This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-07-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Westmont Bank v. Ong,[21] we ruled: ...[I]t is petitioner [bank] which had the last clear chance to stop the fraudulent encashment of the subject checks had it exercised due diligence and followed the proper and regular banking procedures in clearing checks. As we had earlier ruled, the one who had a last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.[22] (emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In its declaration of policy, the General Banking Law of 2000[35] requires of banks the highest standards of integrity and performance. Needless to say, a bank is "under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care.[36] The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the bank and the depositors must always be of paramount concern.[37] | |||||
|
2006-05-02 |
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] | |||||
|
2004-08-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Banks are engaged in a business impressed with public interest, and it is their duty to protect in return their many clients and depositors who transact business with them. They have the obligation to treat their client's account meticulously and with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The diligence required of banks, therefore, is more than that of a good father of a family.[76] | |||||