Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Spouses Caguimbal
Case
G.R. No. 248821
Decision Date
Oct 10, 2022
PNB negligently handled a Stop Payment Order, debiting P1M from Vivian Caguimbal’s account without notice, leading to a Supreme Court ruling affirming damages for gross negligence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 144322)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioner: Philippine National Bank (PNB).
    • Respondents: Spouses Pedro Caguimbal and Vivian Caguimbal.
    • Context: The dispute arises from a transaction involving the deposit of checks issued by Baganga Plywood Corporation relating to logs delivered by Vivian, a sub-contractor of SAMMILIA Federation of People’s Forest Development Cooperative.
  • The Check Transaction
    • In 2010, Vivian delivered logs to Baganga Ply.
    • Baganga Ply issued six PNB-Mati checks totaling P3,494,129.50, specifically detailing:
      • Check No. 42439 – P1,319,085.00
      • Check No. 42400 – P1,000,000.00
      • Check No. 42438 – P98,075.00
      • Check No. 42399 – P1,000,000.00
      • Check No. 42437 – P39,011.00
      • Check No. 42445 – P37,958.50
  • Initial Verification and the Stop Payment Order (SPO)
    • On August 9, 2010, Faith Caguimbal, daughter of Vivian, visited the PNB-Butuan Branch to verify the checks.
    • Sales and Service Officer, Grace Besa, confirmed that Baganga Ply had issued a Stop Payment Order (SPO) on the checks.
  • The Deposit Process and Error
    • On August 12, 2010, the checks were again presented for deposit at the PNB-Butuan Branch by Jill Martirez, a cousin of Faith.
    • Branch officer Carlos S. Lim, Jr. accepted all six checks, unaware of the earlier inquiry regarding the SPO.
    • On August 16, 2010, five of the six checks were returned with the stamp "SPO-funded" and their corresponding amounts debited from the joint account of Vivian and Faith.
    • One check, specifically Check No. 42399 for P1,000,000.00, was not returned, and its status became a matter of contention.
  • The SPO and Respondents’ Assumptions
    • Vivian sent a letter to Baganga Ply on August 10, 2010, requesting that the SPO be lifted for the subject check.
    • On August 19, 2010, Faith checking the passbook found the P1,000,000.00 still credited, leading respondents to assume that the SPO had been lifted.
  • Subsequent Account Transactions and Discovery of Debit
    • From August 18 to August 31, 2010, Faith performed transactions (deposits and withdrawals) while the P1,000,000.00 remained intact in the account.
    • On September 1, 2010, after a withdrawal of P25,000.00, Faith discovered that the account balance had suddenly dropped to P10,518.61.
    • Upon inquiry, the branch manager explained that the P1,000,000.00 had been debited to enforce the SPO on the check.
  • PNB’s Explanation and Respondents' Reaction
    • PNB informed respondents on September 2, 2010 that it had acted based on the SPO, which was only discovered on August 27, 2010 after a complaint from Baganga Ply.
    • Respondents, contending that the check had been effectively cleared based on the remaining credited balance, rejected PNB’s explanation.
    • Consequently, Vivian resorted to borrowing money from friends to meet her obligations, precipitating the filing of a complaint against PNB when the bank refused to return the P1,000,000.00.
  • Procedural History
    • Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision (April 27, 2017):
      • Dismissed the complaint on the ground that respondents failed to provide concrete evidence that the SPO had been lifted.
      • Held that respondents should have impleaded Baganga Ply as the real party in interest.
    • Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (February 19, 2019):
      • Set aside the RTC’s Decision and awarded respondents P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation costs.
      • Acknowledged that although PNB had the right to debit the erroneously credited amount, it was grossly negligent in abruptly debiting the account without prior notice.
    • Post-CA Developments:
      • PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on July 1, 2019.
      • PNB then petitioned for a review on certiorari, arguing that its actions were not arbitrary and that the damages awarded were contrary to settled jurisprudence.

Issues:

  • Whether PNB’s action of debiting P1,000,000.00 from the respondents’ account was arbitrary despite the existence of a standing SPO on the subject check.
    • The petitioner contends that the debiting was necessary and not arbitrary, given that respondents were aware of the SPO prior to deposit.
    • The resolution hinges on whether the timing and method of debit violated proper banking standards and due diligence.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against PNB.
    • Respondents argue that PNB’s conduct exhibited gross negligence in handling the account, which justified the imposition of additional damages.
    • The issue involves assessing the bank’s fiduciary duty and the extent of its negligence in maintaining accurate records and promptly communicating discrepancies.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.