Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. CA + L.C. Diaz and Company (2003) / Carpio
Facts
LC Diaz [professional partnership engaged in accounting] opened a savings account with Solidbank. LC Diaz's cashier, Macaraya, filled up two savings deposit slips, and she gave them + passbook to messenger Calapre and instructed him to deposit the money with Solidbank. Calapre presented the deposit slips and passbook to the teller. He left the passbook with Solidbank first as he had to make another deposit at Allied Bank, but when he returned, he was informed that somebody got the passbook. Calapre reported this to Macaraya. Macaraya + Calapre went back to Solidbank with a deposit slip [P200k check]. When Macaraya asked about the passbook, the teller said that someone shorter than Calapre got it. Macaraya reported this matter.
The following day, CEO Diaz called Solidbank to stop any transaction using the passbook until the company could open a new account. It was found out that learned that P300k was withdrawn from the account the previous day. The withdrawal slip bore the signatures of two authorized signatories of LC Diaz but they denied signing it. Noel Tamayo received this sum of money.
An information for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Document was filed against one of their messengers (Ilagan) and one Roscoe Verdazola (first time they appeared in the case discussion), but the RTC dismissed the criminal case. LC Diaz demanded the return of their money from Solidbank, but the latter refused and a complaint for recovery of a sum of money was filed against them. However, Solidbank was absolved.
RTC applied rules on savings account written on the passbook ["Possession of this book shall raise the presumption of ownership and any payment or payments made by the bank upon the production of the said book and entry therein of the withdrawal shall have the same effect as if made to the depositor personally."] RTC said that the burden of proof shifted to LC Diaz to prove that the signatures are not forged. Also, they applied the rule that the holder of the passport is presumed to be the owner. It was also held that Solidbank did not have any participation in the custody and care of the passbook and as such, their act of allowing the withdrawal was not the proximate cause of the loss. The proximate cause was LC Diaz’ negligence. As regards the contention that LC Diaz and Solidbank had precautionary procedures (like a secret handshake of sorts) whenever the former withdrew a large sum, RTC pointed out that LC Diaz disregarded this in the past withdrawal.
CA, on the other hand, said that the proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal is Solidbank's negligence, applying NCC 2176. CA said the 3 elements of QD are present [damages; fault or negligence; connection of cause and effect]. The teller could have called up LC Diaz since the amount being drawn was significant. Proximate cause is teller's failure to call LC Diaz. CA ruled that while LC Diaz was negligent in entrusting its deposits to its messenger and its messenger in leaving the passbook with the teller, Solidbank could not escape liability because of the doctrine of “last clear chance.” Solidbank could have averted the injury had it called up LC Diaz to verify the withdrawal.
RATIO
On Solidbank's fiduciary duty under the law
SC says that Solidbank is liable for breach of K due to negligence [culpa contractual]. K [savings deposit agreement] between bank and depositor governed by provisions on simple loan; bank is the debtor and depositor is the creditor. Banks are under obligation to treat accounts of depositors with meticulous care [higher than diligence of a good father of a family standard], bearing in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The bank's obligation to observe high standards of integrity and performance is deemed written in every deposit agreement. However, this nature does not convert K from a simple loan to a trust agreement (failure by bank to pay depositor is failure to pay a simple loan only).
Solidbank's breach of K-tual obligation
For breach of the savings deposit agreement due to negligence, or culpa contractual, the bank is liable to its depositor. When the passbook is in the possession of Solidbank’s tellers during withdrawals, the law imposes an even higher degree of diligence. Likewise, tellers must exercise a high degree of diligence in insuring that they return the passbook only to the depositor or authorized representative.
In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract, there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent. The burden is on the defendant to prove that he was not at fault or negligent. In culpa aquiliana, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. Solidbank failed to discharge this burden, after LC Diaz establishing the breach of K-tual obligation. Hence, Solidbank is bound by the negligence of its employees. The defense of exercising required diligence in selecting, supervising employees is NOT a complete defense in culpa contractual, unlike in culpa aquiliana.
Proximate cause of unauthorized withdrawal
Solidbank’s negligence in not returning the passbook to Calapre was the proximate cause. [Definition: cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.]
RTC said that LC Diaz’ negligence was the proximate cause. However, SC says LC Diaz was not at fault that the passbook landed in the hands of the impostor. In fact, it was in the possession of the bank while the deposit was being processed. CA said that teller's failure to call LC Diaz was the proximate cause. SC says the bank did not have the duty to call LC Diaz to confirm withdrawal.
Doctrine of last clear chance
"Where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss."
SC DOES NOT APPLY IT HERE. Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence in the performance of its contractual obligation to LC Diaz. This is a case of culpa contractual, where neither the contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability. Since LC Diaz was guilty of contributory negligence, Solidbank's liability should be reduced.
