G.R. No. 152720 - SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, VS. SPOUSES TEODULFO AND CARMEN ARRIETA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appeal is DISMISSED , with costs against defendant-appellant. [4] The CA denied reconsideration in its February 5, 2002 Resolution. The Facts The facts are summarized by the CA as follows: Carmen Arrieta is a bank depositor of Solidbank Corporation under Checking Account No. 123-1996. On March 1990, Carmen issued SBC Check No. 0293984 (Exh. A) in the amount of P330.00 in the name of Lopues Department Store in payment of her purchases from said store. When the check was deposited by the store to its account, the same was dishonored due to Account Closed (Exh. B) despite the fact that at the time the check was presented for payment, Carmens checking account was still active and backed up by a deposit of P1,275.20. As a consequence of the checks dishonor, Lopues Department Store sent a demand letter to Carmen (Exh. C) threatening her with criminal prosecution unless she redeemed the check within five (5) days. To avoid criminal prosecution, Carmen paid P330.00 in cash to the store, plus a surcharge of P33.00 for the bouncing check, or a total of P363.00 (Exh. F). Thereupon, Carmen filed a complaint against Solidbank Corporation for damages alleging that the bank, by its carelessness and recklessness in certifying that her account was closed despite the fact that it was still very much active and sufficiently funded, had destroyed her good name and reputation and prejudiced not only herself but also her family in the form of mental anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and social humiliation. She prayed that she be awarded moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees. In its answer, the bank claimed that Carmen, contrary to her undertaking as a depositor, failed to maintain the required balance of at least P1,000.00 on any day of the month. Moreover, she did not handle her account in a manner satisfactory to the bank. In view of her violations of the general terms and conditions governing the establishment and operation of a current account, Carmens account was recommended for closure. In any event, the bank claimed good faith in declaring her account closed since one of the clerks, who substituted for the regular clerk, committed an honest mistake when he thought that the subject account was already closed when the ledger containing the said account could not be found. After trial, the lower court rendered its decision holding that Solidbank Corporation was grossly negligent in failing to check whether or not Carmens account was still open and viable at the time the transaction in question was made. Hence, the bank was liable to Carmen for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees. It held that the bank was remiss in its duty to treat Carmens account with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendant-ba