G.R. No. 112392 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND BENJAMIN C. NAPIZA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court approved the Auditor Generals denial of Banco Atlanticos claim for payment of the value of the checks that was withdrawn by Boncan. Said ruling brings to light the fact that the banking business is affected with public interest. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors "with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship." [27] As such, in dealing with its depositors, a bank should exercise its functions not only with the diligence of a good father of a family but it should do so with the highest degree of care . [28] In the case at bar, petitioner, in allowing the withdrawal of private respondents deposit, failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family. In total disregard of its own rules, petitioners personnel negligently handled private respondents account to petitioners detriment. As this Court once said on this matter: "Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do. The seventy-eight (78)-year-old, yet still relevant, case of Picart v. Smith , provides the test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case which may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet pater-familias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that." [29] Petitioner violated its own rules by allowing the withdrawal of an amount that is definitely over and above the aggregate amount of private respondents dollar deposits that had yet to be cleared. The banks ledger on private respondents account shows that before he deposited $2,500.00, private respondent had a balance of only $750.00. [30] Upon private respondents deposit of $2,500.00 on September 3, 1984, that amount was credited in his ledger as a deposit resulting in the corresponding total balance of $3,250.00. [31] On September 10, 1984, the amount of $600.00 and the additional charges of $10.00 were indicated therein as withdrawn thereby leaving a balance of $2,640.00. On September 30, 1984, an interest of $11.59 was reflected in the ledger and on October 23, 1984, the amount of $2,541.67 was entered as withdrawn with a balance of $109.92. [32] On November 19, 1984 the word "hold" was written beside the balance of $109.92.