Gonzales vs PCIB

Gonzales vs PCIB FACTS Petitioner Eusebio Gonzales was a client of PCIB for 15 years. PCIB grante a creit line to Gonzales t!roug! t!e e"ecution of a Credit-On-Hand Loan Agreement (COHLA #$ in w!ic! t!e aggregate a%ount of t!e account of Gonzales wit! PCIB ser&e as collateral for an !is a&ail%e a&ail%ent nt li%it li%it uner uner t!e creit creit line. line. Gonzales Gonzales obtaine obtaine se&eral loans a%ounting P1$'(($((( w!ic! was secured by a parcel o land by Gonzales and spouses Panlilio! In a )ro%issory )ro%issory note$ it was s)eci*e t!at t !at Gonzales an Panlilio Panlilio were soliarily liable but only Panlilio recei&e t!e w!ole loan a%ount . PCIB calle t!e attention of Gonzales regaring t!e efaults in )ay%ent %ae by s)ouses Panlilio Panlilio an t!e subse+uent accu%ulating )erioic interest. Gonzales issue a c!ec, in fa&or of -ene nson for P/5($((( against t!e C02A. owe&er$ it was is!onore by PCIB ue to t!e ter%ination of PCIB of t!e creit line uner C02A for t!e un)ai )erioic interest ues fro% t!e loans of Gonzales an t!e s)ouses Panlilio. Panlilio. PCIB li,ewise li,ewise froze t!e FC3 account of Gonzales. nson an Gonzales !a a !eate argu%en argu%entt because because of t!e dis"onored c"ec# $"ic" caused great embarassment and "umiliation "umili ation to Gonzales . e t!en e%ane PCIB to return return t!e )rocees )rocees of !is FC3 as well as a%ages a%ages for t!e un4ust is!onor is!onor of t!e c!ec,. c!ec,. He also reminded PCIB t"at it #ne$ $ell t"at t"e acctual borro$ers $ere t"e spouses Panlilio and "e never bene%ted rom t"e proceeds p roceeds o o  t"e loans . Gonzales *le a%ages wit! t!e -TC against PCIB on account of t!e allege un4ust is!onor of t!e c!ec, issue in fa&or of nson. -TC Gonzales solidarily liable $it" t"e spouses Panlilio on t!e t!e t"ree promissory notes relative relative to t"e outstandin outstanding g &' loan. loan . T!e T!e tria triall cour courtt foun foun  no faul faultt in t!e t!e ter%ination of PCIB of t!e C02A wit! Gonzales an in freezing t!e latter6s accounts to answer for t!e )ast ue P1$'(($((( loan. CA A7r%e -TC ecision ISSE 8!et 8!et!e !err t!e lower lower court court erre erre  in not awar awarin ing g a%age a%ages s agains againstt res)o res)one nents nts es)it es)ite e )resentation of o f clear )roof to su))ort su))o rt action for f or a%ages. -2I9G  T!e ban,ing syste% !as beco%e an inis)ensable inis)ensable institution in t!e %oern worl an )lays a &ital role in t!e econo%ic life of e&ery ci&ilize society ban,s !a&e attaine a ubi+uitous )resence a%ong t!e )eo)le$ w!o !a&e co%e to regar t!e% wit! res)ect an e&en gratitue gratitue an %ost of all$ con*ence$ con*ence$ an it is for t!is reason$ reason$ ban,s ban,s s!oul guar against in4ury attributable to negligence or ba fait! on its )art. In t!e instant case) case ) Gonzales su*ered rom t"e negligence and bad ait" o  PCIB! Fro% t!e testi%onie testi%onies s of Gonzales Gonzales witnesses$ witnesses$ t!e e%barra e%barrass%e ss%ent nt an !u%iliat !u%iliation ion Gonzales !as to enure not only before !is for%er close frien nson but %ore fro% t!e %e%ber %e%bers s an an fa%il fa%ilies ies of !is friens friens an assoc associat iates es in t!e PCA$ w!ic! w!ic! !e contin continues ues to e")erience consiering t!e confrontation !e !a wit! nson an t!e conse+uent loss o  standi standing ng and credibili credibility ty among among t"em t"em rom rom t"e act act o t"e appare apparent nt bounc bouncing ing c"ec#  !e   !e issue. Creit is &ery i%)ortant to business%en an its loss or i%)air%ent nees to be recognize recognize an co%)ensate.

 T!e ter%ination of t!e C02A by PCIB wit!out )rior notice an t!e subse+uent is!onor of t!e c!ec, issue by Gonzales constitute acts o contra bonus mores . Art. /1 of t!e Ci&il Coe refers to suc! acts w!en it says$ Any )erson w!o willfully causes loss or in4ury to anot!er in a %anner t!at is contrary to %orals$ goo custo%s or )ublic )olicy s!all co%)ensate t!e latter for a%age. Accordingly) t"is Court %nds t"at suc" acts $arrant t"e payment o  indemnity in t"e orm o nominal damages!  9o%inal a%ages are reco&erable w!ere a legal rig"t is tec"nically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion t"at "as produced no actual present loss o any #ind! In t!e )resent case$ Gonzales "ad t"e rig"t to be inormed o t"e accrued interest and most especially) or t"e suspension o "is COHLA . For failure to o so$ t!e ban, is liable to )ay no%inal a%ages. T!e a%ount of suc! a%ages is aresse to t!e soun iscretion of t!e court$ ta,ing into account t!e rele&ant circu%stances. In t!is case$ t!e Court *ns t!at t!e grant of P"P ,) as nominal damages is )ro)er.