G.R. No. 147800. November 11, 2003
Facts:
Respondent Teofilo C. Ramos instituted a complaint for damages against the petitioner Bank before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Respondent alleged that he was the owner of a parcel of land; that he was not the judgment debtor in a civil case but Teofilo Ramos, Sr.; that without any legal basis, the petitioner (UCPB) and sheriff Villapana caused the annotation of a notice of levy in the TCT of his aforesaid property which caused the disapproval of the loan from the UCPB and, thus made him lose an opportunity to participate in the bidding of a considerable project; that by reason of such wrongful annotation of a notice of levy, he suffered sleepless nights, moral shock, mental anguish and almost a heart attack due to high blood pressure.
In the instant case, the head of the Litigation and Enforcement Division (LED) of the bank, requested an appraiser of the petitioner’s Credit and Appraisal Investigation Department to ascertain if the defendants had any leviable real and personal property. The lawyer furnished the appraiser with a copy of the Tax Declaration covering property in Quezon City. In the course of his investigation, the appraiser found that the property was a residential lot, identified as Lot 12, Block 5, Ocampo Avenue, Don Jose Subdivision, Quezon City, with an area of 400 square meters, covered by TCT No. 275167 (PR-13108) under the name of Teofilo C. Ramos. The appraiser went to the property to inspect it and verify the identity of the owner and saw workers on the property constructing a bungalow. However, he failed to talk to the owner of the property. Per information gathered from the neighborhood, he confirmed that the Spouses Teofilo C. Ramos and Rebecca Ramos owned the property. UCPB admitted that it made a mistake in causing the annotation of a notice of levy on the TCT of the respondent, but claimed that it was not motivated by malice or bad faith; that the respondent was not the party-in-interest to file the action for damages, as he was not the one who applied for a loan from UCPB and PDB but Ramdustrial Corporation of which he was merely the President and Chairman of the Board of Directors; that it took the respondent quite a long time to file a motion to cancel the levy.
The RTC eventually ruled for the respondent. On appeal, its decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition is for review on certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner acted negligently in causing the annotation of levy on the title of the respondent;
Held:
Yes, the petitioner acted negligently when it caused the annotation of the notice of levy in the title of the respondent and its negligence was the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the respondent. The bank has access to more facilities for confirming the identity of their judgment debtors. It should have acted more cautiously, especially since some uncertainty had been reported by the appraiser whom the petitioner had tasked to make verifications. It appears that the petitioner treated the uncertainty raised by appraiser Eduardo C. Reniva as a flimsy matter. It placed more importance on the information regarding the marketability and market value of the property, utterly disregarding the identity of the registered owner thereof. The court ruled that the petitioner as a bank and a financial institution engaged in the grant of loans is expected to ascertain and verify the identities of the persons it transacts business with. It held that the business of a bank is one affected by the public interest, for which reason the bank should guard against loss due to negligence or bad faith. Here, the petitioner knew that the sureties to the loan granted to ZDC and the defendants in the civil case were the Spouses Teofilo Ramos, Sr., and Amelita Ramos. The name of the judgment debtor was Teofilo Ramos, Sr., as appeared in the judgment of the court and in the writ of execution issued by the trial court. The name of the owner of the property was Teofilo C. Ramos. It behooves the petitioner to ascertain whether the defendant Teofilo Ramos, Sr. in Civil Case No. 16453 was the same person who appeared as the owner of the property covered by the said title. If the petitioner had done so, it would have surely discovered that the respondent and the surety and judgment debtor Teofilo Ramos Sr., were not one and the same person.
Therefore, the petitioner acted negligently in causing the annotation of a notice of levy in the title of the herein respondent
Real LexEcon 