Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3.citytrust v. Cruz, GR 157049
3.citytrust v. Cruz, GR 157049
3.citytrust v. Cruz, GR 157049
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 157049 August 11, 2010
CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION !o" B#!$ o% t&' P&()(**(!' Is)#!+s,, Petitioner,
vs.
CAR-OS ROMU-O N. CRU., Respondent.
R S O ! " T I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
"nder revie# is the decision pro$ul%ated on October &, '((' in ).*.+ ,.R. )V No. -&.'&,
/
#hereb0
the )ourt of *ppeals 1)*2 affir$ed the decision dated 3anuar0 /4, /..5 of the Re%ional Trial )ourt
1RT)2, 6ranch ./, in 7ue8on )it0,
'
findin% the petitioner liable to pa0 to the respondent $oral
da$a%es of P/((,(((.((, e9e$plar0 da$a%es of P'(,(((.((, and attorne0:s fees of P'(,(((.((.
In the ti$e $aterial to the case, the respondent, an architect and business$an, $aintained savin%s and
chec;in% accounts at the petitioner:s !o0ola Hei%hts 6ranch. The savin%s account #as considered
closed due to the oversi%ht co$$itted b0 one of the latter:s tellers. The closure resulted in the e9tre$e
e$barrass$ent of the respondent, for chec;s that he had issued could not be honored althou%h his
savin%s account #as sufficientl0 funded and the accounts #ere $aintained under the petitioner:s
chec;+o+$atic arran%e$ent 1#hereb0 the current account #as $aintained at 8ero balance and the funds
fro$ the savin%s account #ere auto$aticall0 transferred to the current account to cover chec;s issued
b0 the depositor li;e the respondent2.
"n$oved b0 the petitioner:s apolo%ies and the ad<ust$ent $ade on his accounts b0 its e$plo0ees, the
respondent sued in the RT) to clai$ da$a%es fro$ the petitioner.
*fter trial, the RT) ruled in the respondent:s favor, and ordered the petitioner to pa0 hi$ P/((,(((.((
as $oral da$a%es, P'(,(((.(( as e9e$plar0 da$a%e, and P'(,((((.(( as attorne0:s fees. The RT)
found that the petitioner had failed to properl0 supervise its teller= and that the petitioner:s ne%li%ence
had $ade the respondent suffer serious an9iet0, e$barrass$ent and hu$iliation, entitlin% hi$ to
da$a%es.
4
The petitioner appealed to the )ourt of *ppeals 1)*2, ar%uin% that the RT) erred in orderin% it to pa0
$oral and e9e$plar0 da$a%es.
Ho#ever, the )* affir$ed the RT), e9plainin% that the erroneous closure of the respondent:s account
#ould not have been co$$itted in the first place if the petitioner had not been careless in supervisin%
its e$plo0ees. *ccordin% to the )*, >the fiduciar0 relationship and the e9tent of dili%ence that is to be
e9pected fro$ a ban;in% institution, li;e herein appellant )it0trust, in handlin% the accounts of its
depositors cannot be rela9ed behind the shado# of an e$plo0ee #hether or not he?she is ne# on the
<ob.>
-
Moreover, the )* said that the ne%li%ence of the petitioner:s personnel #as the pro9i$ate cause
that had set in $otion the events leadin% to the da$a%e caused to the respondent= hence, the RT)
correctl0 opined that >#hile a ban; is not e9pected to be infallible, it $ust bear the bla$e for not
discoverin% the $ista;e of its teller for lac; of proper supervision.>
5
The petitioner sou%ht reconsideration, but the )* denied its $otion for reconsideration for lac; of
$erit.
Hence, this appeal, in #hich the petitioner $aintains that there #ere >decisive fact situations sho#in%
e9cusable ne%li%ence and %ood faith>
@
that did not <ustif0 the a#ard of $oral and e9e$plar0 da$a%es
and attorne0:s fees.
The petition has no $erit.
Airstl0, the errors sou%ht to be revie#ed focused on the correctness of the factual findin%s of the )*.
Such revie# #ill reBuire the )ourt to a%ain assess the facts. Cet, the )ourt is not a trier of facts. Thus,
the appeal is not proper, for onl0 Buestions of la# can be elevated to the )ourt via petition for revie#
on certiorari.
D
Secondl0, nothin% fro$ the petitioner:s ar%u$ents persuasivel0 sho#ed that the RT) and the )* erred.
The findin%s of both lo#er courts #ere full0 supported b0 the evidence adduced.
"nBuestionabl0, the petitioner, bein% a ban;in% institution, had the direct obli%ation to supervise ver0
closel0 the e$plo0ees handlin% its depositors: accounts, and should al#a0s be $indful of the fiduciar0
nature of its relationship #ith the depositors. Such relationship reBuired it and its e$plo0ees to record
accuratel0 ever0 sin%le transaction, and as pro$ptl0 as possible, considerin% that the depositors:
accounts should al#a0s reflect the a$ounts of $one0 the depositors could dispose of as the0 sa# fit,
confident that, as a ban;, it #ould deliver the a$ounts to #ho$ever the0 directed.
&
If it fell short of
that obli%ation, it should bear the responsibilit0 for the conseBuences to the depositors, #ho, li;e the
respondent, suffered particular e$barrass$ent and disturbed peace of $ind fro$ the ne%li%ence in the
handlin% of the accounts.
Thirdl0, in several decisions of the )ourt,
.
the ban;s, defendants therein, #ere $ade liable for
ne%li%ence, even #ithout sufficient proof of $alice or bad faith on their part, and the )ourt a#arded
$oral da$a%es of P/((,(((.(( each ti$e to the suin% depositors in proper consideration of their
reputation and their social standin%. The respondent should be si$ilarl0 a#arded for the da$a%e to his
reputation as an architect and business$an.1avvphi1
!astl0, the )* properl0 affir$ed the RT):s a#ard of e9e$plar0 da$a%es and attorne0:s fees. It is
never overe$phasi8ed that the public al#a0s relies on a ban;:s profession of dili%ence and
$eticulousness in renderin% irreproachable service.
/(
Its failure to e9ercise dili%ence and
$eticulousness #arranted its liabilit0 for e9e$plar0 da$a%es and for reasonable attorne0:s fees.
EHRAOR, #e den0 the petition for revie# on certiorari, and affir$ the decision rendered on
October &, '((' b0 the )ourt of *ppeals.
)osts of suit to be paid b0 the petitioner.
SO ORDRD.
-UCAS P. BERSAMIN
*ssociate 3ustice
E )ON)"RF
CONC/ITA CARPIO MORA-ES
*ssociate 3ustice
)hairperson
ARTURO 0. BRION
*ssociate 3ustice
ROBERTO A. ABA0
G
*ssociate 3ustice
MARTIN S. 1I--ARAMA, 2R.
*ssociate 3ustice
* T T S T * T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case
#as assi%ned to the #riter of the opinion of the )ourt:s Division.
CONC/ITA CARPIO MORA-ES
*ssociate 3ustice
)hairperson
) R T I A I ) * T I O N
Pursuant to Section /4, *rticle VIII of the )onstitution, and the Division )hairperson:s *ttestation, I
certif0 that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case
#as assi%ned to the #riter of the opinion of the )ourt:s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
)hief 3ustice
3oot!ot's
G
*dditional $e$ber per Special Order No. &-4 dated Ma0 /D, '(/(.
/
Rollo, pp. 4.+-.= penned b0 *ssociate 3ustice Danilo 6. Pine 1retired2, #ith *ssociate 3ustice
Ruben T. Re0es 1later a Me$ber of the )ourt, since retired2 and *ssociate 3ustice *ndres 6.
Re0es, 3r. 1no# Presidin% 3ustice of the )ourt of *ppeals2 concurrin%.
'
Id., pp. 5@+@-= penned b0 then Presidin% 3ud%e Marina !. 6u8on 1later an *ssociate 3ustice of
the )ourt of *ppeals2.
4
Id.
-
Supra, at note /, p. -@.
5
Id.
@
Id., p. 4(.
D
Section /, Rule -5, Rules of )ourt, specificall0 states that the petition for revie# on certiorari
>shall raise onl0 Buestions of la#, #hich $ust be distinctl0 set forth.>
&
Citytrust Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, ,.R. No. &-'&/, 'D Ma0 /..-, '4'
S)R* 55., 5@-.
.
Prudential 6an; v. )ourt of *ppeals, ,.R. No. /'554@, March /@, '(((, 4'& S)R* '@-=
Philippine National 6an; v. )ourt of *ppeals, ,.R. No. /'@/5', Septe$ber '&, /..., 4/5
S)R* 4(.= Metropolitan 6an; and Trust )o$pan0 v. Eon%, ,.R. No. /'(&5., 3une '@, '((/,
45. S)R* @(&.
/(
Prudential 6an; v. )ourt of *ppeals, supra, at p. 'D/.