100% found this document useful (3 votes)
1K views

Pbcom vs. Ca

Romeo Lipana's secretary Irene Yabut deposited company funds totaling P304,979.74 into her husband's bank account at the Philippine Bank of Commerce instead of Lipana's company account. The bank teller validated the deposit slips despite deficiencies, neglecting proper procedure. This negligence by the teller and lack of oversight by the bank allowed the fraud to occur. While the company was also negligent for not checking its bank statements, the bank had the last opportunity to prevent the loss and its negligence was the proximate cause. Damages will be mitigated at a 60-40 ratio due to contributory negligence.

Uploaded by

makicaniban
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (3 votes)
1K views

Pbcom vs. Ca

Romeo Lipana's secretary Irene Yabut deposited company funds totaling P304,979.74 into her husband's bank account at the Philippine Bank of Commerce instead of Lipana's company account. The bank teller validated the deposit slips despite deficiencies, neglecting proper procedure. This negligence by the teller and lack of oversight by the bank allowed the fraud to occur. While the company was also negligent for not checking its bank statements, the bank had the last opportunity to prevent the loss and its negligence was the proximate cause. Damages will be mitigated at a 60-40 ratio due to contributory negligence.

Uploaded by

makicaniban
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No.

97626 March 14, 1997 FACTS: Romeo Lipana claims to have entrusted RMC (his corporation) funds in the form of cash totalling P304,979.74 to his secretary Irene Yabut, for the purpose of depositing said funds in the current accounts of RMC with PBC. It turned out, however, that these deposits, on all occasions, were not credited to RMC's account but were instead deposited to Account No. 53-01734-7 of Yabut's husband, Bienvenido Cotas who likewise maintains an account with the same bank. During this period, petitioner bank had, however, been regularly furnishing private respondent with monthly statements showing its current accounts balances. Unfortunately, it had never been the practice of Romeo Lipana to check these monthly statements of account reposing complete trust and confidence on petitioner bank. Yabut would accomplish two copies of the deposit slip, an original and a duplicate. The original showed the name of her husband as depositor and his current account number. On the duplicate copy was written the account number of her husband but the name of the account holder was left blank. PBC's teller, Azucena Mabayad, would, however, validate and stamp both the original and the duplicate of these deposit slips retaining only the original copy despite the lack of information on the duplicate slip. The second copy was kept by Irene Yabut allegedly for record purposes. After validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the space left blank in the duplicate copy and change the account number written thereon, which is that of her husband's, and make it appear to be RMC's account number, i.e., C.A. No. 53-01980-3. With the daily remittance records also prepared by Ms. Yabut and submitted to private respondent RMC together with the validated duplicate slips with the latter's name and account number, she made her company believe that all the while the amounts she deposited were being credited to its account when, in truth and in fact, they were being deposited by her and credited by the petitioner bank in the account of Cotas. This went on in a span of more than one (1) year without private respondent's knowledge. Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC demanded from petitioner bank the return of its money. ISSUE: WON the proximate cause of the loss, to the tune of P304,979.74, suffered by the private respondent RMC is petitioner bank's negligence or that of private respondent's? HELD: It was this negligence of Ms. Azucena Mabayad, coupled by the negligence of the petitioner bank in the selection and supervision of its bank teller, which was the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the private respondent, and not the latter's act of entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, as insisted by the petitioners. But since RMC is also negligent, damages are mitigated. Teller Magbayads negligence the proximate cause of the loss Mabayad, was negligent in validating, officially stamping and signing all the deposit slips prepared and presented by Ms. Yabut, despite the glaring fact that the duplicate copy was not completely accomplished contrary to the self-imposed procedure of the bank with respect to the proper validation of deposit slips, original or duplicate, as testified to by Ms. Mabayad herself. The fact that the duplicate slip was not compulsorily required by the bank in accepting deposits should not relieve the petitioner bank of responsibility. The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy lacked one vital information that of the name of the account holder should have already put Ms. Mabayad on guard. Rather than readily validating the incomplete duplicate copy, she should have proceeded more cautiously by being more probing as to the true reason why the name of the account holder in the duplicate slip was left blank while that in the original was filled up. Even if Yabut had the fraudulent intention to misappropriate the funds entrusted to her by plaintiff, she would not have been able to deposit those funds in her husband's current account, and then make plaintiff believe that it was in the latter's accounts wherein she had deposited them, had it not been for bank teller Mabayad's aforesaid gross and reckless negligence. The latter's negligence was thus the proximate, immediate and efficient cause that brought about the loss claimed by plaintiff in this case, and the failure of plaintiff to discover the same soon enough by failing to scrutinize the monthly statements of

account being sent to it by appellant bank could not have prevented the fraud and misappropriation which Irene Yabut had already completed when she deposited plaintiff's money to the account of her husband instead of to the latter's accounts. Bank is also negligent Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but also on the part of the bank itself in its lackadaisical selection and supervision of Ms. Mabayad. This was exemplified in the testimony of Mr. Romeo Bonifacio, then Manager of the Pasig Branch of the petitioner bank and now its Vice-President, to the effect that, while he ordered the investigation of the incident, he never came to know that blank deposit slips were validated in total disregard of the bank's validation procedures. Under doctrine of last clear chance, bank is liable Assuming that private respondent RMC was negligent in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, thus providing the latter with the opportunity to defraud the company, as advanced by the petitioner, yet it cannot be denied that the petitioner bank, thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation procedure. RMC also negligent; damages mitigated to 60-40 ratio The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private respondent under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code.

You might also like