GR 160260; (October, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160260 ; October 24, 2012
WESTMONT BANK, formerly ASSOCIATED BANK now UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MYRNA DELA ROSA-RAMOS, DOMINGO TAN and WILLIAM CO, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Myrna Dela Rosa-Ramos maintained a checking account with petitioner bank. She entered into a “special arrangement” with the bank’s signature verifier, respondent Domingo Tan, wherein he would fund her account to prevent overdrafts for a fee. Under this arrangement, Dela Rosa-Ramos issued several postdated checks to Tan as guarantee. Tan subsequently deposited four of these checks, with a total value of over P900,000, into the account of co-respondent William Co. Dela Rosa-Ramos alleged these deposits were made without her consent, with some checks being stale, altered, or deposited despite stop-payment orders. Consequently, the amounts were charged against her account.
Dela Rosa-Ramos filed a complaint against Tan, Co, and the bank to recover her lost deposits. The Regional Trial Court held all defendants jointly and severally liable for actual, moral, and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals modified the decision, reducing the actual damages to P521,989.00 and deleting the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees. The bank filed this petition, arguing it should not be held solidarily liable for the fraudulent acts of its employee, Tan.
ISSUE
Whether the bank should be held solidarily liable with its employee, Domingo Tan, for the damages sustained by its depositor, Myrna Dela Rosa-Ramos.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court modified the CA decision, holding the bank liable only for 50% of the actual damages awarded. The Court applied the principle of contributory negligence. While a bank owes its depositors a high degree of diligence, and its negligence in allowing the irregular encashment of the checks was a proximate cause of the loss, Dela Rosa-Ramos was also negligent. She engaged in an irregular “special arrangement” with a bank employee for personal benefit, knowingly issuing guarantee checks outside normal banking channels. This arrangement created the opportunity for the fraud. Therefore, both parties were at fault. The legal logic follows Article 2179 of the Civil Code, where a plaintiff’s negligence contributes to their own injury; damages shall be equitably reduced. The bank’s liability is not solidary with its employee but is direct, based on its own failure to exercise due diligence. The bank may seek reimbursement from Tan’s estate. Awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees were correctly deleted by the CA, and Dela Rosa-Ramos could not seek their reinstatement as she did not appeal.