PBCOM Vs CA

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE, now absorbed by PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL
BANK, ROGELIO LACSON, DIGNA DE LEON, MARIA ANGELITA PASCUAL, Et Al., v. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, ROMMEL’S MARKETING CORP., represented by ROMEO LIPANA, its President & General
Manager
G.R. No. 97626, March 14, 1997
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
FACTS: Rommel’s Marketing Corporation (RMC) maintains 2 current accounts with petitioner Philippine Bank of Commerce.
Respondent Romeo Lipana is the President and General Manager of RMC. From May 1, 1975 to July 16, 1976, Lipana entrusted
RMC funds totalling P304,979.74 to its secretary Irene Yabut for the purpose of depositing the funds to the company’s account
with PBC. It turned out, however, that all those deposits were not credited to the RMC, but to the account of Yabut’s husband,
Bienvenido Cotas, with the same bank. Yabut was able to defraud RMC by using duplicate deposit slips. On the original copy
which is being submitted to the bank, she would write the account name and account number of her husband. On the duplicate copy
which is returned to the company, she would write the same account number but would leave the account name blank. After
obtaining the validation stamp on the second copy, she would place thereon RMC’s account name, and change the account number
to that of the company. This went on for more than a year without respondent’s knowledge. Upon discovery of the losses,
respondent demanded the return of its funds from the bank. Not being heeded, he filed a collection suit. The trial court, and later
on the Court of Appeals, found the bank negligent. The bank filed this instant petition for review.
Petitioners submit that the proximate cause of the loss is the negligence of RMC in entrusting its funds to a dishonest employee, as
there is no way for them to know who the owner of the funds is. Respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the loss was due to
the negligence of the bank’s teller, Azucena Mabayad, in validating the duplicate deposit slips bearing no account name.
ISSUE: What is the proximate cause of the loss – Lipana’s negligence in not checking his monthly statements or the bank’s
negligence through its teller in validating the deposit slips?
HELD: The bank teller was negligent in validating, officially stamping and signing all the deposit slips prepared and presented by
Yabut, despite the glaring fact that the duplicate copy was not completely accomplished contrary to the self-imposed procedure of
the bank with respect to the proper validation of deposit slips, original or duplicate.
The bank teller’s negligence, as well as the negligence of the bank in the selection and supervision of its bank teller, is the proximate
cause of the loss suffered by the private respondent, not the latter’s entrusting cash to a dishonest employee. Xxx Even if Yabut
had the fraudulent intention to misappropriate the funds, she would not have been able to deposit those funds in her husband’s
current account, and then make plaintiff believe that it was in the latter’s accounts wherein she had deposited them, had it not been
for the bank teller’s aforesaid gross and reckless negligence.
The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance was discussed in this case: Doctrine of Last Clear Chance – where both parties are negligent, but
the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed
to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. It means that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the
recovery of damages for the supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another, if the latter, who had
the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by exercise of due diligence.
In the case at bar, the bank was not remiss in its duty of sending monthly bank statements to private respondent RMC so that any
error or discrepancy in the entries therein could be brought to the bank’s attention at the earliest opportunity. Private respondent
failed to examine these bank statements not because it was prevented by some cause in not doing so, but because it was purposely
negligent as it admitted that it does not normally check bank statements given by banks.
It was private respondent who had the last and clear chance to prevent any further misappropriation by Yabut had it only reviewed
the status of its current accounts on the bank statements sent to it monthly or regularly. Since a sizable amount of cash was entrusted
to Yabut, private respondent should, at least, have taken ordinary care of its concerns, as what the law presumes. Its negligence,
therefore, is not contributory but the immediate and proximate cause of its injury.

PBCOM Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PBCOM Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PBCOM Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE, now absorbed by PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

You might also like