Lawyerly

GR No. 208293

2014-12-10

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CARMELITA S. SANTOS

LEONEN, J.

For the same reason, we sustain the award for moral damages. Petitioners PNB and Aguilar's gross negligence deprived Angel C. Santos' heirs what is rightfully theirs. Respondents also testified that they experienced anger and embarrassment when petitioners PNB and Aguilar refused to release Angel C. Santos' deposit.[112] "The bank's negligence was the result of lack of due care and caution required of managers and employees of a firm engaged in so sensitive and demanding business as banking."[113]

GR No. 195615

2014-04-21

BANK OF COMMERCE v. RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK

ABAD, J.

Lastly, the dissenting opinion of Justice Mendoza cited the Circular Letter (series of 2002) issued by the BSP advising all banks and non-bank financial intermediaries that the banking activities and transaction of TRB and Bancommerce were consolidated and that the latter continued the operations of the former as an indication of a de facto merger. The Circular Letter[30] reads: CIRCULAR LETTER

GR No. 157049

2010-08-11

CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION v. CARLOS ROMULO N. CRUZ

BERSAMIN, J.

Thirdly, in several decisions of the Court,[9] the banks, defendants therein, were made liable for negligence, even without sufficient proof of malice or bad faith on their part, and the Court awarded moral damages of P100,000.00 each time to the suing depositors in proper consideration of their reputation and their social standing. The respondent should be similarly awarded for the damage to his reputation as an architect and businessman.

GR No. 155033

2007-12-19

ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. In the instant case, the award of exemplary damages in favor of respondents is in order for the purpose of deterring those who intend to enforce their rights by taking measures or remedies which are not in accord with law and public policy. On the part of respondent bank, the public relies on a bank's sworn profession of diligence and meticulousness in giving irreproachable service.[42] Hence, the level of meticulousness must be maintained at all times by the banking sector.[43] In the present case the award of exemplary damages is justified by the brazen acts of petitioners Rosita and Alice in violating the law coupled with the gross negligence committed by respondent bank and its officers in allowing the subject check to be deposited which later paved the way for its encashment.

GR No. 175587

2007-09-21

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. JOSEPH ANT M. ALEJANDRO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Likewise, the award of attorney's fees is proper when a party is compelled to incur expenses to lift a wrongfully issued writ of attachment. The basis of the award thereof is also the amount of money garnished, and the length of time respondents have been deprived of the use of their money by reason of the wrongful attachment.[39] It may also be based upon (1) the amount and the character of the services rendered; (2) the labor, time and trouble involved; (3) the nature and importance of the litigation and business in which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of money and the value of the property affected by the controversy or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and the experience called for in the performance of the services; (7) the professional character and the social standing of the attorney; (8) the results secured, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not.[40]

GR NO. 136202

2007-01-25

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. While, however, it is conceded that petitioner had the right of set-off over the amount it paid to Templonuevo against the deposit of Salazar, the issue of whether it acted judiciously is an entirely different matter.[25] As businesses affected with public interest, and because of the nature of their functions, banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.[26] In this regard, petitioner was clearly remiss in its duty to private respondent Salazar as its depositor.

GR NO. 146918

2006-05-02

CITIBANK v. SPS. LUIS AND CARMELITA CABAMONGAN AND THEIR SONS LUIS CABAMONGAN

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. The yardstick should be that it is not palpably and scandalously excessive.[54] The amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the CA is reasonable and just. Moreover, said award is deemed final and executory insofar as respondents are concerned considering that their petition for review had been denied by the Court in its final and executory Resolution dated October 17, 2001 in G.R. No. 149234.

GR NO. 158674

2005-10-17

LAPRECIOSISIMA CAGUNGUN v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. The yardstick should be that it is not palpably and scandalously excessive.[21] We find the sum of P300,000.00 awarded by the lower courts excessive. In our view, the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages is reasonable and is in accord with our rulings in similar cases involving banks' negligence with regard to the accounts of their depositors.[22]

GR No. 157845

2005-09-20

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. NORMAN Y. PIKE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

There is no reason to disturb the trial court's finding of petitioner bank's employees' negligence in their treatment of respondent Pike's account. In the case on hand, the Court of Appeals sustained, and rightly so, that an award of moral damages is warranted. For, as found by said appellate court, citing the case of Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals,[41] "the bank's negligence is a result of lack of due care and caution required of managers and employees of a firm engaged in so sensitive and demanding business, as banking, hence, the award of P20,000.00 as moral damages, is proper.

GR NO. 140182

2005-04-12

TANAY RECREATION CENTER v. CATALINA MATIENZO FAUSTO+

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioner likewise claims the amount of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, the sum of P1,000.00 for every appearance of its counsel, plus costs of suit. It is well settled that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate and not every winning party is entitled to an automatic grant of attorney's fees. The party must show that he falls under one of the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. In this case, since petitioner was compelled to engage the services of a lawyer and incurred expenses to protect its interest and right over the subject property, the award of attorney's fees is proper. However there are certain standards in fixing attorney's fees, to wit: (1) the amount and the character of the services rendered; (2) labor, time and trouble involved; (3) the nature and importance of the litigation and business in which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of money and the value of the property affected by the controversy or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and the experience called for in the performance of the services; (7) the professional character and the social standing of the attorney; and (8) the results secured, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not.[62] Considering the foregoing, the award of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, including the costs of suit, is reasonable under the circumstances.

GR No. 156940

2004-12-14

ASSOCIATED BANK v. VICENTE HENRY TAN

PANGANIBAN, J.

Also affirming this long standing doctrine, Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals[16] has held that "the degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family where the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors is concerned."[17] Indeed, the banking business is vested with the trust and confidence of the public; hence the "appropriate standard of diligence must be very high, if not the highest, degree of diligence."[18] The standard applies, regardless of whether the account consists of only a few hundred pesos or of millions.[19]

GR No. 127469

2004-01-15

PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. CA

CARPIO, J.

The BANK's dismal failure to account for Marcos' money justifies the award of moral[58] and exemplary damages.[59] Certainly, the BANK, as employer, is liable for the negligence or the misdeed of its branch manager which caused Marcos mental anguish and serious anxiety.[60] Moral damages of P100,000 is reasonable and is in accord with our rulings in similar cases involving banks' negligence with regard to the accounts of their depositors.[61]

GR No. 150487

2003-07-10

GERARDO F. SAMSON JR. v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

PANGANIBAN, J.

of pecuniary estimation, the amount must somehow be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted.[9] Moral damages are not punitive in nature[10] and were never intended to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant.[11] There is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts.[12] Trial courts are given discretion in determining the amount, with the limitation

	GR No. 208293 2014-12-10	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CARMELITA S. SANTOS LEONEN, J.
For the same reason, we sustain the award for moral damages. Petitioners PNB and Aguilar's gross negligence deprived Angel C. Santos' heirs what is rightfully theirs. Respondents also testified that they experienced anger and embarrassment when petitioners PNB and Aguilar refused to release Angel C. Santos' deposit.[112] "The bank's negligence was the result of lack of due care and caution required of managers and employees of a firm engaged in so sensitive and demanding business as banking."[113]
	GR No. 195615 2014-04-21	BANK OF COMMERCE v. RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK ABAD, J.
Lastly, the dissenting opinion of Justice Mendoza cited the Circular Letter (series of 2002) issued by the BSP advising all banks and non-bank financial intermediaries that the banking activities and transaction of TRB and Bancommerce were consolidated and that the latter continued the operations of the former as an indication of a de facto merger. The Circular Letter[30] reads: CIRCULAR LETTER
	GR No. 157049 2010-08-11	CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION v. CARLOS ROMULO N. CRUZ BERSAMIN, J.
Thirdly, in several decisions of the Court,[9] the banks, defendants therein, were made liable for negligence, even without sufficient proof of malice or bad faith on their part, and the Court awarded moral damages of P100,000.00 each time to the suing depositors in proper consideration of their reputation and their social standing. The respondent should be similarly awarded for the damage to his reputation as an architect and businessman.
	GR No. 155033 2007-12-19	ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. In the instant case, the award of exemplary damages in favor of respondents is in order for the purpose of deterring those who intend to enforce their rights by taking measures or remedies which are not in accord with law and public policy. On the part of respondent bank, the public relies on a bank's sworn profession of diligence and meticulousness in giving irreproachable service.[42] Hence, the level of meticulousness must be maintained at all times by the banking sector.[43] In the present case the award of exemplary damages is justified by the brazen acts of petitioners Rosita and Alice in violating the law coupled with the gross negligence committed by respondent bank and its officers in allowing the subject check to be deposited which later paved the way for its encashment.
	GR No. 175587 2007-09-21	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. JOSEPH ANT M. ALEJANDRO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Likewise, the award of attorney's fees is proper when a party is compelled to incur expenses to lift a wrongfully issued writ of attachment. The basis of the award thereof is also the amount of money garnished, and the length of time respondents have been deprived of the use of their money by reason of the wrongful attachment.[39] It may also be based upon (1) the amount and the character of the services rendered; (2) the labor, time and trouble involved; (3) the nature and importance of the litigation and business in which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of money and the value of the property affected by the controversy or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and the experience called for in the performance of the services; (7) the professional character and the social standing of the attorney; (8) the results secured, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not.[40]
	GR NO. 136202 2007-01-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA AZCUNA, J.
(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. While, however, it is conceded that petitioner had the right of set-off over the amount it paid to Templonuevo against the deposit of Salazar, the issue of whether it acted judiciously is an entirely different matter.[25] As businesses affected with public interest, and because of the nature of their functions, banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.[26] In this regard, petitioner was clearly remiss in its duty to private respondent Salazar as its depositor.
	GR NO. 146918 2006-05-02	CITIBANK v. SPS. LUIS AND CARMELITA CABAMONGAN AND THEIR SONS LUIS CABAMONGAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. The yardstick should be that it is not palpably and scandalously excessive.[54] The amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the CA is reasonable and just. Moreover, said award is deemed final and executory insofar as respondents are concerned considering that their petition for review had been denied by the Court in its final and executory Resolution dated October 17, 2001 in G.R. No. 149234.
	GR NO. 158674 2005-10-17	LAPRECIOSISIMA CAGUNGUN v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. The yardstick should be that it is not palpably and scandalously excessive.[21] We find the sum of P300,000.00 awarded by the lower courts excessive. In our view, the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages is reasonable and is in accord with our rulings in similar cases involving banks' negligence with regard to the accounts of their depositors.[22]
	GR No. 157845 2005-09-20	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. NORMAN Y. PIKE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is no reason to disturb the trial court's finding of petitioner bank's employees' negligence in their treatment of respondent Pike's account. In the case on hand, the Court of Appeals sustained, and rightly so, that an award of moral damages is warranted. For, as found by said appellate court, citing the case of Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals,[41] "the bank's negligence is a result of lack of due care and caution required of managers and employees of a firm engaged in so sensitive and demanding business, as banking, hence, the award of P20,000.00 as moral damages, is proper.
	GR NO. 140182 2005-04-12	TANAY RECREATION CENTER v. CATALINA MATIENZO FAUSTO+ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner likewise claims the amount of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, the sum of P1,000.00 for every appearance of its counsel, plus costs of suit. It is well settled that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate and not every winning party is entitled to an automatic grant of attorney's fees. The party must show that he falls under one of the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. In this case, since petitioner was compelled to engage the services of a lawyer and incurred expenses to protect its interest and right over the subject property, the award of attorney's fees is proper. However there are certain standards in fixing attorney's fees, to wit: (1) the amount and the character of the services rendered; (2) labor, time and trouble involved; (3) the nature and importance of the litigation and business in which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of money and the value of the property affected by the controversy or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and the experience called for in the performance of the services; (7) the professional character and the social standing of the attorney; and (8) the results secured, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not.[62] Considering the foregoing, the award of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, including the costs of suit, is reasonable under the circumstances.
	GR No. 156940 2004-12-14	ASSOCIATED BANK v. VICENTE HENRY TAN PANGANIBAN, J.
Also affirming this long standing doctrine, Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals[16] has held that "the degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family where the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors is concerned."[17] Indeed, the banking business is vested with the trust and confidence of the public; hence the "appropriate standard of diligence must be very high, if not the highest, degree of diligence."[18] The standard applies, regardless of whether the account consists of only a few hundred pesos or of millions.[19]
	GR No. 127469 2004-01-15	PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
The BANK's dismal failure to account for Marcos' money justifies the award of moral[58] and exemplary damages.[59] Certainly, the BANK, as employer, is liable for the negligence or the misdeed of its branch manager which caused Marcos mental anguish and serious anxiety.[60] Moral damages of P100,000 is reasonable and is in accord with our rulings in similar cases involving banks' negligence with regard to the accounts of their depositors.[61]
	GR No. 150487 2003-07-10	GERARDO F. SAMSON JR. v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS PANGANIBAN, J.
of pecuniary estimation, the amount must somehow be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted.[9] Moral damages are not punitive in nature[10] and were never intended to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant.[11] There is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts.[12] Trial courts are given discretion in determining the amount, with the limitation

PRUDENTIAL BANK v. CA