Republic of the Philippines | SUPREME COURT | Manila | EN BANC

G.R. No. L-24837 | June 27, 1968

JULIAN C. SINGSON and RAMONA DEL CASTILLO, plaintiffs,
vs.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and SANTIAGO FREIXAS, in his
capacity as President of the said Bank, defendants.
Gil B. Galang for plaintiffs.
Aviado and Aranda for defendants.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Appeal by plaintiffs, Julian Singson and his wife, Ramona del Castillo, from a
decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing their complaint
against defendants herein, the Bank of the Philippine Islands and Santiago
Freixas.
It appears that Singson, was one of the defendants in civil case No. 23906
of the Court of First Instance, Manila, in which judgment had been rendered
sentencing him and his co-defendants therein, namely, Celso Lobregat and
Villa-Abrille & Co., to pay the sum of P105,539.56 to the plaintiff therein,
Philippine Milling Co. Singson and Lobregat had seasonably appealed from
said judgment, but not Villa-Abrille & Co., as against which said judgment,
accordingly, became final and executory. In due course, a writ of
garnishment was subsequently served upon the Bank of the Philippine
Islands in which the Singsons had a current account insofar as VillaAbrille's credits against the Bank were concerned. What happened
thereafter is set forth in the decision appealed from, from which we quote:
Upon receipt of the said Writ of Garnishment, a clerk of the bank in charge
of all matters of execution and garnishment, upon reading the name of the
plaintiff herein in the title of the Writ of Garnishment as a party defendants,
without further reading the body of the said garnishment and informing
himself that said garnishment was merely intended for the deposits of
defendant Villa-Abrille & Co., Valentin Teus, Fernando F. de Villa-Abrille and
Joaquin Bona, prepared a letter for the signature of the President of the
Bank informing the plaintiff Julian C. Singson of the garnishment of his
deposits by the plaintiff in that case. Another letter was also prepared and
signed by the said President of the Bank for the Special Sheriff dated April
17, 1963.
Subsequently, two checks issued by the plaintiff Julian C. Singson, one for
the amount of P383 in favor of B. M. Glass Service dated April 16, 1963 and
bearing No. C-424852, and check No. C-394996 for the amount of P100 in
favor of the Lega Corporation, and drawn against the said Bank, were
deposited by the said drawers with the said bank. Believing that the
plaintiff Singson, the drawer of the check, had no more control over the
balance of his deposits in the said bank, the checks were dishonored and
were refused payment by the said bank. After the first check was returned

by the bank to the B. M. Glass Service, the latter wrote plaintiff Julian C.
Singson a letter, dated April 19, 1963, advising him that his check for
P383.00 bearing No. C-424852 was not honored by the bank for the reason
that his account therein had already been garnished.
The said B. M. Glass Service further stated in the said letter that they were
constrained to close his credit account with them. In view thereof, plaintiff
Julian C. Singson wrote the defendant bank a letter on April 19, 1963,
claiming that his name was not included in the Writ of Execution and Notice
of Garnishment, which was served upon the bank.
The defendant President Santiago Freixas of the said bank took steps to
verify this information and after having confirmed the same, apologized to
the plaintiff Julian C. Singson and wrote him a letter dated April 22, 1963,
requesting him to disregard their letter of April 17, 1963, and that the
action of garnishment from his account had already been removed.
A similar letter was written by the said official of the bank on April 22, 1963
to the Special Sheriff informing him that his letter dated April 17, 1963 to
the said Special Sheriff was considered cancelled and that they had already
removed the Notice of Garnishment from plaintiff Singson's account. Thus,
the defendants lost no time to rectify the mistake that had been
inadvertently committed, resulting in the temporary freezing of the account
of the plaintiff with the said bank for a short time.
xxx

xxx

xxx

On May 8, 1963, the Singsong commenced the present action against the
Bank and its president, Santiago Freixas, for damages1 in consequence of
said illegal freezing of plaintiffs' account.1wph1.t
After appropriate proceedings, the Court of First Instance of Manila
rendered judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs
cannot recover from the defendants upon the basis of a quasi-delict,
because the relation between the parties is contractual in nature; because
this case does not fall under Article 2219 of our Civil Code, upon which
plaintiffs rely; and because plaintiffs have not established the amount of
damages allegedly sustained by them.
The lower court held that plaintiffs' claim for damages cannot be based
upon a tort or quasi-delict, their relation with the defendants being
contractual in nature. We have repeatedly held, however, that the
existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of
a tort by the one against the order and the consequent recovery of
damages therefor.2 Indeed, this view has been, in effect, reiterated in a
comparatively recent case. Thus, in Air France vs. Carrascoso,3 involving an
airplane passenger who, despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally
ousted from his first-class accommodation and compelled to take a seat in
the tourist compartment, was held entitled to recover damages from the
air-carrier, upon the ground of tort on the latter's part, for, although the

relation between a passenger and a carrier is "contractual both in origin

and nature ... the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort".
In view, however, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering,
particularly, the circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was
remedied as soon as the President of the bank realized the mistake he and
his subordinate employee had committed, the Court finds that an award of
nominal damages the amount of which need not be proven4 in the
sum of P1,000, in addition to attorney's fees in the sum of P500, would
suffice to vindicate plaintiff's rights.5
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and another
one shall be entered sentencing the defendant Bank of the Philippine
Islands to pay to the plaintiffs said sums of P1,000, as nominal damages,
and P500, as attorney's fees, apart from the costs. It is so ordered.

Upon receipt of the said Writ of Garnishment, a clerk of the bank, upon
reading the name of the Singson in the title of the Writ of Garnishment as a
party defendants, without further reading the body and informing himself
that said garnishment was merely intended for the deposits of defendant
Villa-Abrille & Co., et al, prepared a letter informing Singson of the
garnishment of his deposits by the plaintiff in that case.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ.,
concur.

Subsequently, two checks issued by the plaintiff Julian C. Singson, one in

favor of B. M. Glass Service and another in favor of the Lega Corporation,
were dishonored by the bank. B. M. Glass Service then wrote to Singson
that the check was not honored by BPI because his account therein had
already been garnished and that they are now constrained to close his
credit account with them.
Singson wrote to BPI, claiming that his name was not included in the Writ of
Execution and Notice of Garnishment, which was served upon the bank.
The defendants lost no time to rectify the mistake that had been
inadvertently committed.

Fernando, J., took no part.

Thus this action for damages.

Footnotes

ISSUE:

P100,000 as moral damages, P20,000 as exemplary damages,

P20,000 as nominal damages, and P10,000 for attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation, plus the costs.

WON the existence of a contract between the parties bars a plaintiffs claim
for damages based on torts?

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, 38 Phil. 768; Yamada v. Manila Railroad,

33 Phil. 8; Vazquez v. Borja, 74 Phil. 560.

L-21438, Sept. 28, 1966.

Ventanilla v. Centeno, L-14333, January 28, 1961.

Articles 2208 and 2221 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

xxx

xxx

xxx

Singson vs BPI
23 SCRA 1117
FACTS:
Singson was one of the defendants in a civil case, in which judgment had
been rendered sentencing him and his co-defendants therein Lobregat and
Villa-Abrille & Co., to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff therein. Said
judgment became final and executory as only against Ville-Abrille for its
failure to file an appeal. A writ of garnishment was subsequently served
upon BPI in which the Singsons had a current account insofar as VillaAbrilles credits against the Bank were concerned.

HELD:
NO. The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent
recovery of damages therefore. Indeed, this view has been, in effect,
reiterated in a comparatively recent case. Thus, in Air France vs.
Carrascoso, involving an airplane passenger who, despite his first-class
ticket, had been illegally ousted from his first-class accommodation and
compelled to take a seat in the tourist compartment, was held entitled to
recover damages from the air-carrier, upon the ground of tort on the latters
part, for, although the relation between a passenger and a carrier is
contractual both in origin and nature the act that breaks the contract
may also be a tort.
In view, however, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering,
particularly, the circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was
remedied as soon as the President of the bank realized the mistake he and
his subordinate employee had committed, the Court finds that an award of
nominal damages the amount of which need not be proven in the sum
of P1,000, in addition to attorneys fees in the sum of P500, would suffice to
vindicate plaintiffs rights.
xxx

xxx

Singson vs BPI

xxx

23 SCRA 1117

Prepared a letter for the signature of the President of the Bank informing
the plaintiff Julian C. Singson of the garnishment of his deposits by the
plaintiff in that case and another for the special sheriff.

FACTS:
Singson was one of the defendants in a civil case filed before the CFI
Manila. Judgment was rendered sentencing him and his co-defendants
Celso Lobregat and Villa-Abrille & Co. to pay the sum of P105,539.56 to
Philippine Milling Co. Singson and Lobregat appealed, while the decision
became final and executory as to Villa-Abrille. A writ of garnishment was
issued to BPI against the Villa-Abrilles account.
The clerk of BPI who received the writ saw the petitioners name and,
without reading the full text, wrote a letter for the signature of the bank
President, informing Singson of the garnishment. Subsequently, Singson
issued two checks. The one issued in favor of B.M. Glass Service was
dishonored, and so petitioners account with the latter was closed. Singson
wrote a letter to the bank, claiming that his account is not included in the
writ of garnishment.
Having confirmed so, the bank President Santiago Friexas apologized to
Singson and rectified the mistake. Singson filed a claim for damages. The
lower court ruled that damages for quasi-delict cannot be sustained
because the relationship between the parties is contractual. Petitioner and
his wife appealed the case.
ISSUE:
Whether damages based on torts can be awarded based on a contract
HELD:
The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent
recovery of damages therefor. The act that breaks the contract may also be
a tort.
xxx

xxx

xxx

Singson vs BPI
23 SCRA 1117
FACTS:
BPI received a Writ of Garnishment from the CFI of Manila, upon reading the
name of Singson in the title of the writ as party defendants without further
reading the body of the said garnishment and informing himself that said
garnishment was merely intended for the deposits of other defendants in a
civil case.

Singson on the other hand issued 2 checks in favor of B. M. Glass Service

and another in favor of the Lega Corporation.
They informed Singson that the checks were dishonored due to BPI has
already garnished his account. Singson wrote to BPI, claiming that his name
was not included in the Writ of Execution and Notice of Garnishment, which
was served upon the bank. The defendants lost no time to rectify the
mistake that had been inadvertently committed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the action filed is based on Tort.
HELD:
Yes. The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent
recovery of damages therefore. Indeed, this view has been, in effect,
reiterated in a comparatively recent case.
Thus, in Air France vs. Carrascoso, involving an airplane passenger who,
despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally ousted from his first-class
accommodation and compelled to take a seat in the tourist compartment,
was held entitled to recover damages from the air-carrier, upon the ground
of tort on the latters part, for, although the relation between a passenger
and a carrier is contractual both in origin and nature the act that breaks
the contract may also be a tort.
In view, however, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering,
particularly, the circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was
remedied as soon as the President of the bank realized the mistake he and
his subordinate employee had committed.
xxx

xxx

xxx

JULIAN SINGSON and RAMONA DEL CASTILLO vs. BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and SANTIAGO FREIXAS (Pres. of BPI)
G.R. No. L-24837 | 29 June 1968.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
FACTS:
Appeal by plaintiffs from a decision of the CFI Mla dismissing their
complaint against defendants.

On May 8, 1963, the Singsong commenced the present action against the
Bank and its president, Freixas, for damages in consequence of said illegal
freezing of plaintiffs' account.
After appropriate proceedings, the CFI Mla rendered judgment dismissing
the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs cannot recover from the
defendants upon the basis of a quasi-delict, because the relation between
the parties is contractual in nature.
ISSUE:
WON the existence of a contractual relation between the parties bar
recovery of damages.
HELD:

The judgment appealed from is reversed holding defendant BPI to pay to

the plaintiffs nominal damages, and attorney's fees, apart from the costs.
The SC have repeatedly held that the existence of a contract between the
parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the order
and the consequent recovery of damages therefore.
In view, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering,
particularly, the circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was
remedied as soon as the President of the bank realized the mistake they
had committed, the Court finds that an award of nominal damages the
amount of which need not be proven in the sum of P1,000, in addition to
attorney's fees in the sum of P500, would suffice to vindicate plaintiff's
rights.