Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation Vs

Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 138569,

September 11, 2003
MARCH 16, 2014LEAVE A COMMENT
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.
Facts: Solidbank is a domestic banking corporation while private respondent L.C. Diaz and
Company, CPA’s (“L.C. Diaz”), is a professional partnership engaged in the practice of accounting
and which opened a savings account with Solidbank. Diaz through its cashier, Mercedes Macaraya ,
filled up a savings cash deposit slip and a savings checks deposit slip. Macaraya instructed the
messenger of L.C. Diaz, Ismael Calapre, to deposit the money with Solidbank and give him 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. 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. When Calapre
returned to Solidbank to retrieve the passbook, Teller No. 6 informed him that somebody got the
passbook. Calapre went back to L.C. Diaz and reported the incident to Macaraya. The following day,,
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 followed by a formal
written request later that day. It was also on the same day that L.C. Diaz learned of the unauthorized
withdrawal the day before of P300,000 from its savings account. The withdrawal slip bore the
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.
L.C. Diaz demanded from Solidbank the return of its money but to no avail. Hence, L.C. Diaz filed a
Complaint for Recovery of a Sum of Money against Solidbank with the Regional Trial Court. After
trial, the trial court rendered a decision absolving Solidbank and dismissing the complaint. Court of
Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court.
Issue: Whether or not Solidbank must be held liable for the fraudulent withdrawal on private
respondent’s account.
Held: 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.
However, L.C. Diaz was guilty of contributory negligence in allowing a withdrawal slip signed by its
authorized signatories to fall into the hands of an impostor. Thus, the liability of Solidbank should be
reduced. Hence, the liability of Solidbank for actual damages was reduced to only 60%, the
remaining 40% was borne by private respondent.
The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on
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 law imposes on banks high standards in view of the
fiduciary nature of banking. RA 8791 declares that the State recognizes the “fiduciary nature of
banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance.” This new provision in the general
banking law, introduced in 2000, is a statutory affirmation of Supreme Court decisions holding that
“the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always
having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.”

Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation Vs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation Vs

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation Vs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation

vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 138569,

You might also like