Case Digest (G.R. No. 150487)
Facts:
Gerardo F. Samson, Jr. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 150487, July 10, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Gerardo F. Samson, Jr. sued respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for damages after a deposited check went missing and his account was not credited, causing him embarrassment and loss of credit. On August 20, 1990, petitioner deposited a Prudential Bank check for P3,500 into his BPI savings account via BPI’s Express Teller system; his balance at that time was P367.38. On August 24, 1990, petitioner’s daughter attempted twice to withdraw P2,000 but the Express Teller showed “Sorry, Insufficient Funds.” Petitioner later learned that the August 20 check deposit was not reflected in his available balance.
On September 12, 1990, petitioner made another deposit of P5,500 but found his available balance to be only P342.38 (and a P25 penalty/service charge), with no record of the earlier P3,500 check. Petitioner complained; BPI confirmed the check had been deposited but could not account for it. After petitioner informed BPI that the check had been encashed by a BPI security guard, investigation disclosed that a deposit envelope was missing. Petitioner alleged BPI failed to search for the missing envelope or to inform him, and that a BPI manager treated him with arrogance and discourtesy.
BPI answered denying material allegations, asserting contractual limitations on representatives, claiming the petitioner’s claim was paid/waived/extinguished and that petitioner’s delay in reporting estopped him from relief. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner and awarded moral damages of P200,000. The Court of Appeals (Special Third Division) affirmed liability but reduced moral damages to P50,000 in a March 30, 2001 decision; i...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals’ reduction of moral damages from P200,000 to P50,000 proper?
- Did petitioner’s delay in reporting the missing deposit constitute contributory negligence that should reduce or b...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)