This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| "Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection."[34] Admittedly, petitioner's acceptance of the subject check for deposit despite the one year postdate written on its face was a clear violation of established banking regulations and practices. In such instances, payment should be refused by the drawee bank and returned through the PCHC within the 24-hour reglementary period. As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner's failure to comply with this basic policy regarding post-dated checks was "a telling sign of its lack of due diligence in handling checks coursed through it."[35] | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that "the diligence required of banks is more than that of a Roman pater familias or a good father of a family. The highest degree of diligence is expected,"[36] considering the nature of the banking business that is imbued with public interest. While it is true that respondent's liability for its negligent clearing of the check is greater, petitioner cannot take lightly its own violation of the long-standing rule against encashment of post-dated checks and the injurious consequences of allowing such checks into the clearing system. | |||||