This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that "the diligence required of banks is more than that of a Roman pater familias or a good father of a family. The highest degree of diligence is expected."[39] PNB miserably failed to do its duty of exercising extraordinary diligence and reasonable business prudence. The disregard of its own banking policy amounts to gross negligence, which the law defines as "negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected."[40] With regard to collection or encashment of checks, suffice it to say that the law imposes on the collecting bank the duty to scrutinize diligently the checks deposited with it for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. "The collecting bank, being primarily engaged in banking, holds itself out to the public as the expert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a high standard of conduct."[41] A bank is expected to be an expert in banking procedures and it has the necessary means to ascertain whether a check, local or foreign, is sufficiently funded. | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Affidavit of Desistance[26] submitted by Ballecer will not justify the dismissal of the action. By itself, an Affidavit of Desistance is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once the action has been instituted in court.[27] Here, Ballecer made the so-called pardon of the petitioner after the institution of the action. He made the Affidavit of Desistance only on October 25, 1999 - more than two years after the trial court had rendered its decision. The Court attaches no persuasive value to a desistance especially when executed as an afterthought. It would be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of justice simply because the witness who had given it later on changed his mind for one reason or another. Such a rule will make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.[28] Moreover, if we allow the dismissal of the case in view of Ballecer's Affidavit of Desistance, there is always the probability that it would later on be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.[29] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| At any rate, an affidavit of desistance (or recantation) is, as a rule, viewed with suspicion and reservation because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.[25] And there is always the probability that it would later be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.[26] Hence, such desistance, by itself, is not usually a ground for the dismissal of an action once it has been instituted in court.[27] | |||||