BPI v. Suarez Digest

G.R. No. 167750

March 15, 2010

Carpio, J.:

Facts:

1. Reynaldo Suarez is a lawyer who used to maintain both savings and current account with petitioner in its Ermita branch. Sometime in 1997, respondent had a client who wanted to buy several parcels  of land in Tagaytay but the latter did not want to deal directly with the owners of said land. 

2. Suarez and his client entered into an agreement where the former will be the one to purchase the lands. Both likewise agreed that the client would deposit money in Suarez' BPI account and thereafter, he would issue the checks for the sellers.

3. The client deposited a check with BPI branch. Aware that a check has 3-days clearing time, Suarez' assistant called the bank which confirmed that the said amount had been credited to his account on that same day. Relying on this confirmation, Suarez issued five (5) checks in the name of the sellers. Unfortunately, all checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds. A penalty amounting P57,000 was also debited from his account. The checks were dishonored despite the assurance by RCBC, the drawee bank that the amount has been debited from the account of the drawee. 

4. On top of this, the bank noted on the checks 'DAIF' (drawn against insufficient fund) and not 'DAUD''  (drawn against uncollected deposit). The bank offered to reverse the penalty but denied Suarez claim for damages. Suarez rejected this offer hence the case filed for damages.

5. The lower court ruled in favor of Suarez and awarded actual, moral, and exemplary damages. BPI appealed but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court ruling. The CA ruled that the bank was negligent in handling the accounts of the respondent hence the latter's entitlement to damages. Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner bank is liable for its negligence in handling the respondent's account

1. No, BPI was not negligent because it was justified in dishonoring the checks for lack of sufficient funds in Suarez account. There was no sufficient evidence to prove that BPI conclusively confirmed the same-day crediting of the amount of the check to Suarez account. While BPI has the discretion to disregard the 3-day clearing policy, Suarez failed to prove his entitlement to such privilege. 

2. The award of actual damages is without basis since BPI is justified in dishonoring the checks for being drawn against uncollected deposit, hence BPI can rightfully impose the said penalty charges against Suarez' account.

3. The award of moral damages has no basis because Suarez failed to prove that his claimed injury was proximately caused by the erroneous marking of the 'DAIF' on the checks.

4. Suarez is however entitled to nominal damages due to BPI's failure to exercise the diligence required as the bank's business is deemed to be affected with public interest. The bank must at all times maintain a high level of meticulousness and should guard against injury attributableto negligence or bad faith on its part. Suarez therefore has the right to expect a high level of care and and diligence from BPI.