PNB vs.

CA, GR L-27155, May 18, 1978

Lessons Applicable: Liability for Torts (Corporate Law)

FACTS:
PNB executed its bond w/ Rita Gueco Tapnio as principal, in favor of the PNB
to guarantee the payment of Tapnio's account with PNB.
Indemnity Agreement w/ 12% int. and 15% atty. fees
Sept 18 1957: PNB sent a letter of demand for Tapnio to pay the
reduced amount of 2,379.91
PNB demanded both oral and written but to no avail
Tapnio mortgaged to the bank her lease agreement w/ Jacobo Tuazon for her
unused export sugar quota at P2.80 per picular or a total of P2,800 which was
more than the value of the bond
PNB insisted on raising it to P3.00 per picular so Tuazon rejected the offer
ISSUE: W/N PNB should be liable for tort

HELD: YES. affirmed.

While Tapnio had the ultimate authority of approving or disapproving the
proposed lease since the quota was mortgaged to the bank, it certainly
CANNOT escape its responsibility of observing, for the protection of the
interest of Tapnio and Tuazon, that the degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand in approving or disapproving
the lease of said sugar quota
Art. 21 of the Civil Code: any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the damage.