Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 158143 2011-09-21	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA BRION, J.
Another telling indicator of PCIB's negligence is the fact that it allowed Balmaceda to encash the Manager's checks that were plainly crossed checks. A crossed check is one where two parallel lines are drawn across its face or across its corner.[28] Based on jurisprudence, the crossing of a check has the following effects: (a) the check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank; (b) the check may be negotiated only once -- to the one who has an account with the bank; and (c) the act of crossing the check serves as a warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a definite purpose and he must inquire if he received the check pursuant to this purpose; otherwise, he is not a holder in due course.[29] In other words, the crossing of a check is a warning that the check should be deposited only in the account of the payee. When a check is crossed, it is the duty of the collecting bank to ascertain that the check is only deposited to the payee's account.[30] In complete disregard of this duty, PCIB's systems allowed Balmaceda to encash 26 Manager's checks which were all crossed checks, or checks payable to the "payee's account only."
	GR No. 168842 2010-08-11	VICENTE GO v. METROPOLITAN BANK NACHURA, J.
The Court has taken judicial cognizance of the practice that a check with two parallel lines in the upper left hand corner means that it could only be deposited and not converted into cash. The effect of crossing a check, thus, relates to the mode of payment, meaning that the drawer had intended the check for deposit only by the rightful person, i.e., the payee named therein.[21] The crossing of a check is a warning that the check should be deposited only in the account of the payee. Thus, it is the duty of the collecting bank to ascertain that the check be deposited to the payee's account only.[22]
	GR No. 179952 2009-12-04	METROPOLITAN BANK v. BA FINANCE CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
As has been repeatedly emphasized, the banking business is imbued with public interest such that the highest degree of diligence and highest standards of integrity and performance are expected of banks in order to maintain the trust and confidence of the public in general in the banking sector.[30] Undoubtedly, BA Finance has a cause of action against petitioner.
	GR No. 177526 2008-07-04	PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. CHOWKING FOOD CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
It cannot be over emphasized that the banking business is impressed with public interest. Of paramount importance is the trust and confidence of the public in general in the banking industry. Consequently, the diligence required of banks is more than that of a Roman pater familias or a good father of a family.[33] The highest degree of diligence is expected.[34]
	GR NO. 158707 2006-11-27	COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO v. YSAGANI V. PAEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, even if respondent had no actual and direct participation in the alleged fraud, being a managerial employee, his duty was to supervise the members of his staff in the actual performance of their duties. Evidently, his failure to do so coupled with his failure to review the daily proof sheets and detect the irregularity and timely inform management about the incident, amounted to gross negligence and incompetence which are justifiable grounds for petitioner's loss of trust and confidence in him. Petitioner's actuations then, as described in the Memorandum of External Auditor Vergel de Dios,[53] were more than sufficient to sow in his employer the seed of mistrust and loss of confidence. His management style left much to be desired, especially in the banking business where the highest degree of diligence[54] is expected,[55] and high standards of integrity and performance are even required, of it.[56]
	GR NO. 146918 2006-05-02	CITIBANK v. SPS. LUIS AND CARMELITA CABAMONGAN AND THEIR SONS LUIS CABAMONGAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that, since the banking business is impressed with public interest, of paramount importance thereto is the trust and confidence of the public in general. Consequently, the highest degree of diligence[40] is expected,[41] and high standards of integrity and performance are even required, of it.[42] By the nature of its functions, a bank is "under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care,[43] always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship."[44]
	GR NO. 163269 2006-04-19	ROLANDO C. RIVERA v. PROMULGATED: SOLIDBANK CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
Not to be ignored is the fact that the banking business is so impressed with public interest where the trust and interest of the public in general is of paramount importance such that the appropriate standard of diligence must be very high, if not the highest degree of diligence.[63]
	GR No. 129015 2004-08-13	SAMSUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PHILIPPINES v. FAR EAST BANK TINGA, J,
The bare fact that the forgery was committed by an employee of the party whose signature was forged cannot necessarily imply that such party's negligence was the cause for the forgery. Employers do not possess the preternatural gift of cognition as to the evil that may lurk within the hearts and minds of their employees. The Court's pronouncement in PCI Bank v. Court of Appeals[53] applies in this case, to wit:[T]he mere fact that the forgery was committed by a drawer-payor's confidential employee or agent, who by virtue of his position had unusual facilities for perpetrating the fraud and imposing the forged paper upon the bank, does not entitle the bank to shift the loss to the drawer-payor, in the absence of some circumstance raising estoppel against the drawer.[54]