03 - GR - No. - L-24837 - Singson Vs BPI
03 - GR - No. - L-24837 - Singson Vs BPI
03 - GR - No. - L-24837 - Singson Vs BPI
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
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 Villa-Abrille'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.
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.