[go: up one dir, main page]

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
620 views1 page

Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Ca

The Supreme Court ruled that Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC) was contributorily negligent for not checking its monthly bank statements for over a year. This allowed RMC's secretary to fraudulently deposit over P304,000 of RMC's funds into her husband's account. While the bank teller was also negligent, RMC could have discovered and prevented the growing fraud had they exercised due diligence by reviewing the statements. Therefore, the Court allocated liability on a 60-40 ratio, with RMC responsible for 40% of the damages.

Uploaded by

Vian O.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
620 views1 page

Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Ca

The Supreme Court ruled that Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC) was contributorily negligent for not checking its monthly bank statements for over a year. This allowed RMC's secretary to fraudulently deposit over P304,000 of RMC's funds into her husband's account. While the bank teller was also negligent, RMC could have discovered and prevented the growing fraud had they exercised due diligence by reviewing the statements. Therefore, the Court allocated liability on a 60-40 ratio, with RMC responsible for 40% of the damages.

Uploaded by

Vian O.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE VS.

CA

269 SCRA 695

FACTS:

Private respondent Rommel’s Marketing Corporation (RMC) sought to recover P304, 979.74 from its 2
current accounts with petitioner Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC), now absorbed by Philippine
Commercial International Bank (PCIB), after RMC’s President and General Manager Romeo Lipana found
out that the funds were fraudulently deposited by his secretary Irene Yabut to the account of her
husband, Bienvenido Cotas, in a span of more than 1 year.

RMC filed a collection suit before RTC-Pasig against PBC (now PCIB) and Azucena Mabayad, the bank
teller who negligently stamped and validated the original and duplicate deposit slips (the name of the
account holder in the duplicate deposit slip was left blank). The trial court ordered the bank and
Mabayad to pay P304, 979.74 plus damages. CA affirmed with modifications. Hence, the petition before
the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of private respondent Rommel’s Marketing
Corporation (RMC)

RULING:

Yes. x x x It cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its
monthly statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series of
frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage would definitely not have ballooned
to such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a little vigilance in their
financial affairs. This omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall mitigate the
damages that may be awarded to the private respondent under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code, to
wit:

. . . When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the
injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be awarded.

In view of this, we believe that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by allocating the damage
on a 60-40 ratio. Thus, 40% of the damage awarded by the respondent appellate court, except the
award of P25,000.00 attorney's fees, shall be borne by private respondent RMC; only the balance of 60%
needs to be paid by the petitioners. The award of attorney's fees shall be borne exclusively by the
petitioners.

You might also like