Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 172778 2012-11-26	SABINIANO DUMAYAG v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Considering that the proximate cause was the negligence of the tricycle driver and that negligence on the part of petitioner was only contributory, there is a need to mitigate the amounts of the civil liability imposed on the latter. The determination of the mitigation of the civil liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case. [31] The Court allowed the reduction of 50% in Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.,[32] 20% in Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. IAC[33] and LBC Air Cargo, Inc. v. CA,[34] and 40% in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. CA[35] and Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA.[36]
	GR No. 170325 2008-09-26	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ERLANDO T. RODRIGUEZ REYES, R.T., J.
Moreover, PNB was negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees. The trustworthiness of bank employees is indispensable to maintain the stability of the banking industry. Thus, banks are enjoined to be extra vigilant in the management and supervision of their employees. In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals,[25] this Court cautioned thus:Banks handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos. By the very nature of their work the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and officials is far greater than those of ordinary clerks and employees. For obvious reasons, the banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.[26]
	GR NO. 160709 2005-02-23	NELEN LAMBERT v. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence.[15] The determination of the mitigation of the defendant's liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case. The Court had sustained a mitigation of 50% in Rakes v. AG & P;[16] 20% in Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court[17] and LBC Air Cargo, Inc. v. Court of Appeals;[18] and 40% in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals[19] and Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals.[20]