#23 Consolidated Bank & Trust Co. vs.

CA
Torts Distinguished from a Contract
G.R. No. 138569
Ponente: Carpio, J.
Date: September 11, 2003
Petitioners:
Respondents:
THE CONSOLIDATED BANK and TRUST
COURT OF APPEALS and L.C. DIAZ and
CORPORATION
COMPANY, CPA’s

DOCTRINE:
While in culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract, there
is a presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent and 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 proving that the defendant was negligent.
I. Facts of the case
Petitioner Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation, now known as Solidbank
Corporation (“Solidbank”) is a domestic banking corporation organized and existing
under Philippine laws. Private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company, CPA’s is a
professional partnership engaged in the practice of accounting. Sometime in March
1976, L.C. Diaz opened a savings account with Solidbank. On 14 August 1991, L.C.
Diaz, through its cashier, Mercedes Macaraya filled up a cash deposit slip for P990
and a checks deposit slip for P50. Macaraya instructed the messenger of L.C. Diaz,
Ismael Calapre to deposit the money with Solidbank. Macaraya also gave Calapre the
Solidbank passbook. Calapre went to Solidbank and presented to Teller No. 6 the two
deposit slips and the passbook. The teller acknowledged receipt of the deposit by
returning to Calapre the duplicate copies of the two deposit slips. Teller No. 6
stamped the deposit slips with the words “DUPLICATE” and “SAVING TELLER 6 SOLIDBANK
HEAD OFFICE”. Since the transaction took time and Calapre had to make another
deposit for L.C. Diaz with Allied Bank; he left the passbook with Solidbank.
Calapre then went to Allied Bank.
When Calapre returned to Solidbank to retrieve the passbook, Teller No. 6 informed
him that “somebody got the passbook”. Calapre went to L.C. Diaz and reported the
incident to Macaraya. Macaraya reported the matter to the Personnel Manager of L.C.
Diaz, Emmanuel Alvarez. The following day, 15 August 1991, L.C. Diaz through its
Chief Executive Officer, Luis C. Diaz, called up Solidbank to stop any transaction
using the same passbook until L.C. Diaz could open a new account. Apparently, L.C.
Diaz learned of the unauthorized withdrawal the day before, 14 August 1991, of
P300,000.00 from its savings account. The withdrawal slip for the P300,000 bore
signatures of the authorized signatories of L.C. Diaz, namely Diaz and Rustico L.
Murillo. The signatories, however, denied signing the withdrawal slip. A certain
Noel Tamayo received the P300,000. On 24 August 1992, L.C. Diaz, through its
counsel, demanded from Solidbank the return of its money. Solidbank refused.
Digest Maker: Pabilona, Jessa Mariel
On 25 August 1992, L.C. Diaz filed a Complaint for Recovery of a Sum of Money
against Solidbank with the RTC of Manila. The RTC rendered a decision absolving
Solidbank and dismissing the complaint. L.C. Diaz then appealed to the CA, which
rendered a decision reversing the decision of the RTC of Manila. CA also denied the
motion for reconsideration of Solidbank. CA, however, modified its decision by
deleting the award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Hence, the present
petition.
II. Issue/s
Whether or not Solidbank was negligent.
III. Ratio/Legal Basis
YES.
The law on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is generally applicable when there is no
pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties. The court held that
Solidbank was liable for breach of contract due to negligence, or culpa
contractual.
The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the provisions of
the Civil Code on simple loan. Article 1980 of the Civil Code expressly provides
that “x x x savings x x x deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall
be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan.” There is a debtor-creditor
relationship between the bank and its depositor. The bank is the debtor and the
depositor is the creditor. The depositor lends the bank money and the bank agrees
to pay the depositor on demand. The savings deposit agreement between the bank and
the depositor is the contract that determines the rights and obligations of the
parties.
Article 1172 of the Civil Code provides that “responsibility arising from
negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is demandable.” For
breach of the savings deposit agreement due to negligence, or culpa contractual,
the bank is liable to its depositor.
Calapre left the passbook with Solidbank because the “transaction took time” and he
had to go to Allied Bank for another transaction. The passbook was still in the
hands of the employees of Solidbank for the processing of the deposit when Calapre
left Solidbank. Solidbank’s rules on savings account require that the “deposit book
should be carefully guarded by the depositor and kept under lock and key, if
possible.” When the passbook is in the possession of Solidbank’s tellers during
withdrawals, the law imposes on Solidbank and its tellers an even higher degree of
diligence in safeguarding the passbook.
Likewise, Solidbank’s tellers must exercise a high degree of diligence in insuring
that they return the passbook only to the depositor or his authorized
representative. The tellers know, or should know, that the rules on savings account
provide that any person in possession of the passbook is presumptively its owner.
If the tellers give the passbook to the wrong person, they would be clothing that
person presumptive ownership of the passbook, facilitating unauthorized withdrawals
by that person. For failing to return the passbook to Calapre, the authorized
representative of L.C. Diaz, Solidbank and Teller No. 6 presumptively failed to
observe such high degree of diligence in safeguarding the passbook, and in insuring
its return to the party authorized to receive the same.
Digest Maker: Pabilona, Jessa Mariel
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 contrast, in culpa
aquiliana the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent.
In the present case, L.C. Diaz has established that Solidbank breached its
contractual obligation to return the passbook only to the authorized representative
of L.C. Diaz. There is thus a presumption that Solidbank was at fault and its
teller was negligent in not returning the passbook to Calapre. The burden was on
Solidbank to prove that there was no negligence on its part or its employees.
Solidbank failed to discharge its burden. Solidbank did not present to the trial
court Teller No. 6, the teller with whom Calapre left the passbook and who was
supposed to return the passbook to him. The record does not indicate that Teller
No. 6 verified the identity of the person who retrieved the passbook. Solidbank
also failed to adduce in evidence its standard procedure in verifying the identity
of the person retrieving the passbook, if there is such a procedure, and that
Teller No. 6 implemented this procedure in the present case.
Solidbank is bound by the negligence of its employees under the principle of
respondeat superior or command responsibility. The defense of exercising the
required diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not a complete
defense in culpa contractual, unlike in culpa aquiliana.
The bank must not only exercise “high standards of integrity and performance,” it
must also insure that its employees do likewise because this is the only way to
insure that the bank will comply with its fiduciary duty. Solidbank failed to
present the teller who had the duty to return to Calapre the passbook, and thus
failed to prove that this teller exercised the “high standards of integrity and
performance” required of Solidbank’s employees.
IV. Disposition
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner Solidbank Corporation shall pay private respondent L.C. Diaz and
Company, CPA’s only 60% of the actual damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. The
remaining 40% of the actual damages shall be borne by private respondent L.C. Diaz
and Company, CPA’s. Proportionate costs. SO ORDERED.
V. Notes (OPTIONAL)
Digest Maker: Pabilona, Jessa Mariel