Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONSOLIDATED BANK v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 208293 2014-12-10	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CARMELITA S. SANTOS LEONEN, J.
The contractual relationship between banks and their depositors is governed by the Civil Code provisions on simple loan.[73] Once a person makes a deposit of his or her money to the bank, he or she is considered to have lent the bank that money.[74] The bank becomes his or her debtor, and he or she becomes the creditor of the bank, which is obligated to pay him or her on demand.[75]
	GR No. 179096 2013-02-06	JOSEPH GOYANKO v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK BRION, J.
Contrary to the petitioner's position, UCPB did not become a trustee by the mere opening of the ACCOUNT. While this may seem to be the case, by reason of the fiduciary nature of the bank's relationship with its depositors,[37] this fiduciary relationship does not "convert the contract between the bank and its depositors from a simple loan to a trust agreement, whether express or implied."[38] It simply means that the bank is obliged to observe "high standards of integrity and performance" in complying with its obligations under the contract of simple loan.[39] Per Article 1980 of the Civil Code,[40] a creditor-debtor relationship exists between the bank and its depositor.[41] The savings deposit agreement is between the bank and the depositor;[42] by receiving the deposit, the bank impliedly agrees to pay upon demand and only upon the depositor's order.[43]
	GR No. 141835 2009-02-04	CENTRAL BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Given that petitioner is the government body mandated to supervise and regulate banking and other financial institutions, this Court's ruling in Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals[5] illumines:The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan. Article 1980 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "x x x savings x x x deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan." There is a debtor-creditor relationship between the bank and its depositor. The bank is the debtor and the depositor is the creditor. The depositor lends the bank money and the bank agrees to pay the depositor on demand. The savings deposit agreement between the bank and the depositor is the contract that determines the rights and obligations of the parties.
	GR NO. 169891 2006-11-02	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. ETHEL BRUNTY CALLEJO, SR., J.
As to whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable, we rule in the negative. The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss. Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.[63] The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of petitioner, we hold that the above doctrine finds no application in the instant case.
	GR No. 136371 2005-11-11	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. CHONNEY LIM TINGA, J.
From another perspective, the negligence of the bank constitutes a breach of duty to its client. It is worthy of note that the banking industry is impressed with public interest. As such, it must observe a high degree of diligence and observe lofty standards of integrity and performance. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care and always to have in mind the fiduciary nature of its relationship with them.[18]
	GR NO. 153784 2005-10-25	ROMEO C. CADIZ v. CA 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]
	GR No. 127469 2004-01-15	PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
Although RA No. 8791 took effect only in the year 2000,[34] at the time that the BANK transacted with Marcos, jurisprudence had already imposed on banks the same high standard of diligence required under RA No. 8791.[35] This fiduciary relationship means that the bank's obligation to observe "high standards of integrity and performance" is deemed written into every deposit agreement between a bank and its depositor.