TAN - v - CA, RCBC
FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 108555 December 20, 1994 KAPUNAN, J.:
Facts:
1. Petitioner Ramon Tan, a trader-businessman and
community leader in Puerto Princesa, had maintained since 1976 Current Account
with respondent bank's Binondo branch.
2. In 1988, to avoid carrying cash while enroute to
Manila, he secured a Cashier's Check from the Philippine Commercial Industrial
Bank (PCIB), Puerto Princesa branch, in the amount of P30,000.00, payable to
his order.
3. He deposited the check in his account with RCBC
Binondo on March 15. On the same day, RCBC erroneously sent the same cashier's
check for clearing to the Central Bank which was returned for having been
"missent" or "misrouted."
5. Relying on the common knowledge that a cashier's
check was as good as cash, that the usual banking practice that local checks
are cleared within 3 working days and regional checks within 7 working days,
and the fact that the cashier's check was accepted, petitioner issued 2
personal checks both dated March 18.
a. Check No. 040719 in the name of Go Lac for
P5,500.00 was presented on April 25, more than 30 days from petitioner's
deposit date of the cashier's check.
b. Check No. 040718 in the name of MS Development
Trading Corporation for 6,053.70 was returned twice on March
24, 9 days from his deposit date and again on April 26, 22 days after the day
the cashier's check was deposited for insufficiency of funds.
6. Petitioner, alleging to have suffered humiliation
and loss of face in the business sector due to the bounced checks, filed a
complaint against RCBC for damages in the RTC Palawan and Puerto Princesa,
7. In its defense, RCBC disowning any negligence, put
the blame for the "misrouting" on the petitioner for using the
wrong check deposit slip. It insisted that the misuse of a local check
deposit slip, instead of a regional check deposit slip, triggered the
"misrouting" by RCBC of the cashier's check to the Central Bank and
it was petitioner's negligent "misuse" of a local deposit slip which
was the proximate cause of the "misrouting," thus he should bear the
consequence.
8. The trial court rendered a decision in petitioner's
favor,
9. RCBC appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals REVERSED and DISMISSED the complaint.
10. Petitioner now seeks to reverse the decision of the
Court of Appeals and affirm that of the lower court.
Issue: Whether or not RCBC is liable for damages.
Held: Yes.
Ruling:
- This case discussed City
Trust Corporation v. The Intermediate Appellate Court: The issue could have
been avoided at the first instance had the teller of defendant bank performed
her duties efficiently and well. That is, or should be, part of the training and standard operating
procedure of the bank's employees. The depositors are not concerned with
banking procedure. That is the responsibility of the bank and its employees.
Depositors are only concerned with the facility of depositing their money,
earning interest thereon, if any, and withdrawing therefrom, particularly
businessmen, like plaintiff, who are supposed to be always on-the-go. Bank
clients are supposed to rely on the services extended by the bank, including
the assurance that their deposits will be duly credited them as soon as they
are made. The point is that as a business affected with public interest
and because of the nature of its functions, 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.
- In the light of the above-cited case, the
respondent bank cannot exculpate itself from liability by claiming that its
depositor "impliedly instructed" the bank to clear his check with the
Central Bank by filling a local check deposit slip. Such posture is
disingenuous, to say the least. First, why would RCBC follow a patently
erroneous act born of ignorance or inattention or both. Second, bank
transactions pass through a succession of bank personnel whose duty is to check
and countercheck transactions for possible errors.
- In the instant case, the teller should not have
accepted the local deposit slip with the cashier's check that on its face was
clearly a regional check without calling the depositor's attention to the
mistake at the very moment this was presented to her. Neither should everyone
else down the line who processed the same check for clearing have allowed the
check to be sent to Central Bank.
- Depositors do not pretend to be past master of banking technicalities,
much more of clearing procedures. As soon as their deposits are accepted by the bank teller, they
wholly repose trust in the bank personnel's mastery of banking, their and the
bank's sworn profession of diligence and meticulousness in giving
irreproachable service.
- We do not subscribe to RCBC's assertion that
petitioner's use of the wrong deposit slip was the proximate cause of the
clearing fiasco and so, petitioner must bear the consequence. So it is in the
instance case, where the conclusion is inevitable that respondent RCBC had been
remiss in the performance of its duty and obligation to its client, as well as
to itself.
- An ordinary check is not a mere undertaking to pay
an amount of money. There is an element of certainty or assurance that it will
be paid upon presentation that is why it is perceived as a convenient
substitute for currency in commercial and financial transactions. The basis of
the perception being confidence. Any practice that destroys that confidence
will impair the usefulness of the check as a currency substitute and create
havoc in trade circles and the banking community.
- Now, what was presented for deposit in the instant
cases was not just an ordinary check but a cashier's check payable to the
account of the depositor himself.
- A cashier's check is a primary obligation of the issuing bank and accepted
in advance by its mere issuance. A cashier's check by its peculiar character
and general use in the commercial world is regarded substantially to be
as good as the money which it represents. In this case, therefore,
PCIB by issuing the check created an unconditional credit in favor of any
collecting bank.
- All these considered, petitioner's reliance on the
layman's perception that a cashier's check is as good as cash is not entirely
misplaced, as it is rooted in practice, tradition, and principle.
- Reversed.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
