GO v IAC [G.R. No. 68138. May 13, 1991.] AGUSTIN Y. GO and THE CONSOLIDATED BAND AND TRUST CORPORATION
(Solidbank), petitioners, vs. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FLOVERTO JAZMIN, respondents.
FACTS:
Floverto Jazmin is an American citizen and retired employee of the United States Federal Government. He had been a visitor in the Philippines since 1972 residing at 34 Maravilla Street, Mangatarem, Pangasinan. As a pensionado of the U.S. government, he received annuity checks in the amounts of $67.00 for disability and $620.00 for retirement through the Mangatarem post office. He used to encash the checks at the Prudential Bank branch at Clark Air Base, Pampanga.
Meanwhile, on April 22, 1975, Agustin Go, in his capacity as branch manager of the then Solidbank (which later became the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation) in Baguio City, allowed a person named "Floverto Jazmin" to open Savings Account No. BG 5206 by depositing two (2) U.S. treasury checks Nos. 5-449-076 and 5-448-890 in the respective amounts of $1810.00 and $913.40
The depositor's signature specimens were also taken.
Thereafter, the deposited checks were sent to the drawee bank for clearance. Inasmuch as Solidbank did not receive any word from the drawee bank, after three (3) weeks, it allowed the depositor to withdraw the amount indicated in the checks.
On June 29, 1976 or more than a year later, the two dollar checks were returned to Solidbank with the notation that the amounts were altered. 3 Consequently, Go reported the matter to the Philippine Constabulary in Baguio City. Eventually, the investigators found that the person named "Floverto Jazmin" who made the deposit and withdrawal with Solidbank was an impostor.
On September 24, 1976, Jazmin filed with the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch II at Lingayen a complaint against Agustin Y. Go and the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation for moral and exemplary damages in the total amount of P90,000 plus attorney's fees of P5,000.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Lower court: found that Go was negligent in failing to exercise "more care, caution and vigilance" in accepting the checks for deposit and encashment.
(2) Court of Appeals: failure to notice the substantial difference in the identity of the depositor and the payee in the check, concluded that Go's negligence in the performance of his duties was "the proximate cause why appellant bank was swindled" and that denouncing the crime to the constabulary authorities "merely aggravated the situation.
ISSUE:
Whether Go is liable
RULING:
Yes.
The facts of this case reveal that damages in the form of mental anguish, moral shock and social humiliation were suffered by private respondent only after the filing of the petitioners' complaint with the Philippine Constabulary. It was only then that he had to bear the inconvenience of travelling to Benguet and Lingayen for the investigations as it was only then that he was subjected to embarrassment for being a suspect in the unauthorized alteration of the treasury checks. Hence, it is understandable why petitioners appear to have overlooked the facts antecedent to the filing of the complaint to the constabulary authorities and to have put undue emphasis on the appellate court's statement that "denouncing a crime is not negligence." Although this Court has consistently held that there should be no penalty on the right to litigate and that error alone in the filing of a case be it before the courts or the proper police authorities, is not a ground for moral damages, we hold that under the peculiar circumstances of this case, private respondent is entitled to an award of damages.
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. As Go's negligence was the root cause of the complained inconvenience, humiliation and embarrassment, Go is liable to private respondents for damages.
Anent petitioner bank's claim that it is not "co-equally liable" with Go for damages, under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, "(E)mployers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees . . . acting within the scope of their assigned tasks." Pursuant to this provision, the bank is responsible for the acts of its employee unless there is proof that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Hence, the burden of proof lies upon the bank and it cannot now disclaim liability in view of its own failure to prove not only that it exercised due diligence to prevent damage but that it was not negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees.
FACTS:
Floverto Jazmin is an American citizen and retired employee of the United States Federal Government. He had been a visitor in the Philippines since 1972 residing at 34 Maravilla Street, Mangatarem, Pangasinan. As a pensionado of the U.S. government, he received annuity checks in the amounts of $67.00 for disability and $620.00 for retirement through the Mangatarem post office. He used to encash the checks at the Prudential Bank branch at Clark Air Base, Pampanga.
Meanwhile, on April 22, 1975, Agustin Go, in his capacity as branch manager of the then Solidbank (which later became the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation) in Baguio City, allowed a person named "Floverto Jazmin" to open Savings Account No. BG 5206 by depositing two (2) U.S. treasury checks Nos. 5-449-076 and 5-448-890 in the respective amounts of $1810.00 and $913.40
The depositor's signature specimens were also taken.
Thereafter, the deposited checks were sent to the drawee bank for clearance. Inasmuch as Solidbank did not receive any word from the drawee bank, after three (3) weeks, it allowed the depositor to withdraw the amount indicated in the checks.
On June 29, 1976 or more than a year later, the two dollar checks were returned to Solidbank with the notation that the amounts were altered. 3 Consequently, Go reported the matter to the Philippine Constabulary in Baguio City. Eventually, the investigators found that the person named "Floverto Jazmin" who made the deposit and withdrawal with Solidbank was an impostor.
On September 24, 1976, Jazmin filed with the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch II at Lingayen a complaint against Agustin Y. Go and the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation for moral and exemplary damages in the total amount of P90,000 plus attorney's fees of P5,000.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Lower court: found that Go was negligent in failing to exercise "more care, caution and vigilance" in accepting the checks for deposit and encashment.
(2) Court of Appeals: failure to notice the substantial difference in the identity of the depositor and the payee in the check, concluded that Go's negligence in the performance of his duties was "the proximate cause why appellant bank was swindled" and that denouncing the crime to the constabulary authorities "merely aggravated the situation.
ISSUE:
Whether Go is liable
RULING:
Yes.
The facts of this case reveal that damages in the form of mental anguish, moral shock and social humiliation were suffered by private respondent only after the filing of the petitioners' complaint with the Philippine Constabulary. It was only then that he had to bear the inconvenience of travelling to Benguet and Lingayen for the investigations as it was only then that he was subjected to embarrassment for being a suspect in the unauthorized alteration of the treasury checks. Hence, it is understandable why petitioners appear to have overlooked the facts antecedent to the filing of the complaint to the constabulary authorities and to have put undue emphasis on the appellate court's statement that "denouncing a crime is not negligence." Although this Court has consistently held that there should be no penalty on the right to litigate and that error alone in the filing of a case be it before the courts or the proper police authorities, is not a ground for moral damages, we hold that under the peculiar circumstances of this case, private respondent is entitled to an award of damages.
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. As Go's negligence was the root cause of the complained inconvenience, humiliation and embarrassment, Go is liable to private respondents for damages.
Anent petitioner bank's claim that it is not "co-equally liable" with Go for damages, under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, "(E)mployers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees . . . acting within the scope of their assigned tasks." Pursuant to this provision, the bank is responsible for the acts of its employee unless there is proof that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Hence, the burden of proof lies upon the bank and it cannot now disclaim liability in view of its own failure to prove not only that it exercised due diligence to prevent damage but that it was not negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment