This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Like a bank, Quedancor as a credit and guarantee institution is expected to observe the highest degree of competence and diligence as it is a business imbued with public interest.[15] To promote trust and confidence, employees in Quedancor are expected to possess the highest standards of integrity and moral uprightness. The respondent's dismissal from the service is a measure of self-protection and self-preservation by Quedancor of its reputation before its clients and the public. | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that "the diligence required of banks is more than that of a Roman pater familias or a good father of a family. The highest degree of diligence is expected."[39] PNB miserably failed to do its duty of exercising extraordinary diligence and reasonable business prudence. The disregard of its own banking policy amounts to gross negligence, which the law defines as "negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected."[40] With regard to collection or encashment of checks, suffice it to say that the law imposes on the collecting bank the duty to scrutinize diligently the checks deposited with it for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. "The collecting bank, being primarily engaged in banking, holds itself out to the public as the expert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a high standard of conduct."[41] A bank is expected to be an expert in banking procedures and it has the necessary means to ascertain whether a check, local or foreign, is sufficiently funded. | |||||
|
2011-03-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. A party may not go back on his own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. In the law of evidence, whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it."[29] | |||||
|
2010-11-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its declaration of policy, the General Banking Law of 2000 requires of banks the highest standards of integrity and performance. Needless to say, a bank is "under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care." The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the bank and the depositors must always be of paramount concern.[13] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Estoppel may vary somewhat in definition, but all authorities agree that a party invoking the doctrine must have been misled to one's prejudice. That is the final and, in reality, most important of the elements of equitable estoppel. It is this element that is lacking here.[73] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||