G.R. No. 127469, January 15, 2004, 464 PHIL 614-650
Fact:
Marcos alleged that sometime in 1982, the BANK through Florencio B. Pagsaligan (“Pagsaligan”), one of the officials of the BANK and a close friend of Marcos, persuaded him to deposit money with the BANK. Marcos yielded to Pagsaligan’s persuasion and claimed he made a time deposit with the BANK on two occasions. The first was on 11 March 1982 for P664,897.67. The BANK issued Receipt No. 635734 for this time’s deposit. On 12 March 1982, Marcos claimed he again made a time deposit with the BANK for P764,897.67. The BANK did not issue an official receipt for this time deposit but it acknowledged a deposit of this amount through a letter-certification Pagsaligan issued. The time deposits earned interest at 17% per annum and had a maturity period of 90 days.
On 30 August 1989, Marcos filed with the trial court a Complaint for a Sum of Money with Damages 3 against the petitioner Philippine Banking Corporation.
Marcos alleged that Pagsaligan kept the various time deposit certificates on the assurance that the BANK would take care of the certificates, interests, and renewals. Marcos claimed that from the time of the deposit, he had not received the principal amount or its interest. The BANK denied falsifying Promissory Note No. 20-979-83. The BANK claimed that the promissory note is supported by documentary evidence such as Marcos’ application for this loan and the microfilm of the cashier’s check issued for the loan. The BANK insisted that Marcos could not deny the agreement for the payment of interest and penalties under the trust receipt agreements
The trial court rendered its decision in favor of Marcos. Aggrieved, the BANK appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals however sustained the factual findings of the trial court but modified the decision of the trial court by reducing the number of actual damages and deleting the attorney’s fees awarded to Marcos.
Issue:
Whether or not the bank is liable for negligence with regard to the accounts of their depositors
Held:
Yes, the BANK is liable for negligence by offsetting the time deposits of its client with a fictitious promissory note. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8791 (General Banking Law of 2000) expressly imposes this fiduciary duty on banks when it declares that the State recognizes the “fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance.” The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a family. Prior to this, jurisprudence had already imposed on banks the same high standard of diligence required under RA 8791.
In the instant case, the existence of the promissory note could have been easily proven had the BANK presented the original copies of the promissory note and its supporting evidence. In lieu of the original copies, the BANK presented the “machine copies of the duplicate” of the documents. These substitute documents have no evidentiary value. The BANK’s failure to explain the absence of the original documents and to maintain a record of the offsetting of this loan with the time deposits bring to the fore the BANK’s dismal failure to fulfill its fiduciary duty to Marcos.
Hence, the bank is liable for negligence with regard to the account of the respondent.
Real LexEcon 