suffered by victim Rosalie. Considering that the crime of rape was committed inside the dwelling of the victim, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should likewise be awarded to the heirs of Rosalie.
The Court finds that the heirs of both Aurea and Rosalie should be awarded the amount of P54,259.00 as actual damages in view of the admission made by the defense that the family of Aurea and Rosalie incurred expenses in said amount.
*Mia
FACTS: Amado Bagnate was found guilty of murder in Criminal Case No. T-2874 for killing his grandmother, Aurea Brona and rape with homicide in Criminal Case No. T-2875 for killing and raping his niece, Rosalie Rayala. Accused was convicted on the strength of his extra- judicial confession. The RTC, aside from the punishment of death penalty awarded P50,000.00 each to the victim.
ISSUE: W/N the grant of damages is correct.
RULING: The award of civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages, which is based on a different jural foundation and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion. Considering that the prosecution failed to show any proof that the heirs of Aurea Broña are entitled to moral damages, the same may not be awarded. In accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of the civil liability if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Considering the generic aggravating circumstances of disregard of age of the victim and dwelling, the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is in order.
The Court, however, has to modify the award of civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of Rosalie Rayala. Recent rulings increased the amount of civil indemnity in cases of rape with homicide to P100,000.00. The heirs of Rosalie must be awarded the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof, in view of the rape suffered by victim Rosalie. Considering that the crime of rape was committed inside the dwelling of the victim, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should likewise be awarded to the heirs of Rosalie.
The Court finds that the heirs of both Aurea and Rosalie should be awarded the amount of P54,259.00 as actual damages in view of the admission made by the defense that the family of Aurea and Rosalie incurred expenses in said amount.
*Mia
BPI v CASA MONTESSORI INTL
BPI VS. CASA MONTESSORI INTERNATIONAL
FACTS: On November 8, 1982, CASA Montessori International opened Current AccouNT with BPI with CASA’s President Lebron as one of its authorized signatories. In 1991, after conducting an investigation, plaintiff discovered that nine of its checks had been encashed by a certain Sonny D. Santos since 1990 in the total amount of P782,000.00. It turned out that Santos with account at BPI Greenbelt Branch was a fictitious name used by third party defendant Leonardo T. Yabut who worked as external auditor of CASA. Third party defendant voluntarily admitted that he forged the signature of Lebron and encashed the checks. In 1991, plaintiff filed Complaint for Collection with Damages against defendant bank praying that the latter be ordered to reinstate the amount of P782,500.00 with interest. RTC rendered decision in favor of the plaintiff. CA modified decision holding CASA as contributory negligent hence ordered Yabut to reimburse BPI half the total amount claimed and CASA, the other half. It also disallowed attorney’s fees and moral and exemplary damages.
ISSUE: W/N moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees should be awarded.
RULING: Moral and exemplary damages denied but atty.’s fees granted.
In the absence of a wrongful act or omission, or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded. The adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful, or the party liable for it.CASA was unable to identify the particular instance upon which its claim for moral damages is predicated. Neither bad faith nor negligence so gross that it amounts to malice can be imputed to BPI.
Imposed by way of correction for the public good, exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. There is no bad faith on the part of BPI for paying the checks of CASA upon forged signatures. Therefore, the former cannot be said to have acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. The latter, having no right to moral damages, cannot demand exemplary damages.
When the act or omission of the defendant has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect the latter’s interest, or where the court deems it just and equitable, attorney’s fees may be recovered. In the present case, BPI persistently denied the claim of CASA under the NIL to recredit the latter’s account for the value of the forged checks. This denial constrained CASA to incur expenses and exert effort for more than ten years in order to protect its corporate interest in its bank account.
*Mia
Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Cristeto Dinopol
GR. No. 75195
August 29, 1988
Facts: On July 31, 1984, rivate respondent Abundio T. Merced doing business under the name and style of southern Engineering Works, filed an action in the trial court for damages with preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioner Davao Light and Power Co., Inc., for abruptly disconnecting his electric meter as a result of which he suffered moral damages, loss of business and credit standing, and loss of profits. On Dec. 11, 1985 and Jan. 27, 1986, petitioner filed a motion and supplemental motion, respectively, to require rivate respondent to pay additional docket fees on his qualified claims for damages. On Feb. 14, 1986, respondent Judge Dinopol denied two motions to require private respondent to pay additional docket fees. Upon motion for reconsideration, four months had elapsed without respondent judge resolving the same. Hence, this petition.
Issue: (1) WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion.
(2) WON Abundio Merced should be awarded damages.
Ruling: Petition Granted
Ratio:
(1) When respondent judge refused to order the re-assessment, he committed grave abuse of discretion. He acted in contravention of Rule 11 of the Interim Rules of court which was laready in effect when the complaint for damages was brought before his sala. Such actuation calls for the corrective writ of certiorari.
(2) Merced should specify the amount of damages being sought, not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, or his action will be dismissed.
*Dre
August 29, 1988
Facts: On July 31, 1984, rivate respondent Abundio T. Merced doing business under the name and style of southern Engineering Works, filed an action in the trial court for damages with preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioner Davao Light and Power Co., Inc., for abruptly disconnecting his electric meter as a result of which he suffered moral damages, loss of business and credit standing, and loss of profits. On Dec. 11, 1985 and Jan. 27, 1986, petitioner filed a motion and supplemental motion, respectively, to require rivate respondent to pay additional docket fees on his qualified claims for damages. On Feb. 14, 1986, respondent Judge Dinopol denied two motions to require private respondent to pay additional docket fees. Upon motion for reconsideration, four months had elapsed without respondent judge resolving the same. Hence, this petition.
Issue: (1) WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion.
(2) WON Abundio Merced should be awarded damages.
Ruling: Petition Granted
Ratio:
(1) When respondent judge refused to order the re-assessment, he committed grave abuse of discretion. He acted in contravention of Rule 11 of the Interim Rules of court which was laready in effect when the complaint for damages was brought before his sala. Such actuation calls for the corrective writ of certiorari.
(2) Merced should specify the amount of damages being sought, not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, or his action will be dismissed.
*Dre
Manuel vs. Alfeche
Gr. No. 115683
July 26, 1996
Facts: On Sept. 20-22, 1991, in the City of Roxas, Philippines, the said accused, Felipe Colino, being the writer/author, Danny Fajardo, Editor-in-chief, Lemuel T. Fernandez, Associate editor, and John Paul Tia, Assistant Editor of a regional newspaper known as "Panay News" which has considerable circulation in Panay Island and throughout Western Visayas, conspiring and mutually helping each other, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with malicious intent of impeaching the integrity, credibility, honor, and reputation of Delia Manuel, as article in the front page and/or headline entitled "Local Shabu Peddler now a Millionaire" The RTC dismissed the claim for recovery of moral damages by the offended party. Reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed this instant petition for review.
Issue: WON the offended party should recover moral damages.
Ruling: Petition Dismissed
Ratio:
The complainant expressly claims moral, exemplary, temperate and/or nominal damages but has not specified any amount at all, leaving the quantification thereof entirely to the trial court's discretion, and not to a situation where the litigant specifies some amounts or parameters for the awards being sought, even though the different types of damages sought be not separately or individually quantified.
*Dre
July 26, 1996
Facts: On Sept. 20-22, 1991, in the City of Roxas, Philippines, the said accused, Felipe Colino, being the writer/author, Danny Fajardo, Editor-in-chief, Lemuel T. Fernandez, Associate editor, and John Paul Tia, Assistant Editor of a regional newspaper known as "Panay News" which has considerable circulation in Panay Island and throughout Western Visayas, conspiring and mutually helping each other, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with malicious intent of impeaching the integrity, credibility, honor, and reputation of Delia Manuel, as article in the front page and/or headline entitled "Local Shabu Peddler now a Millionaire" The RTC dismissed the claim for recovery of moral damages by the offended party. Reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed this instant petition for review.
Issue: WON the offended party should recover moral damages.
Ruling: Petition Dismissed
Ratio:
The complainant expressly claims moral, exemplary, temperate and/or nominal damages but has not specified any amount at all, leaving the quantification thereof entirely to the trial court's discretion, and not to a situation where the litigant specifies some amounts or parameters for the awards being sought, even though the different types of damages sought be not separately or individually quantified.
*Dre
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Jervoso vs. People
Marcelo Jervoso and Norma Closa vs People of the Phils. and CA
G.R. No. 89306 September 13, 1990
Petition for review of the decision of the CA
Griño-Aquino, J.:
Facts: RTC of Manila and the CA convicted petitioner Marcelo Jervoso of homicide for the fatal stabbing of Rogelio Jervoso; and convicted Marcelo’s wife, Norma Closa, of slight physical injuries committed against the deceased. The RTC imposed the penalty of imprisonment and ordered the petitioners to indemnify the heirs of the deceased R. Jervoso in the amount of P30,000. CA affirmed the order of indemnification.
Issue: WON indemnity may be recovered by the heirs of R. Jervoso despite the reservation by the said heirs of their right to file a separate civil action against the accused.
Ruling: CA decision affirmed, except the award of P30,000 as indemnity for damages which should be deleted.
Sec 1 Rule 111 of the RC states that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the RPC, and damages under Arts 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the CC arising from the same act or omission of the accused. A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of the said civil actions separately waives the others.
The term "physical injuries" in Art. 33 is used in a generic sense. It includes consummated, frustrated, or attempted homicide. Having reserved and filed in the RTC Mla a separate civil action to recover the civil liability of the accused arising from the crimes charged, the heirs of the deceased R. Jervoso, are precluded from recovering damages in the criminal case against the accused, for they are not entitled to recover damages twice for the same criminal act of the accused. The trial court erred in awarding to the heirs of R. Jervoso in the criminal case P30,000 as civil indemnity for his death despite their reservation to file a separate civil action for that purpose. The Court of Appeals likewise erred in affirming the award.
*DAN’Q
G.R. No. 89306 September 13, 1990
Petition for review of the decision of the CA
Griño-Aquino, J.:
Facts: RTC of Manila and the CA convicted petitioner Marcelo Jervoso of homicide for the fatal stabbing of Rogelio Jervoso; and convicted Marcelo’s wife, Norma Closa, of slight physical injuries committed against the deceased. The RTC imposed the penalty of imprisonment and ordered the petitioners to indemnify the heirs of the deceased R. Jervoso in the amount of P30,000. CA affirmed the order of indemnification.
Issue: WON indemnity may be recovered by the heirs of R. Jervoso despite the reservation by the said heirs of their right to file a separate civil action against the accused.
Ruling: CA decision affirmed, except the award of P30,000 as indemnity for damages which should be deleted.
Sec 1 Rule 111 of the RC states that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the RPC, and damages under Arts 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the CC arising from the same act or omission of the accused. A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of the said civil actions separately waives the others.
The term "physical injuries" in Art. 33 is used in a generic sense. It includes consummated, frustrated, or attempted homicide. Having reserved and filed in the RTC Mla a separate civil action to recover the civil liability of the accused arising from the crimes charged, the heirs of the deceased R. Jervoso, are precluded from recovering damages in the criminal case against the accused, for they are not entitled to recover damages twice for the same criminal act of the accused. The trial court erred in awarding to the heirs of R. Jervoso in the criminal case P30,000 as civil indemnity for his death despite their reservation to file a separate civil action for that purpose. The Court of Appeals likewise erred in affirming the award.
*DAN’Q
Araos vs. CA
Araos, et. al. vs. CA and Jovan Land, Inc.
G.R. No. 107057 June 2, 1994
Petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the CA’s decision
DAVIDE, J.:
Facts: Petitioners are lessees of a 10-door apartment building which they have been occupying for 25 years. The building was originally owned by Bernardino. After the expiration of the lease contract (31 Jan ’88) between the petitioners and Bernardino, the petitioners, nevertheless occupied their respective units and the lessor continued to collect monthly rentals from the petitioners despite the absence of a written contract. On 11 July 1991, the apartment was sold to Jovan Land, Inc. Three days after, demands to vacate the apartment units were made simultaneously by Bernardino and Jovan Land. When the demands went unheeded, cases for unlawful detainer were files against petitioners before the MeTC Manila. The MeTC ordered defendants to vacate the premises and to pay the increased Rental Arrearages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, RTC reversed the decision of the MeTC. CA reversed RTC and affirmed the MeTC decision.
Issue: WON actual damages include the increased rate in rentals.
Ruling: Petition is partly Granted and CA decision modified by setting aside the increase in rentals fixed therein and ordered petitioners to pay the accumulated rentals until they shall have effectively vacated the leased premises.
There is no basis for the increase in the rentals. The rule is settled that in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property. The reason for this is that in such cases, the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession.
*DAN’Q
G.R. No. 107057 June 2, 1994
Petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the CA’s decision
DAVIDE, J.:
Facts: Petitioners are lessees of a 10-door apartment building which they have been occupying for 25 years. The building was originally owned by Bernardino. After the expiration of the lease contract (31 Jan ’88) between the petitioners and Bernardino, the petitioners, nevertheless occupied their respective units and the lessor continued to collect monthly rentals from the petitioners despite the absence of a written contract. On 11 July 1991, the apartment was sold to Jovan Land, Inc. Three days after, demands to vacate the apartment units were made simultaneously by Bernardino and Jovan Land. When the demands went unheeded, cases for unlawful detainer were files against petitioners before the MeTC Manila. The MeTC ordered defendants to vacate the premises and to pay the increased Rental Arrearages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, RTC reversed the decision of the MeTC. CA reversed RTC and affirmed the MeTC decision.
Issue: WON actual damages include the increased rate in rentals.
Ruling: Petition is partly Granted and CA decision modified by setting aside the increase in rentals fixed therein and ordered petitioners to pay the accumulated rentals until they shall have effectively vacated the leased premises.
There is no basis for the increase in the rentals. The rule is settled that in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property. The reason for this is that in such cases, the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession.
*DAN’Q
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
