Consolidated Bank v CA and L.C. Diaz and Co.

to prove that the signatures on the withdrawal

slip were forged.
| G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003 | Carpio, J. |
o that Solidbank's act of allowing the withdrawal
Bitancor, G.
of P300,000 was not the direct and proximate
FACTS: cause of the loss.
o Three facts establish L.C. Diaz's negligence:
 Macaraya (L.C. Diaz’s cashier) instructed Calapre
 (1) the possession of the passbook by a
(messenger) to deposit the money with Solidbank.
person other than the depositor L.C. Diaz;
Calapre was also given the passbook.
 (2) the presentation of a signed
 Calapre had to make another deposit for L.C. Diaz withdrawal receipt by an unauthorized
with Allied Bank, he left the passbook with person; and
Solidbank. He went back to claim it but the teller  (3) the possession by an unauthorized
informed him that somebody got the passbook. person of a PBC check "long closed" by
Calapre reported the incident to Macaraya. L.C. Diaz, which check was deposited on
 When Macaraya and Calapre went back to the day of the fraudulent withdrawal.
Solidbank, Teller No. 6 said that the person who  Court of Appeals: Solidbank’s negligence was the
got the passbook was shorter than Calapre. proximate cause of the unauthorized withdrawal
 Teller No. 6 handed to Macaraya a deposit slip o That the teller who received the withdrawal
dated 14 August 1991 for the deposit of a check for
slip should have called up the depositor
P90,000 drawn on Philippine Banking Corporation
because the money to be withdrawn was a
("PBC").
significant amount.
o The check was dishonored because of
o Solidbank could not escape liability because of
insufficient funds and because the signature in
the doctrine of “last clear chance”
the check differed from PBC's specimen
o Since Solidbank was guilty of simple
signature.
negligence only, the award of exemplary
 Luis Diaz (CEO of LC Diaz) then told Solidbank to
damages was not justified.
stop any transaction using the same passbook until
L.C. Diaz could open a new account. He formally ISSUES/RATIO:
wrote to Solidbank the next day (same request).
 W/N Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due
o There were unauthorized withdrawals from
to negligence or culpa contractual – YES
the day before. (P300K)
o There is a debtor (bank) – creditor (depositor)
o However, such withdrawal slips had the
relationship between the bank and its
signatures of the authorized signatories
depositor.
o A certain Noel Tamayo received the money
o depositor lends the bank money and the bank
 L.C. Diaz demanded from Solidbank the return of
agrees to pay the depositor on demand.
its money but the latter refused. Thus, L.C. Diaz
o The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks
filed a complaint for Recovery of a Sum of Money
to assume a degree of diligence higher than
against Solidbank.
that of a good father of a family.
 RTC absolved Solidbank.
o When the passbook is in the possession of
o Applied rules on savings account written on
Solidbank's tellers during withdrawals, the
the passbook: "possession of this book shall
law imposes on Solidbank and its tellers an
raise the presumption of ownership and any
even higher degree of diligence in
payment or payments made by the bank upon
safeguarding the passbook.
the production of the said book and entry
o Solidbank's tellers must exercise a high degree
therein of the withdrawal shall have the same
of diligence in insuring that they return the
effect as if made to the depositor personally."
passbook only to the depositor or his
o Signatures on the withdrawal slip and
authorized representative.
signature cards were verified by Manuel and
o For failing to return the passbook to Calapre,
another officer. Burden of proof is on L.C. Diaz
the authorized representative of L.C. Diaz,
 Solidbank and Teller No. 6 presumptively  Mitigated Damages
failed to observe such high degree of o Art. 1172: "liability (for culpa contractual) may
diligence in safeguarding the passbook, and be regulated by the courts, according to the
in insuring its return to the party authorized circumstances."
to receive the same. o that if the defendant exercised the proper
o The burden was on Solidbank to prove that diligence in the selection and supervision of its
there was no negligence on its part or its employee, or if the plaintiff was guilty of
employees. contributory negligence, then the courts may
 I n culpa contractual, once the plaintiff reduce the award of damages.
proves a breach of contract, there is a o L.C. Diaz was guilty of contributory negligence
presumption that the defendant was at in allowing a withdrawal slip to fall into the
fault or negligent. hands of an impostor. Liability of Solidbank
o The record does not indicate that Teller No. 6 should be reduced.
verified the identity of the person who
RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
retrieved the passbook.
Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner
o Solidbank is bound by the negligence of its
Solidbank Corporation shall pay private respondent L.C.
employees under the principle of respondeat
Diaz and Company, CPA's only 60% of the actual
superior or command responsibility.
damages awarded by the Court of Appeals.
 On Proximate Cause
o Solidbank had the contractual obligation to The remaining 40% of the actual damages shall be
return the passbook only to Calapre, the borne by private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company,
authorized representative of L.C. Diaz. CPA's. Proportionate costs.
Solidbank failed to fulfill its contractual
obligation because it gave the passbook to
another person. This then made the
unauthorized withdrawal possible.
o Failure to call up LC diaz to verify the
withdrawal (as ruled by CA) is NOT the
proximate cause.
 They are not mandated to call up their
clients.
 W/N the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance is
applicable -- NO
o “that where both parties are negligent but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later than
that of the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence caused
the loss, the one who had the last clear
opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do
so, is chargeable with the loss.”
o Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due
to negligence in the performance of its
contractual obligation to L.C. Diaz.
o This is a case of culpa contractual, where
neither the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the
loss, would exonerate the defendant from
liability.