This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Negligence was committed by respondent bank in accepting for deposit the crossed checks without indorsement and in not verifying the authenticity of the negotiation of the checks. The law imposes a duty of extraordinary diligence on the collecting bank to scrutinize checks deposited with it, for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity.[25] As a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of the relationship.[26] The fact that this arrangement had been practiced for three years without Mr. Go/Hope Pharmacy raising any objection does not detract from the duty of the bank to exercise extraordinary diligence. Thus, the Decision of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, holding respondent bank liable for moral damages is sufficient to remind it of its responsibility to exercise extraordinary diligence in the course of its business which is imbued with public interest. | |||||
|
2009-05-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The bank on which a check is drawn, known as the drawee bank, is under strict liability, based on the contract between the bank and its customer (drawer), to pay the check only to the payee or the payee's order. The drawer's instructions are reflected on the face and by the terms of the check. When the drawee bank pays a person other than the payee named on the check, it does not comply with the terms of the check and violates its duty to charge the drawer's account only for properly payable items.[9] Thus, we ruled in Philippine National Bank v. Rodriguez[10] that a drawee should charge to the drawer's accounts only the payables authorized by the latter; otherwise, the drawee will be violating the instructions of the drawer and shall be liable for the amount charged to the drawer's account. | |||||