CASE NO.

CONTRIBUTOR: TOMILAP, BHENZ BRYLE NIŇO M. 

Bank of the Philippine Islands, vs. Lifetime Marketing Corp.,

G.R. No. 176434, June 25, 2008; 

Doctrine: Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a

reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent
and reasonable man would not do.

Question:

       LMC and BPI, under a current account, made a special arrangement
wherein LMC’s agents will deposit deposit slips, and a copy shall be retained
and held by BPI’s teller until LMC’s authorized representatives shall be able to
retrieve them on the following banking day. Years later, LMC availed of BPI’s
inter-branch banking network services in Manila, which allowed LMC’s agents
to make a deposit at any BPI branch in Manila under the same account. Under
such system, BPI bank tellers were no longer obliged to retain an extra copy of
the deposit slips, and shall rely on the machine-validated deposit slips instead.
BPI would then send LMC a monthly bank statement relating to the subject
account, and such practice was observed with the parties.

       One of LMC’s agents deposited 39 checks to LMC’s account at different

BPI branches. After the check deposit slips were validated, the agent requested
the teller to reverse the transactions. The law requires, however, that all copies
of the deposit slips must be surrendered to the bank. The agent presented the
validated deposit slips to LMC and considered her account paid. When BPI
discovered the fraudulent transaction, BPI formally admitted that they
cancelled the deposit transactions made by LMC’s agent without LMC’s
permission. This prompted LMC to file a claim for damages against LMC.

       Did BPI observe the highest degree of care in handling LMC’s account? 

Suggested Answer:

       No, BPI failed to observe the highest degree of care.

       Article 2176 provides the proper remedy for damages under quasi-delict,
which must be concurred by the following elements:

1) Fault or negligence of the defendant;

2) Damages suffered by the plaintiff ; and

3) The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a

reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent
and reasonable man would not do.

       In the case herein, negligence lies in the tellers' disregard of the
validation procedures in place and BPI's utter failure to supervise its
employees. LMC’s failure to scrutinize the monthly statements sent by the
bank does not help BPI escape its liability, since the omission does not change
the fact of BPI tellers’ wanton and reckless negligence in failing to require the
surrender of the machine-validated deposit slips before reversing the deposit
transactions. If it weren’t for such act of negligence, the loss against LMC
would not have occurred. BPI's negligence is the proximate cause of the loss.
Furthermore, the degree of negligence required for BPI is more than that of a
reasonable man or a good father of a family in view of the fiduciary nature of its
transactions.

       Hence, BPI failed to observe the degree of care required for it to exercise
and should be liable for damages against LMC.