Citytrust Banking v. V Villanueva, illanueva, G.R. No. 141011 (July 19, 19 , 2001)
a!ts" a!ts" Res#on$ent Res#on$ent o#ene$ a savings savings a!!ount an$ a !urrent !urrent a!!ount %it& %it& #etitioner #etitioner %&i!& %&i!& %ere assigne$ assigne$ a!!ount nu'ers 10**02**+1 10**02**+1 an$ **009++, **009++, res#e!tively, res#e!tively, %it& an auto'ati! auto'ati! trans-er arrange'ent. n /ay 21, 19, 19, res#on$ res#on$ent ent $e#osite$ $e#osite$ so'e 'oney 'oney in &is savings savings a!!ount a!!ount %it& #etitioners 3egas#i Village Village Bran!& in /akati, /etro /anila. Realiing t&at &e &a$ run out o- lank !&e!ks, res#on$ent re5ueste$ a ne% !&e!kook -ro' one o- #etitioners !usto'er servi!e re#resentatives. 6e t&en -ille$ u# a !&e!kook re5uisition sli# %it& t&e oligatory #arti!ulars, e7!e# e7!e#tt -or -or &is &is !urre !urrent nt a!!ou a!!ount nt nu' nu'er er %&i!& %&i!& &e !oul !oul$ $ not re'e re'e' 'er er.. 6e e7#r e7#res esse se$ $ &is &is #re$i!a'ent to a la$y !usto'er !u sto'er servi!e re#resentative oo - #etitioner, %&o in turn assure$ &i' t&at s&e !oul$ su##ly t&e in-or'ation -ro' #etitioners a!!ount re!or$s. 8-ter signing t&e re5uisition sli#, &e gave it to &er. ia Re'#illo, anot&er !usto'er servi!e re#resentative o- #etitioner, sa% res#on$ents !&e!kook re5uisition sli#. :&e took it an$ #ro!ee$e$ to !&e!k #etitioners !&e!kook register %&i!& !ontaine$ all t&e na'es an$ a!!ount nu'ers o- #etitioners !lients %&o %ere issue$ !&e!koo !&e!kooks. ks. ;#on ;#on seeing seeing t&e na'e na'e
ra$er ra$erss an$ /ult /ultii Reso Resour ur!e !es, s, %o $ays later, or on June 19, 19, res#on$ent re!eive$ a !all -ro' 6elen C&u, in-or'ing &i' t&at s&e &a$ alrea$y #la!e$ a tra$ing or$er in &is e&al- an$ $elivere$ t&e !&e!k to =ingly Co''o$ities. >&e !&e!k %as $e#osite$ %it& t&e C&ina Banking Cor#oration. >&e ne7t $ay, $ay, &e $e#osite$ $e#osite$ *1, 00 in !as& to &is savings a!!ount to !over t&e -ull a'ount o- t&e !&e!k &e issue$. 6is $e#osits in ot& a!!ounts totale$ 1, *04.91. 6o%ever, on June 2*, 19, res#on$ents C&e!k No. *9+01 %as $is&onore$ $ue to insu--i!ien!y o- -un$s an$ $is#arity in t&e signature. Res#on$ent !alle$ =ingly Co''o$ities an$ e7#laine$ t&at t&ere %as a 'istake in t&e $is&onor o- t&e !&e!k e!ause &e &a$ su--i!ient -un$s. ort&%it& on t&e sa'e $ay, res#on$ent !alle$ u# #etitioners 3egas#i Village Bran!& #erations /anager, /aritess Ga'oa, an$ in5uire$ aout t&e $is&onor o- &is %ell-un$e$ !&e!k. Ga'oa #ro'ise$ to look into t&e 'atter an$ instru!te$ res#on$ent to a$vise &is #ayee, =ingly
Co''o$ities, to re$e#osit t&e !&e!k. Ga'oa assure$ res#on$ent t&at t&e !&e!k %oul$ e &onore$ a-ter t&e su--i!ien!y o- t&e -un$s %as as!ertaine$. n June 2, 19 at aout 4"00 #.'., res#on$ent learne$ t&at &is !&e!k %as again $is&onore$ $ue to insu--i!ien!y o- -un$s an$ a sto# #ay'ent or$er &e allege$ly issue$. ?is'aye$ y t&e turn o- events, res#on$ent !alle$ an$ in5uire$ -ro' Ga'oa t&e reason -or t&e $is&onor o- &is %ell-un$e$ !&e!k an$ t&e allege$ sto##ay'ent or$er %&i!& &e never issue$. Ga'oa #ro'ise$ to investigate t&e 'atter an$ to !all res#on$ent in -i-teen (1) 'inutes. &ey %ere 'et y /arilou Genuino, #etitioners Bran!& /anager. 8-ter 'aking t&e ne!essary investigation, Genuino relate$ to res#on$ent t&at t&e reason -or t&e $is&onor o- t&e !&e!k %as t&at t&e a!!ount nu'er assigne$ to &is ne% !&e!kook %as t&e a!!ount nu'er o- anot&er $e#ositor also na'e$ o resolve t&e 'atter, Genuino #ro'ise$ to sen$ to =ingly Co''o$ities a 'anagers !&e!k -or 0, 000 e-ore "*0 #.'., t&e $ea$line given to res#on$ent. :&e also #ersonally !alle$ =ingly Co''o$ities an$ e7#laine$ t&e reason -or t&e $is&onor o- t&e !&e!k. n June *0, 19, res#on$ent sent a letter to #etitioner, a$$resse$ to t&e resi$ent, Jose a!un$o, $e'an$ing in$e'ni-i!ation -or allege$ losses an$ $a'ages su--ere$ y &i' as a result o- t&e $is&onor o- &is %ell-un$e$ !&e!k. 6e $e'an$e$ t&e a'ount o- +0, 000 as in$e'ni-i!ation -or a!tual $a'ages in t&e -or' o- lost #ro-its an$ 2 /illion -or 'oral an$ ot&er $a'ages. n July 10, 19, in ans%er to res#on$ents letter, Gregorio 8nonas <<<, #etitioners :enior Vi!eresi$ent, a#ologie$ -or t&e un-ortunate oversig&t ut re'in$e$ res#on$ent t&at t&e $is&onor o- &is !&e!k %as $ue to &is -ailure to state &is !urrent a!!ount nu'er in &is re5uisition sli#. 8nonas -urt&er state$ t&at as soon as t&e 'istake %as $is!overe$, #etitioner #ro'#tly sent a 'anagers !&e!k to =ingly Co''o$ities e-ore "*0 #.'. on June 2, 19 to avoi$ any $a'age t&e $is&onor o- t&e !&e!k 'ig&t &ave !ause$. ailing to otain -ro' #etitioner a -avorale a!tion on &is $e'an$ -or in$e'ni-i!ation, res#on$ent -ile$ a !o'#laint -or $a'ages ase$ on rea!& o- !ontra!t an$@ or 5uasi$eli!t e-ore t&e Regional >rial Court. Res#on$ent allege$ in &is !o'#laint t&at #etitioner rea!&e$ its !ontra!tual oligation to &i' as a $e#ositor e!ause o- its re#eate$ $is&onor o- &is vali$ an$ %ell-un$e$ !&e!k. >&e rea!& arose -ro' #etitioners gross negligen!e an$ !ul#ale re!klessness in su##lying t&e %rong
a!!ount nu'er. 8s a !onse5uen!e, &e su--ere$ an$ sustaine$ (1) a!tual $a'ages !onsisting o- loss o- #ro-its in t&e a'ount o- at least 240, 000, -or &e %as not allo%e$ to tra$e y =ingly Co''o$ities an$ (2) 2 /illion as 'oral $a'ages e!ause o- t&e intolerale #&ysi!al in!onvenien!e, $is!o'-ort, e7tre'e &u'iliation, in$ignities, et!., t&at &e &a$ orne e-ore &is #eers an$ !olleagues in t&e -ir', &is tra$ing #artners an$ t&e o--i!ers o- =ingly Co''o$ities. 6e #raye$ -or an a$$itional a%ar$ o- 00, 000 -or e7e'#lary $a'ages, attorneys -ees, litigation e7#enses an$ !osts o- t&e suit. &e trial !ourt ren$ere$ a $e!ision $is'issing t&e !o'#laint an$ t&e !o'#ulsory !ounter!lai' -or la!k o- 'erit. 8-ter an evaluation o- t&e res#e!tive allegations an$ evi$en!e o- t&e #arties, it -oun$ t&at res#on$ents negligen!e set t&e !&ain o- events %&i!& resulte$ in &is allege$ losses an$ $a'ages. &us, %&en t&e ne% !&e!kook %as release$ to res#on$ent, #etitioner %as $ee'e$ to &ave %aive$ any $e-e!t in t&e re5uisition sli# an$ esto##e$ -ro' #utting t&e la'e on res#on$ents -ailure to in$i!ate &is a!!ount nu'er.
Ruling" >&e !ourt rule$ t&at 'oral $a'ages in!lu$e #&ysi!al su--ering, 'ental anguis&, -rig&t, serious an7iety, es'ir!&e$ re#utation, %oun$e$ -eelings, 'oral s&o!k, so!ial &u'iliation an$ si'ilar inAury. 8lt&oug& in!a#ale o- #e!uniary !o'#utation, 'oral $a'ages 'ay e re!overe$ i- t&ey are t&e #ro7i'ate result o- t&e $e-en$ants %rong-ul a!t or o'ission. >&us, !ase la% estalis&es t&e re5uisites -or t&e a%ar$ o- 'oral $a'ages, vi" (1) t&ere 'ust e an inAury, %&et&er #&ysi!al, 'ental or #sy!&ologi!al, !learly sustaine$ y t&e !lai'ant (2) t&ere 'ust e a !ul#ale a!t or o'ission -a!tually estalis&e$ (*) t&e %rong-ul a!t or o'ission o- t&e $e-en$ant is t&e #ro7i'ate !ause o- t&e inAury sustaine$ y t&e !lai'ant an$ (4) t&e a%ar$ o- $a'ages is #re$i!ate$ on any o- t&e !ases state$ in 8rti!le 2219 o- t&e Civil Co$e. &e !ourt also rule$ t&at t&e a%ar$ o- attorneys -ees s&oul$ like%ise e $elete$. >&e general rule is t&at attorneys -ees !annot e re!overe$ as #art o- $a'ages e!ause o- t&e #oli!y t&at no #re'iu' s&oul$ e #la!e$ on t&e rig&t to litigate. >&ey are not to e a%ar$e$ every ti'e a #arty %ins a suit. >&e #o%er o- t&e !ourt to a%ar$ attorneys -ees un$er 8rti!le 220 o- t&e Civil Co$e $e'an$s -a!tual, legal an$ e5uitale Austi-i!ation. Dven %&en a !lai'ant is !o'#elle$ to litigate %it& t&ir$ #ersons or to in!ur e7#enses to #rote!t &is rig&ts, still attorneys -ees 'ay not e a%ar$e$ %&ere t&ere is no su--i!ient s&o%ing o- a$ -ait& in t&e #arties #ersisten!e o- a !ase ot&er t&an an erroneous !onvi!tion o- t&e rig&teousness o- &is !ause.
Citytrust Banking v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 141011 (July 19, 2001) In these consolidated cases, the Court is called upon to determine whether the repeated dishonor of a check drawn against a well-funded account but bearing the account number of a nother depositor with the same name and surname as the drawer would entitle the drawer to compensatory and moral damages and to attorney’s fees. The antecedent facts are as follows: Sometime in ebruary !"#$, Isagani C. %illanue&a 'hereafter %I(()*+%) opened a sa&ings account and a current account with Citytrust anking Corporation 'hereafter the )*/, which were assigned account numbers !-011-02113-! and 11-00"33-4, respecti&ely, with an automatic transfer arrangement. 5n 2! 6ay !"#7, %I(()*+%) deposited some money in his sa&ings account with the )*/’s (egaspi %illage ranch in 6akati, 6etro 6anila. 8eali9ing that he had run out of blank checks, %I(()*+%) reuested a new checkbook from one of the )*/’s customer ser&ice representati&es. ;e then filled up a checkbook reuisition slip with the obligatory particulars, eIsagani %illanue&a -- )ccount *o. 11-00$$7-1> in the checkbook register, 8empillo copied the aforesaid account number on the space intended for it in %I(()*+%)’s reuisition slip. 2 5n !3 ?une !"#7, %I(()*+%) recei&ed from the )*/ his reuested checkbook. 5n the same day, he immediately signed Check *o. 1"730! bearing the amount of =40,000 pa yable to the order of /ingly Commodities Traders and 6ulti 8esources, Inc. 'hereafter /ingly Commodities. %I(()*+%) thereafter deli&ered the check to ;elen Chu, his in&estment consultant at /ingly Commodities, with his e
look into the matter and instructed %I(()*+%) to ad&ise his payee, /ingly Commodities, to redeposit the check. @amboa assured %I(()*+%) that the check would be honored after the sufficiency of the funds was ascertained. 4 5n 27 ?une !"#7 at about $:00 p.m., %I(()*+%) learned that his check was again dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and a stop- payment order he allegedly issued. Aismayed by the turn of e&ents, %I(()*+%) called up the )*/ and inuired from @amboa the reason for the dishonor of his well-funded check and the alle ged stop-payment order which he ne&er issued. @ amboa promised to in&estigate the matter and to call %I(()*+%) in fifteen '!4 minutes. 7 In the meantime, she ad&ised %I(()*+%) to re-deposit the check. %I(()*+%) then reuested (awrence Chin of /ingly Commodities to gi&e him until 4:10 p.m. that same day to make good his =40,000 check. ;e then proceeded to the )*/’s (egaspi %illage ranch 5ffice, together with his in&estment consultant and his trading partner, to personally inuire into the matter. They were met by 6arilou @enuino, the )*/’s ranch 6anager. There he complained that his trading order was reB ected because of the dishonor of the check and that /ingly Commodities threatened to close his trading account unless his check payment would be made good before 4:10 p.m. that day. )fter making the necessary in&estigation, @enuino related to %I(()*+%) that the reason for the dishonor of the check was that the account number assigned to his new checkbook was the account number of another depositor also named >Isagani %illanue&a> but with a different middle initial. 3 To resol&e the matter, @enuino promised to send to /ingly Commodities a manager’s check for =40,000 before 4:10 p.m., the deadline gi&en to %I(()*+%). She also personally called /ingly Commodities and e
number. )s a conseuence, he suffered and sustained '! actual damages consisting of loss of profits in the amount of at least =2$0,000, for he was not allowed to trade by /ingly CommoditiesD and '2 =2 6illion as moral damages because of the intolerable physical incon&enience, discomfort, ereduced the damages reco&erable> by %I(()*+%) had the latter pro&ed his claims for actual, moral and e
In his appeal, %I(()*+%) maintained that the )*/ was guilty of gross or culpable negligence amounting to bad faith when its customer ser&ice representati&e furnished an erroneous account number. ;e further contended that the same was the procause which in the natural and continuous seuence, unbroken by any efficient inter&ening cause, produced the inBury and without which the result would not ha&e occurred.> !7 ;owe&er, although it conceded that the )*/Es negligence was not attended with malice and bad faith, it nonetheless awarded moral damages in the amount of =!00,000. It also awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of =40,000, since %I(()*+%) was compelled to incur e
The issue of whether %I(()*+%) suffered actual or compensatory damages in the form of loss of profits is factual. oth the Court of )ppeals and the trial court ha&e ascertained that %I(()*+%) was unable to pro&e his demand for compensatory damages arising from loss. ;is e&idence thereon was found inadeuate, uncorroborated, speculati&e, hearsay and not the best e&idence. asic is the Burisprudential principle that in determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conBectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best obtainable e&idence of the actual amount of the loss. !# )ctual damages cannot be presumed but must be duly pro&ed with reasonable certainty.!" It must also be stressed that the unanimity on the factual ascertainment on this point by the trial court and the Court of )ppeals bars us from supplanting their finding and substituting it with our own assessment. Fell-entrenched in our Burisprudence is the doctrine that the factual determinations of the lower courts are conclusi&e and binding upon appellate courts and hence should not be disturbed. *one of the recogni9ed eintolerable physical incon&enience and discomfort, e True, we find that under the circumstances of this case, %I(()*+%) might ha&e suffered some form of incon&enience and discomfort as a result of the dishonor of his check. ;owe&er, the same could not ha&e been so gra&e or intolerable as he attempts to portray or i mpress upon us. urther, it is clear from the records that the )*/ was able to remedy the ca&eat of /ingly Commodities to %I(()*+%) that his trading account would be closed at 4:10 p.m. on 27 ?une !"#7. The )*/ was able to issue a manager’s check in fa&or of /ingly Commodities before the deadline. It was able to likewise e
eradicated. %I(()*+%), thus, failed to support his claim for moral damages. In short, none of the circumstances mentioned in )rticle 22!" of the Ci&il Code e
