Quasi-Delict; Mismanagement

of Depositors Account (2006)

Tony bought a Ford Expedition from a car dealer in Muntinlupa City. As payment, Tony
issued a check drawn against his current account with Premium Bank. Since he has a good
reputation, the car dealer allowed him to immediately drive home the vehicle merely on
his assurance that his check is sufficiently funded. When the car dealer deposited the check,
it was dishonored on the ground of Account Closed. After an investigation, it was found that
an employee of the bank misplaced Tonys account ledger. Thus, the bank erroneously
assumed that his account no longer exists. Later it turned out that Tonys account has more
than sufficient funds to cover the check. The dealer however, immediately filed an action
for recovery of possession of the vehicle against Tony for which he was terribly humiliated
and embarrassed. Does Tony have a cause of action against Premium Bank? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Tony may file an action against Premium Bank for damages under Art. 2176. Even if there
exists a contractual relationship between Tony and Premium Bank, an action for quasi-delict
may nonetheless prosper. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the act that
breaks the contract may also be a tort. There is a fiduciary relationship between the bank and
the depositor, imposing utmost diligence in managing the accounts of the depositor. The
dishonor of the check adversely affected the credit standing of Tony, hence, he is entitled to
damages (Singson v. BPI, G.R. No. L-24932, June 27, 1968; American Express International
, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 72383, November 9, 1988; Consolidated Bank and Trust v.
CA, G.R.No. L-70766, November 9,1998).