This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| "fn">[38] The high standards were also necessary to ensure public confidence in the banking system, for, according to Philippine National Bank v. Pike:[39] "The stability of banks largely depends on the confidence of the people in the honesty and efficiency of banks." Thus, DBP had to act with great care in applying the stipulations of its agreement with Guariña Corporation, lest it erodes such public confidence. Yet, DBP failed in its duty to exercise the highest degree of diligence by prematurely foreclosing the mortgages and unwarrantedly causing the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged properties despite Guariña Corporation not being yet in default. DBP wrongly relied on Stipulation No. 26 as its basis to accelerate the obligation of Guariña Corporation, for the stipulation was relevant to an Omnibus Agricultural Loan, to Guariña Corporation's loan which was intended for a project other than agricultural in nature. Even so, Guariña Corporation did not elevate the actionability of DBP's negligence to the CA, and did not also appeal the CA's deletion of the award of attorney's fees allowed by the RTC. With the decision of the CA consequently becoming final and immutable as to Guariña | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Based on the provisions, a banking institution like Comsavings Bank is obliged to exercise the highest degree of diligence as well as high standards of integrity and performance in all its transactions because its business is imbued with public interest.[20] As aptly declared in Philippine National Bank v. Pike:[21] "The stability of banks largely depends on the confidence of the people in the honesty and efficiency of banks." | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| With banks, the degree of diligence required is more than that of a good father of the family considering that the business of banking is imbued with public interest due to the nature of their function. The law imposes on banks a high degree of obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of banking.[44] Had Gonzales been properly notified of the delinquencies of the PhP 1,800,000 loan and the process of terminating his credit line under the COHLA, he could have acted accordingly and the dishonor of the check would have been avoided. | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is apt to stress the well-settled principle that factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[21] In the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the evidence on record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand.[22] The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.[23] It is not the function of the Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual determination.[24] The law creating the CA was intended mainly to take away from the Supreme Court the work of examining the evidence, so that it may confine its task to the determination of questions which do not call for the reading and study of transcripts containing the testimony of witnesses.[25] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219[80] and 2220[81]. [82] In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages are recoverable only if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations.[83] The breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, and oppressive or abusive.[84] | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Moral damages are recoverable only if the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious, or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive.[81] From the records of the case, the Court finds no ultimate facts to support a conclusion of bad faith on the part of PMI. | |||||
|
2006-02-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the same vein, petitioner would have us delve into the factual issues of the case. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court and they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court, and in the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the evidence on record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand.[19] This Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. Petitioner has not given us ample reasons to depart from this general rule.[20] | |||||
|
2005-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case of Philippine National Bank v. Pike,[14] we discussed the degree of diligence imposed on banks as follows:With banks, the degree of diligence required, contrary to the position of petitioner PNB, is more than that of a good father of a family considering that the business of banking is imbued with public interest due to the nature of their functions. The stability of banks largely depends on the confidence of the people in the honesty and efficiency of banks. Thus, the law imposes on banks a high degree of obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of banking. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8791, which took effect on 13 June 2000, makes a categorical declaration that the State recognizes the "fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance." | |||||