METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v.

COURT OF APPEALS
GR. No. 112576, October 26, 1994

ROMERO, J.: (Bank’s Negligence as Source of Liability) Isabel Katigbak, president and owner
of 65% shares of Rural Bank of Padre Garcia, Inc., maintains a current accounts with
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company. MBTC received from Central Bank a credit memo that
its demand deposit account was credited with P304k for the account of RBPG, representing
loans granted by the CB. On the basis of credit memo, Katigbak issued several checks against
its account with MBTC, two of which were payable to Dr. and Mrs. Roque. The checks were
deposited with Philippine Banking Corp. however the same bounced when they were
forwarded to MBTC. It was twice dishonored. Dr. Roque went to RBPG for the bounced
checks. RBPG paid Dr. Roque an amount of P50k representing the checks. Katigbak, who was
on vacation in Hongkong with her family, received overseas call from Mrs. Maris Katigbak-San
Juan at her residence in Makati that Mr. Dungo, Asst. Cashier of MBTC, berating her about the
bounced checks and saying “Nag-issue kayo ng tseke, wala naming pondo”. Mrs. San Juan was
instructed by Katigbak to check and verify regarding the credit memo of CB for P304K in favor
of RBPG as she was certain that the checks were covered by the credit memo. Mrs. San Juan
another insulting phone call from Mr. Dungo (“Bakit kayo nag-iisue ng tseke na wala namang
pondo, P300K na”). He also brushed aside the request to check and verify the credit memo,
telling her sarcastically that he was very sure that no such credit memo existed. Katigbak had
to cut short her vacation and went back home. She then called MBTC and she was able to talk
to Mr. Dungo who arrogantly said “Bakit kayo magagalit, wala naman kayog pondo?” This
shocked Katigbak which caused her blood pressure to rise to a dangerous level and she had to
undergo medical treatment at the Makati Medical Center for two days. MBTC did not only
dishonored the check, it also issued four debit memos representing service and penalty
charges for the returned checks. Katigbak filed the civil case in RTC Lipa against MBTC for
damages. RTC rendered decision in favor of petitioner. The same was affirmed by CA with
deletion as to temperate damages, and deduction as to amount of moral damages.

ISSUE: Is there a basis as to negligent act of MBTC as the ground for the awarding of damages
in the civil suit of Katigbak?

HELD: YES. The presence of malice and the evidence of besmirched reputation or loss of
credit and business standing, as well as a reappraisal of its probative value, involves factual
matters which have been determined by the lower court. There is no merit in petitioner’s
argument that it should not be considered negligent, much less be held liable for damages on
account of inadvertence of its bank employee as Art. 1173 of the Civil Code only requires it to
exercise the diligence of a good pater familias. The dishonoring of the respondent’s checks
committed through negligence by the petitioner was rectified nine days after receipt of the
credit memo. MBTC was remiss in its duty and obligation to treat private respondent account
with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The
bank is under the obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care.
Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is
demandable. While the bank’s negligence may not have been attended with malice and bad
faith, nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation to private
respondents for which they are entitled to recover reasonable moral damages. Insult was
added to injury by petitioner bank’s issuance of debit memoranda representing service and
penalty charges for the returned checks, not to mention the insulting remarks from its Asst.
Cashier. Moral and temperate damages which are not susceptible of pecuniary estimation are
not awarded to penalize the petitioner but to compensate the respondents from injuries
suffered as a result of the former’s fault and negligence. AFFIRMED.