Lawyerly

GR No. 150228

2009-07-30

BANK OF AMERICA NT v. PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Following established jurisprudential precedents,[27] we believe the allocation of sixty percent (60%) of the actual damages involved in this case (represented by the amount of the checks with legal interest) to petitioner is proper under the premises. Respondent should, in light of its contributory negligence, bear forty percent (40%) of its own loss.

GR No. 177526

2008-07-04

PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. CHOWKING FOOD CORPORATION

REYES, R.T., J.

checks with the lone endorsement of Manzano. In the similar case of Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals,[38] an employee of Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC) was able to illegally deposit in a different account the checks of the corporation. This Court found that it was the bank teller's failure to exercise extraordinary diligence to validate the deposit slips that caused the crime to be perpetrated.

GR No. 176434

2008-06-25

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LIFETIME MARKETING CORPORATION

TINGA, J,

LMC sought recovery from BPI on a cause of action based on tort. Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides, "Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter." There are three elements of quasi-delict: (a) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; (b) damages suffered by the plaintiff; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.[10]

GR No. 176434

2008-06-25

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LIFETIME MARKETING CORPORATION

TINGA, J,

Negligence is 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.[11] Negligence in this case lies in the tellers' disregard of the validation procedures in place and BPI's utter failure to supervise its employees. Notably, BPI's managers admitted in several correspondences with LMC that the deposit transactions were cancelled without LMC's knowledge and consent and based only upon the request of Alice Laurel and her husband.[12]

GR No. 161803

2008-02-04

DY TEBAN TRADING v. JOSE CHING

REYES, R.T., J.

Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict. To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (a) damage suffered by plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of defendant; and (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of defendant and the damage incurred by plaintiff.[16]

GR NO. 159270

2005-08-22

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Negligence is 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 do.[32] It also refers to the conduct which creates undue risk of harm to another, the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstance justly demand, whereby that other person suffers injury.[33] The Court declared the test by which to determine the existence of negligence in Picart v. Smith,[34] viz:The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.

GR No. 138569

2003-09-11

CONSOLIDATED BANK v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.[26] Proximate cause is determined by the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent.[27]

GR No. 132560

2002-01-30

WESTMONT BANK v. EUGENE ONG

QUISUMBING, J.

Moreover, the claim of petitioner that respondent should be barred by laches is clearly a vain attempt to deflect responsibility for its negligent act. As explained by the appellate court, it is petitioner which had the last clear chance to stop the fraudulent encashment of the subject checks had it exercised due diligence and followed the proper and regular banking procedures in clearing checks.[31] As we had earlier ruled, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.[32]

GR No. 112392

2000-02-29

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Said ruling brings to light the fact that the banking business is affected with public interest. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors "with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship."[27] As such, in dealing with its depositors, a bank should exercise its functions not only with the diligence of a good father of a family but it should do so with the highest degree of care.[28]

GR No. 112160

2000-02-28

OSMUNDO S. CANLAS v. CA

PURISIMA, J.

Under the doctrine of last clear chance, which is applicable here, the respondent bank must suffer the resulting loss. In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.[17]

	GR No. 150228 2009-07-30	BANK OF AMERICA NT v. PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Following established jurisprudential precedents,[27] we believe the allocation of sixty percent (60%) of the actual damages involved in this case (represented by the amount of the checks with legal interest) to petitioner is proper under the premises. Respondent should, in light of its contributory negligence, bear forty percent (40%) of its own loss.
	GR No. 177526 2008-07-04	PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. CHOWKING FOOD CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
checks with the lone endorsement of Manzano. In the similar case of Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals,[38] an employee of Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC) was able to illegally deposit in a different account the checks of the corporation. This Court found that it was the bank teller's failure to exercise extraordinary diligence to validate the deposit slips that caused the crime to be perpetrated.
	GR No. 176434 2008-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LIFETIME MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J,
LMC sought recovery from BPI on a cause of action based on tort. Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides, "Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter." There are three elements of quasi-delict: (a) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; (b) damages suffered by the plaintiff; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.[10]
	GR No. 176434 2008-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LIFETIME MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J,
Negligence is 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.[11] Negligence in this case lies in the tellers' disregard of the validation procedures in place and BPI's utter failure to supervise its employees. Notably, BPI's managers admitted in several correspondences with LMC that the deposit transactions were cancelled without LMC's knowledge and consent and based only upon the request of Alice Laurel and her husband.[12]
	GR No. 161803 2008-02-04	DY TEBAN TRADING v. JOSE CHING REYES, R.T., J.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict. To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (a) damage suffered by plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of defendant; and (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of defendant and the damage incurred by plaintiff.[16]
	GR NO. 159270 2005-08-22	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Negligence is 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 do.[32] It also refers to the conduct which creates undue risk of harm to another, the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstance justly demand, whereby that other person suffers injury.[33] The Court declared the test by which to determine the existence of negligence in Picart v. Smith,[34] viz:The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.
	GR No. 138569 2003-09-11	CONSOLIDATED BANK v. CA CARPIO, J.
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.[26] Proximate cause is determined by the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent.[27]
	GR No. 132560 2002-01-30	WESTMONT BANK v. EUGENE ONG QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, the claim of petitioner that respondent should be barred by laches is clearly a vain attempt to deflect responsibility for its negligent act. As explained by the appellate court, it is petitioner which had the last clear chance to stop the fraudulent encashment of the subject checks had it exercised due diligence and followed the proper and regular banking procedures in clearing checks.[31] As we had earlier ruled, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.[32]
	GR No. 112392 2000-02-29	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Said ruling brings to light the fact that the banking business is affected with public interest. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors "with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship."[27] As such, in dealing with its depositors, a bank should exercise its functions not only with the diligence of a good father of a family but it should do so with the highest degree of care.[28]
	GR No. 112160 2000-02-28	OSMUNDO S. CANLAS v. CA PURISIMA, J.
Under the doctrine of last clear chance, which is applicable here, the respondent bank must suffer the resulting loss. In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.[17]

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. CA