Title
Supreme Court
Citytrust Banking Corp. vs. Villanueva
Case
G.R. No. 141011
Decision Date
Jul 19, 2001
Bank error in assigning wrong account number led to check dishonor; both parties' negligence contributed. No damages awarded; case dismissed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 141011)

Antecedent Facts

In February 1984, Villanueva opened a savings account and a current account at the bank. On May 21, 1986, he deposited funds into his savings account and requested a new checkbook due to a lack of blank checks. He was assisted by a customer service representative who assured him she would provide his current account number. The representative erroneously wrote down another customer’s account number sharing Villanueva’s name.

Issuance and Dishonor of Check

Villanueva received the checkbook on June 17, 1986, and issued a check for P50,000 to Kingly Commodities Traders on June 19, 1986. He deposited additional cash to cover the check amount. However, on June 23, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds and a signature discrepancy. Villanueva communicated with the bank and was assured the check would be honored after the situation was clarified.

Repeated Dishonor and Bank's Response

Despite reassurances from the bank, the check was dishonored again on June 26, which Villanueva investigated by visiting the bank. The bank officials informed him that the issue stemmed from the fact that the erroneous account number provided belonged to another depositor with a similar name. The bank issued a manager's check for P50,000 to Kingly Commodities as a remedy.

Demand for Indemnification

Subsequently, Villanueva demanded indemnification from the bank, asserting that the dishonor of the check caused him significant financial losses and humiliation. He originally sought P70,000 for actual damages and P2 million for moral damages. The bank responded, acknowledging the oversight but attributing the dishonor to Villanueva's failure to provide his correct account number.

Initiation of Legal Action

Frustrated with the bank's response, Villanueva filed a complaint for damages on August 27, 1986, claiming breach of contract and quasi-delict, due to the bank’s negligence in processing his checkbook requisition.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court dismissed Villanueva's complaint in July 1992, attributing his alleged losses to his own negligence. The court found his failure to verify his account details and provide necessary information as the proximate cause of his damages. The court acknowledged the bank's negligence but deemed it merely contributory.

Appeal to Court of Appeals

Villanueva appealed the trial court's decision, maintaining that the bank’s gross negligence in supplying the wrong account number was the cause of his losses. The Court of Appeals favored Villanueva, determining that the bank had assumed responsibility for errors in the requisition process and ordered moral damages of P100,000 and attorney's fees.

Subsequent Appeals and Supreme Court Ruling

Both parties subsequently filed for review, with the bank contesting the Court of Appeals’ findings and Villanueva challenging the denial of his claimed actual losses. The Supreme Court asserted that Villanuev

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.