G.R. No. 74678 . March 8, 1993.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND ROMAX MARKETING CENTER, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Romax Marketing Center, Inc., a corporation engaged in trading construction materials, maintained a current account with petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), then Commercial Bank and Trust Company (CBTC). On November 28, 1975 (Friday), between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., private respondent deposited a Prudential Bank and Trust Company check for P25,000.00 into its account, as evidenced by a deposit slip stamped “3 DAYS TO CLEAR.” Its existing balance was about P3,000.00. On November 29, 1975 (Saturday), private respondent issued CBTC Check No. 85063 for P27,475.90 payable to its supplier, Far Eastern Plumbing Supply, Inc. The supplier deposited the check on the next banking day, December 1, 1975 (Monday). On December 3, 1975, petitioner dishonored the check, issuing a return slip stating “Drawn Against Uncollected Deposit.” The supplier, upon learning of the dishonor, refused to re-deposit the check. On December 4, 1975, petitioner issued a cashier’s check to the supplier for the full amount. Private respondent claimed its business credit standing was destroyed, causing difficulty in securing credit from suppliers and an inability to meet client purchase orders. It demanded compensation and subsequently filed a complaint for damages. Petitioner alleged the P25,000.00 check was deposited after the 2:00 p.m. clearing cut-off time on November 28, 1975, was only sent for clearing on December 1, 1975, and that when private respondent’s check was presented on December 2, 1975, the account had a negative balance. The trial court awarded private respondent P150,000.00 as compensatory damages, P50,000.00 as damages for loss of income, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner bank was negligent in dishonoring private respondent’s check.
2. Whether the awards for compensatory damages (P150,000.00) and damages for loss of income (P50,000.00) were proper.

RULING

1. Yes, petitioner bank was negligent. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts. The deposit slip stamped “3 DAYS CLEARING” indicated the P25,000.00 check was deposited before the 2:00 p.m. cut-off time on November 28, 1975, and should have been cleared on the morning of December 2, 1975. Petitioner failed to present clear proof that the check was deposited after the cut-off time. Due to this negligence in not sending the check for clearing on time, private respondent’s account was not funded when its issued check (which would have cleared on December 3, 1975) was presented. The dishonor was therefore unjustified.
2. No, the awards for compensatory damages and damages for loss of income were improper. The Supreme Court modified the decision by deleting these awards. Actual or compensatory damages must be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty and cannot be based on speculation. The evidence only showed a possibility of cancellation of purchase orders and possible lost profits due to difficulty in securing credit after the dishonor. Damages that are merely possible are speculative and not compensable.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The assailed decision was AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of P150,000.00 as compensatory damages and P50,000.00 as damages for loss of income were deleted.