This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As such, Tria is duty-bound to verify from the bank's client any supposed authority given for the issuance of a manager's check. He was, therefore, duty-bound to confirm with MWSS whether the letter-authorization for the deduction of P5.2 million from the MWSS C/A is genuine, legal and binding. Tria is required to exercise the highest degree of care since the degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family where the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors is concerned.[44] This degree of diligence was wanting in Tria's failure to determine the veracity of said letter-authority considering that the amount to be deducted is large, with the withdrawal of almost the entire amount of the deposit leaving only less than PhP 200, more so when the account has been dormant since April 16, 2003. | |||||
|
2008-06-25 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| We have repeatedly emphasized that the banking industry is impressed with public interest. Of paramount importance thereto is the trust and confidence of the public in general. Accordingly, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are required of it. 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 its relationship with them.[8] The fiduciary nature of banking, previously imposed by case law, is now enshrined in Republic Act No. 8791 or the General Banking Law of 2000. Section 2 thereof specifically says that the state recognizes the fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance.[9] | |||||
|
2007-01-25 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The right of set-off was explained in Associated Bank v. Tan:[24] | |||||
|
2006-09-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State recognizes the vital role of banks in providing an environment conducive to the sustained development of the national economy and the fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance. In furtherance thereof, the State shall promote and maintain a stable and efficient banking and financial system that is globally competitive, dynamic and responsive to the demands of a developing economy. In Associated Bank v. Tan,[29] it was reiterated:"x x x the degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family where the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors is concerned." Indeed, the banking business is vested with the trust and confidence of the public; hence the "appropriate standard of diligence must be very high, if not the highest degree of diligence." Measured against these standards, the next question that needs to be addressed is: Did PCI Bank exercise the requisite degree of diligence required of it? From all indications, it did not. PCI Bank distinctly made the following uncontested admission: | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it would simply be temerarious for the Court to sanction the reinstatement of bank employees who have clearly engaged in anomalous banking practices. The particular fiduciary responsibilities reposed on banks and its employees cannot be emphasized enough. The fiduciary nature of banking[22] is enshrined in Republic Act No. 8791 or the General Banking Law of 2000. Section 2 of the law specifically says that the State recognizes the "fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance."[23] The bank must not only exercise "high standards of integrity and performance," it must also ensure that its employees do likewise because this is the only way to ensure that the bank will comply with its fiduciary duty.[24] | |||||