Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Doctrine:: Bank of The Philippine Islands v. Reynald Suarez GR NO 167750 - March 15, 2010 - CARPIO, J

    Uploaded by

    JORLAND MARVIN BUCU
    (1) The case involved a lawyer, Suarez, who issued 5 checks totaling PHP 19 million to purchase land after his client deposited a check, but the checks were dishonored by the bank, BPI, due to insufficient funds. (2) Suarez sued BPI for damages, claiming the bank negligently confirmed his account was credited when it was not due to the typical 3-day clearing policy. (3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BPI, finding that Suarez failed to prove BPI proximately caused his claimed injuries, as the check dishonor was justified due to lack of available funds in Suarez's account

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Doctrine:: Bank of The Philippine Islands v. Reynald Suarez GR NO 167750 - March 15, 2010 - CARPIO, J

    Uploaded by

    JORLAND MARVIN BUCU
    33 views2 pages
    (1) The case involved a lawyer, Suarez, who issued 5 checks totaling PHP 19 million to purchase land after his client deposited a check, but the checks were dishonored by the bank, BPI, due to insufficient funds. (2) Suarez sued BPI for damages, claiming the bank negligently confirmed his account was credited when it was not due to the typical 3-day clearing policy. (3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BPI, finding that Suarez failed to prove BPI proximately caused his claimed injuries, as the check dishonor was justified due to lack of available funds in Suarez's account

    Original Title

    275. BPI v. Suarez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) The case involved a lawyer, Suarez, who issued 5 checks totaling PHP 19 million to purchase land after his client deposited a check, but the checks were dishonored by the bank, BPI, due to insufficient funds. (2) Suarez sued BPI for damages, claiming the bank negligently confirmed his account was credited when it was not due to the typical 3-day clearing policy. (3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BPI, finding that Suarez failed to prove BPI proximately caused his claimed injuries, as the check dishonor was justified due to lack of available funds in Suarez's account

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views2 pages

    Doctrine:: Bank of The Philippine Islands v. Reynald Suarez GR NO 167750 - March 15, 2010 - CARPIO, J

    Uploaded by

    JORLAND MARVIN BUCU
    (1) The case involved a lawyer, Suarez, who issued 5 checks totaling PHP 19 million to purchase land after his client deposited a check, but the checks were dishonored by the bank, BPI, due to insufficient funds. (2) Suarez sued BPI for damages, claiming the bank negligently confirmed his account was credited when it was not due to the typical 3-day clearing policy. (3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BPI, finding that Suarez failed to prove BPI proximately caused his claimed injuries, as the check dishonor was justified due to lack of available funds in Suarez's account

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    University of Santo Tomas - Faculty of Civil Law

    Case Digest in Torts and Damages – Atty. Mauricio Ulep


    Class 3D (AY 2021 – 2022)

    Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reynald assurance from


    Suarez RCBC, the drawee bank for the sum of P19,129,10 NOTES:
    GR NO 167750 | March 15, 2010 | CARPIO, J: 0, that this amount had already been debited
    from the account of the drawer and the RCBC
    DOCTRINE: check was fully funded.
    The following are the conditions
    for the award of moral damages: (1) there is an Payees of the five BPI checks
    injury — whether physical, mental or that Suarez issued ,presented the checks again.
    psychological — clearly sustained by the claimant; Since the RCBC check (which Suarez's client
    (2) the culpable act or omission is factually issued) had already been cleared by that time,
    established; (3) the wrongful act or rendering Suarez's available funds
    omission of the defendant is the proximate sufficient, the checks were honored by BPI.
    cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and
    (4) the award of damages is predicated on Suarez sent a letter to BPI demanding an apology
    any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil and the reversal of the charges debited from his
    Code account. BPI, however, did not heed to such
    demand. Claiming that BPI mishandled his
    FACTS: account through negligence, Suarez filed
    Respondent (Suarez) is a lawyer who used to with the Regional Trial Court a complaint for
    maintain both savings and current accounts with damages.
    petitioner
    RTC rendered a decision in favor of Suarez and
    Suarez had a client who planned to purchase awarded moral damages. CA affirmed the decision
    several parcels of land in Tagaytay City, but made by the RTC
    preferred not to deal directly with the land
    owners, Suarez then transacted ISSUE
    with the owners of the Tagaytay properties, Whether or not the award of damages was proper
    making it appear that he was the buyer of the lots.
    As regards the payment of the purchase RULING:
    money, Suarez and his client made an
    arrangement such that Suarez's client would Issue on Moral Damages
    deposit the money in Suarez's BPI account and The following are the conditions
    then, Suarez would issue checks to the sellers. The for the award of moral damages: (1) there is an
    client then deposited a Rizal Commercial Banking injury — whether physical, mental or
    Corporation (RCBC) check representing the total psychological — clearly sustained by the claimant;
    consideration of the sales, in BPI Pasong Tamo (2) the culpable act or omission is factually
    Branch to be credited to Suarez's current account established; (3) the wrongful act or
    in BPI Ermita. omission of the defendant is the proximate
    cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and
    Due to the 3-day check clearing (4) the award of damages is predicated on
    policy, Suarez instructed his secretary, Garaygay , any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil
    to confirm from BPI whether the face value of the Code.
    check was already credited to his account.
    According to Garaygay, BPI allegedly In the case at hand, Suarez failed to establish that
    confirmed the same-day crediting of the RCBC his claimed injury was proximately caused
    check. Relying on this confirmation, Suarez issued by the erroneous marking of DAIF on the checks.
    on the same day five checks of different amounts Proximate cause has been defined as "any cause
    totaling P19,129,100 which, in natural and continuous sequence,
    for the purchase of the Tagaytay properties. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
    produces the result complained of and without
    While Suarez was in the U.S., Garaygay informed which would not have occurred." 
    him that the five checks he issued were all
    dishonored by BPI due to insufficiency of funds There is nothing in Suarez's testimony which
    and that his current account had been debited a convincingly shows that the erroneous
    total of P57,200 as penalty marking of DAIF on the checks proximately
    for the dishonor. Furthermore, the secretary told caused his alleged psychological or social
    him that the checks were dishonored despite an injuries. Suarez merely testified that he suffered
    1
    University of Santo Tomas - Faculty of Civil Law
    Case Digest in Torts and Damages – Atty. Mauricio Ulep
    Class 3D (AY 2021 – 2022)

    humiliation and that the prospective


    consolidation of the titles to the Tagaytay NOTES:
    properties did not materialize due
    to the dishonor of his checks, not due
    to the erroneous marking of DAIF on his checks.

    Hence, Suarez had only himself to blame for his


    hurt feelings and the unsuccessful transaction
    with his client as these were directly caused
    by the justified dishonor of the checks. In
    short, Suarez cannot recover compensatory
    damages for his own negligence.

    OTHER TOPIC
    NEGLIGENCE

    While BPI had the discretion to


    undertake the same-day crediting of the RCBC
    check, and disregard the banking industry's 3-day
    check clearing policy, Suarez failed to
    convincingly show his entitlement to such
    privilege. As BPI pointed out, Suarez had no credit
    or bill purchase line with BPI which would qualify
    him to the exceptions to the 3-day check clearing
    policy. 

    Considering that there was no binding


    representation on BPI's part as regards the same-
    day crediting of the RCBC check, no negligence can
    be ascribed to BPI's dishonor of the checks
    precisely because BPI was justified in
    dishonoring the checks for lack of available funds
    in Suarez's account.

    You might also like