8/21/2019 Equitable PCI Bank v Tan_Santos_8

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/equitable-pci-bank-v-tansantos8 1/2

EQUITABLE PCI BANK V. ARCELITO B. TAN

G.R. NO. 165339 AUGUST 23, 2010

FACTS:

Respondent Arcelito B.Tan maintained a current and savings account

with petitioner Equitable PCI Bank. n !a" #$% #&&'% Tan issued PCIB Check(o. ')*#++ postdated !a" $+% #&&' in the amount o, P$-%*.)' in ,avor o, /ulpicio 0ines% Inc. As o, !a" #-% #&&'% respondent1s balance with PCIB wasP$*%#-).*&. n !a" #-% #&&'% /ulpicio 0ines% Inc. deposited the a,oresaidcheck to its account with /olid Bank% Carbon Branch% Cebu Cit". A,terclearing% the amount o, the check was immediatel" debited b" PCIB ,rom Tan1s account leaving him with a balance o, onl" P**.). 2owever% ,rom!a" & to #3% #&&'% Tan issued three checks% speci4call"5 PCIB Check (o.')*++ dated !a" &% #&&'% pa"able to Agusan del /ur Electric CooperativeInc. 6A/E0C7 ,or the amount o, P3%-').38 PCIB Check (o. ')*+&) dated!a" #+% #&&' pa"able to Agusan del (orte Electric Cooperative Inc.% 6A(EC7

,or the amount o, P3%-)'.+#8 and PCIB Check (o. $#-#+- dated !a" #3%#&&' pa"able in cash ,or the amount o, P#+%+++.++. Thus% when presented,or pa"ment% the three checks were dishonored ,or being drawn againstinsu9cient ,unds. As a result o, the dishonored checks pa"able to A/E0Cand A(EC% the electric power suppl" ,or the two mini:sawmills owned andoperated b" Tan was cut o; and was restored onl" a,ter several da"s. Thisprompted Tan to 4le with the RTC o, Cebu a complaint against PCIB ,or thepa"ment o, losses consisting o, unreali<ed income together with otherclaims% contending that Check (o. ')*#++ was a postdated check inpa"ment o, Bills o, 0ading (os. #*% #3 and #)% and that his account with PCIBwould have had su9cient ,unds to cover pa"ment o, the three other checks

were it not ,or the negligence o, the bank in immediatel" debiting ,rom hisaccount Check (o. ')*#++% in the amount o, P$-%*.)'% even as the saidcheck was postdated to !a" $+% #&&'. PCIB% on the other hand% averred thatthe questioned check was postdated !a" $+% #&&' and claimed that it was acurrent check dated !a" $% #&&'. The bank alleged that the disconnection o, the electric suppl" to respondent1s sawmills was not due to the dishonor o, the checks% but ,or other reasons not attributable to the bank. DOCTRINE/LAS RELATED TO T!E CASE:

" The diligence required o, banks is more than that o, a good ,ather o, a,amil". In ever" case% the depositor e=pects the bank to treat his account

with the utmost 4delit"% whether such account consists onl" o, a ,ew hundredpesos or o, millions. The bank must record ever" single transactionaccuratel"% down to the last centavo% and as promptl" as possible. This hasto be done i, the account is to re>ect at an" given time the amount o, mone"the depositor can dispose o, as he sees 4t% con4dent that the bank willdeliver it as and to whomever he directs.?

@The bank on which the check is drawn% known as the drawee bank% isunder strict liability  to pa" to the order o, the pa"ee in accordance with the

8/21/2019 Equitable PCI Bank v Tan_Santos_8

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/equitable-pci-bank-v-tansantos8 2/2

drawers instructions as re>ected on the ,ace and b" the terms o, the check. Thus% pa"ment made be,ore the date speci4ed b" the drawer is clearl"against the drawee bank1s dut" to its client.?

ISSUE: !ET!ER OR NOT PCIB ACTED NEGLIGENTL# IN DEALING

IT! TAN$S ACCOUNT.

DECISION OF T!E RTC:

 The RTC ruled in ,avor o, PCIB% holding that it did not act negligentl"and dismissed the complaint. Tan appealed.

DECISION OF T!E CA:

 The CA reversed the decision o, RTC and directed PCIB to pa"respondent the sum o, P#%3-%*++.++ actual damages% P*+%+++.++ moraldamages% P*+%+++.++ e=emplar" damages and attorne"1s ,ees o, P$+%+++.++.

PCIB 4led a motion ,or reconsideration% which the CA denied.

SC RULING:

 The /C a9rmed with modi4cations the decision o, CA% holding thatPCIB acted negligentl". 2owever% the award o, moral damages was deletedand added the award o, temperate damages.

 The Court had alread" imposed on banks the same high standard o, diligence required under R.A. )&# at the time o, the untimel" debiting o,  Tan1s account b" PCIB. In Simex International (Manila), Inc. v. Court of  Appeals, the Court held that as a business a;ected with public interest andbecause o, the nature o, its ,unctions% the bank is under obligation to treat

the accounts o, its depositors with meticulous care% alwa"s having in mindthe 4duciar" nature o, their relationship. The diligence required o, banks%there,ore% is more than that o, a good ,ather o, a ,amil". In ever" case% thedepositor e=pects the bank to treat his account with the utmost 4delit"%whether such account consists onl" o, a ,ew hundred pesos or o, millions. The bank must record ever" single transaction accuratel"% down to the lastcentavo% and as promptl" as possible. This has to be done i, the account is tore>ect at an" given time the amount o, mone" the depositor can dispose o, as he sees 4t% con4dent that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever hedirects.

Based on the ,acts% it is clear that PCIB did not e=ercise the degree o, 

diligence that it ought to have e=ercised in dealing with its client.urthermore% the bank on which the check is drawn% known as the draweebank% is under strict liability  to pa" to the order o, the pa"ee in accordancewith the drawers instructions as re>ected on the ,ace and b" the terms o, the check. Thus% pa"ment made be,ore the date speci4ed b" the drawer isclearl" against the drawee bank1s dut" to its client. As such% the Court 4ndsthat PCIBs negligence is the pro=imate cause o, Tans loss.