Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 157177 -

G.R. No. 157177 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, vs. JESUSA P. REYES and CONRADO B. REYES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 145RA 25,RA 160RA 485,RA 769
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds in favor of the plaintiff Jesusa P. Reyes and Conrado Reyes and against defendant Bank of the Philippine Islands ordering the latter to: Return to plaintiffs their P100,000.00 with interest at 14% per annum from December 7, 1990; Pay plaintiffs P1,000,000.00 as moral damages; Pay plaintiffs P350,000.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds in favor of the plaintiff Jesusa P. Reyes and Conrado Reyes and against defendant Bank of the Philippine Islands ordering the latter to: Return to plaintiffs their P100,000.00 with interest at 14% per annum from December 7, 1990; Pay plaintiffs P1,000,000.00 as moral damages; Pay plaintiffs P350,000.00 as exemplary damages; Pay plaintiffs P250,000.00 for and attorney's fees. [6] The RTC found that petitioner's claim that respondent Jesusa deposited only P100,000.00 instead of P200,000.00 was hazy; that what should control was the deposit slip issued by the bank to respondent, for there was no chance by which respondent could write the amount of P200,000.00 without petitioner's employee noticing it and making the necessary corrections; that it was deplorable to note that it was when respondent Jesusa's bankbook was submitted to be updated after the lapse of several months when the alleged error claimed by petitioner was corrected; that Article 1962 of the New Civil Code provides that a deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging to another with the obligation of safely keeping it and of returning the same; that under Article 1972, the depositary is obliged to keep the thing safely and to return it when required to the depositor or to his heirs and successors or to the person who may have been designated in the contract. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA which in a Decision dated October 29, 2002 affirmed the RTC decision with modification as follows: Nonetheless, the award of 14% interest per annum on the missing P100,000.00 can stand some modification. The interest thereon should be 12% per annum, reckoned from May 12, 1991, the last day of the five day-grace period given by plaintiff-appellees' counsel under the first demand letter dated May 6, 1991 (Exhibit B), or counted from May 7, 1991, the date when defendant-appellant received said letter. Interest is demandable when the obligation consist in the payment of money and the debtor incurs in delay. Also, we have to reduce the P1 million award of moral damages to a reasonable sum of P50,000.00. Moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of a defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. The award of moral damages must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. In addition, we have to delete the award of P350,000.00 as exemplary damages. The absence of malice and bad faith, as in this case, renders the award of exemplary damages improper. Finally, we have to reduce the award of attorney's fees to a reasonable sum of P30,000.00, as the prosecution of this case has not been attended with any unusual difficulty. WHEREFORE, with the modifications thus indicated, the judgment appealed from is in all other respects AFFIRMED