This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| For the reasons cited above, we find the respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and order his dismissal from the service. The banking business is one impressed with public trust[56] and a higher degree of diligence is imposed on banks compared to an ordinary business enterprise in the handling of deposited funds; the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their officials and employees is far greater than those imposed on ordinary officers and employees in other enterprises.[57] All these considerations were apparently lost on the CA when it misappreciated the import and significance of the facts of this case. Even a layman with no in-depth training in law would have wondered why a bank manager, presented a P26-Billion check by a private individual, did not bother to take special care. | |||||
|
2011-07-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Given the foregoing, we find no reversible error in the findings of the appellate court that PNB was negligent in the handling of FFCCI's combo account, specifically, with respect to PNB's failure to detect the forgeries in the subject applications for manager's check which could have prevented the loss. As we have often ruled, the banking business is impressed with public trust. [21] A higher degree of diligence is imposed on banks relative to the handling of their affairs than that of an ordinary business enterprise. [22] Thus, the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their officials and employees is far greater than those of ordinary officers and employees in other enterprises. [23] In the case at bar, PNB failed to meet the high standard of diligence required by the circumstances to prevent the fraud. In Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals [24] and The Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, [25] where the bank's negligence is the proximate cause of the loss and the depositor is guilty of contributory negligence, we allocated the damages between the bank and the depositor on a 60-40 ratio. We apply the same ruling in this case considering that, as shown above, PNB's negligence is the proximate cause of the loss while the issue as to FFCCI's contributory negligence has been settled with finality in G.R. No. 173278. Thus, the appellate court properly adjudged PNB to bear the greater part of the loss consistent with these rulings. | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| commencement of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the action to damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.[80] | |||||
|
2005-09-21 |
|||||
| Property rights must be considered, for many purposes, not as absolute, unrestricted dominions but as an aggregation of qualified privileges, the limits of which are prescribed by the equality of rights, and the correlation of rights and obligations necessary for the highest enjoyment of property by the entire community of proprietors.[25] In Rellosa vs. Pellosis,[26] the Court ruled that:Petitioner might verily be the owner of the land, with the right to enjoy and to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof, but the exercise of these rights is not without limitations. The abuse of rights rule established in Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person to act with justice, to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable. In this instance, the issue is not so much about the existence of the right or validity of the order of demolition as the question of whether or not petitioners have acted in conformity with, and not in disregard of, the standard set by Article 19 of the Civil Code.[27] | |||||