Case Digest (G.R. No. 146754)
Facts:
In the case of Equitable PCI Bank vs. Arcelito B. Tan (G.R. No. 165339, August 23, 2010), the respondent, Arcelito B. Tan, maintained current and savings accounts with petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB), which later became Equitable PCI Bank. On May 13, 1992, Tan issued a postdated check (Check No. 275100) in the amount of P34,588.72 dated May 30, 1992, payable to Sulpicio Lines, Inc. At that time, Tan's account balance was P35,147.59. On May 14, Sulpicio Lines deposited this postdated check, and petitioner bank debited the amount immediately from Tan's account, leaving only P558.87.
Meanwhile, Tan issued three other checks between May 9 and May 16, 1992, payable to Agusan del Sur Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ASELCO), Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO), and in cash. When presented for payment, these three checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The dishonor of the checks payable to ASELCO and ANECO caused the electric po
Case Digest (G.R. No. 146754)
Facts:
- Parties and Accounts
- Respondent Arcelito B. Tan maintained current and savings accounts with Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB), now Equitable PCI Bank, the petitioner.
- On May 13, 1992, appellant issued PCIB Check No. 275100, postdated to May 30, 1992, amounting to ₱34,588.72, payable to Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
- As of May 14, 1992, respondent’s account balance was ₱35,147.59.
- Transactions and Dishonor
- On May 14, 1992, Sulpicio Lines deposited Check No. 275100 into its account with Solid Bank, Cebu City.
- After clearing, PCIB debited respondent’s account immediately for the amount of the check, leaving a balance of only ₱558.87.
- Respondent had issued three additional checks dated May 9, 10, and 16, 1992:
- Check No. 275080 for ₱6,427.68 payable to Agusan del Sur Electric Cooperative Inc. (ASELCO).
- Check No. 275097 for ₱6,472.01 payable to Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative Inc. (ANECO).
- Check No. 314104 for ₱10,000.00 payable in cash.
- These checks were dishonored for insufficient funds.
- Consequences of Dishonor
- Due to dishonored checks Nos. 275080 and 275097, electric power supply to respondent’s two mini-sawmills in Agusan del Sur and Butuan City was cut off on June 1 and May 28, 1992, respectively.
- Power supply was restored only on July 20 and August 24, 1992, causing temporary business operation stoppage.
- Complaint and Trial Court Proceedings
- Respondent filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, seeking:
- Actual damages for losses consisting of unrealized income amounting to ₱1,864,500.00.
- Moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.
- Respondent claimed the premature debit of Check No. 275100, despite it being postdated, caused the insufficient funds and dishonor of the other checks.
- Petitioner denied that Check No. 275100 was postdated, claiming it dated May 3, 1992 instead; also denied responsibility for power disconnection.
- RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, dismissing the complaint.
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Petitioner’s Appeal
- CA reversed RTC ruling and:
- Ordered petitioner to pay ₱1,864,500.00 as actual damages.
- Awarded ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱30,000.00 attorney’s fees to respondent.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which CA denied.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
- Petitioner’s Assignments of Errors
- CA defied Office Order No. 82-04-CG by deciding the case instead of unloading and re-raffling it among Cebu divisions.
- CA erroneously reversed RTC’s finding that Check No. 275100 was dated May 3, 1992.
- CA erred in not holding that respondent’s manner of writing the date caused dishonor of the other checks.
- CA erred in awarding actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Issues:
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly took jurisdiction over the case despite Office Order No. 82-04-CG regarding re-raffling of cases.
- The true date of Check No. 275100: May 3, 1992 or postdated May 30, 1992.
- Whether respondent’s manner of writing the date on Check No. 275100 was the proximate cause of dishonor of the other checks.
- Whether petitioner bank is liable for damages and attorney’s fees awarded by the CA.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)