PNB v.

Pike I am now requesting your good office to lift the same so I can withdraw the remaining balance of my
passbook. I also promise not to hold responsible the bank and its officers for the withdrawal made on my dollar
G.R. No. 157845, September 20, 2005 savings passbook on March 19 and April 5, 1993 respectively as a result of the lost (sic) of my passbook.

Chico-Nazario, J. On the same day May 6, 1993 Plaintiff Norman Y. Pike was allowed by defendant bank to withdraw the
remaining balance from his passbook
Second Division
On July 2, 1993, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to PNB Vice Pres. Suquila denying that his client made
Facts: any such promise not to hold responsible the bank and its officers for the withdrawal made.

Complainant Pike often traveled to and from Japan as a gay entertainer in said country. In 1991, he
A letter dated July 29, 1993 … was sent to Plaintiff’s counsel by VP Suquila stating that plaintiff’s
opened U.S. Dollar Savings Account with herein petitioner PNB Buendia branch for which he was issued a withdrawal of the remaining balance of his account with the Bank effectively estops him from claiming on the
corresponding passbook. Before complainant Pike left for Japan on 18 March 1993, he kept the passbook inside a alleged unauthorized withdrawals.
cabinet under lock and key, in his home; that on 19 April 1993, a few hours after he arrived from Japan, he
discovered that some of his valuables were missing including the passbook; that he immediately reported the Trial Court Decision: In favor of plaintiff, awarded the the $7,500, attorney's fees and damages Moral 50k and
incident to the police which led to the arrest and prosecution of a certain Mr. Joy Manuel Davasol. Complainant Exemplary 50k
Pike also discovered that Davasol made two (2) unauthorized withdrawals from his U.S. Dollar Savings Account,
(1) March 31, 1993 - $3,500, (2) April 5, 1993 - $4,000. Bank is responsible for such unauthorized withdrawals. The court is not impressed with the defense
put up by the bank. Its contention that the withdrawals were authorized by the plaintiff because there was an
On several occasions, complainant Pike went to defendant PNB’s Buendia branch and verbally arrangement between the bank represented by its Asst. Vice President Lorenzo Bal, Jr. and the depositor
protested the unauthorized withdrawals and likewise demanded the return of the amount of U.S. $7,500.00, on Norman Y. Pike to the effect that pre-signed withdrawal slips. There was no agreement to that effect. Signatures
the ground that he never authorized anybody to withdraw from his account as the signatures appearing on the are also forged.
subject withdrawal slips were clearly forgeries; that defendant PNB refused to credit and instead, defendant
bank wrote him that it exercised due diligence in the handling of said account; and that on 06 May 1993, CA: Affirmed the TC's Decision: Modified decreased the award for damages (tag 20k nalang moral and
complainant Pike wrote defendant PNB simply to request that the hold-account be lifted so that he may exemplary)
withdraw the remaining balance left in his U.S.$ Savings Account
Issues:
Counterstatement of facts by Defendants in their MTD:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED IN THIS CASE;
On March 15, 1993 at PNB Buendia Branch, Pike together with a certain Joy Davasol went to see PNB
AVP Mr. Lorenzo T. Val (sic), Jr. purposely to withdraw the amount of $2,000.00. Mr. Pike also informed AVP Val II. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY PROVEN THAT THE SIGNATURES APPEARING ON THE
that he is leaving for abroad (Japan) and made verbal instruction to honor all withdrawals to be transmitted by TWO (2) QUESTIONED PRE-SIGNED WITHDRAWAL SLIP FORMS ARE ALL FORGERIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
his Talent Manager and Choreographer, Joy Davasol who shall present pre-signed withdrawal slips bearing his SECTION 22, RULE 132 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT; and
(Pike’s) signature. . .
III. WHETHER OR NOT MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED AGAINST A PARTY IN GOOD FAITH.
On April 26, 1993, Atty. Nathaniel Ifurung who claims to be plaintiff’s counsel sent a demand letter to
VP Violeta T. Suquila demanding the bank to credit back the amount of US$7,500.00.
Held:

On May 5, 1993, Mr. Norman Y. Pike executed an affidavit of loss (sic) Dollar Account Passbook and
Ratio:
requested the PNB to replace the same and allow him to make withdrawals thereon.

A priori, it is quite evident that the petition is anchored on a plea to review or re-examine the factual conclusions
On May 6, 1993, plaintiff Norman Y. Pike wrote a letter. . . addressed to the Manager of PNB, Buendia
reached by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and for this Court to hold otherwise. Whether:
Branch:

Important part of the letter:

1) respondent Pike’s signatures appearing on the pertinent withdrawal slips used by Joy Manuel Davasol 13 to respondent Pike and that he met respondent Pike just once so that he cannot seem to recall what the latter
withdraw the amount of $7,500.00, were forgeries, as found by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of looks like.
Appeals, or were authentic as claimed by petitioner bank; and
Having admitted that pre-signed withdrawal slips do not constitute the normal procedure with respect to
2) respondent Pike in fact executed a waiver absolving petitioner bank from any legal responsibility due to the withdrawals by representatives should have already put petitioner PNB’s employees on guard. Rather than
unauthorized withdrawals, as maintained by petitioner bank, or the paragraph containing said waiver was readily validating and permitting said withdrawals, they should have proceeded more cautiously. Clearly,
intercalated by some other person, thus, amounting no waiver at all, as held by the courts a quo. petitioner bank’s employee, Lorenzo T. Bal, an Assistant Vice President at that, was exceedingly careless in his
treatment of respondent Pike’s savings account.
are questions of fact and not of law. Inexorably, these issues call for an inquiry into the facts and evidence on
record. This, as we have so often held, we cannot do. From the foregoing, the evidence clearly showed that the petitioner bank did not exercise the degree of
diligence that it ought to have exercised in dealing with their clients.
Elementary is the rule that this Court is not the appropriate venue to consider anew the factual issues as it is not
a trier of facts, and, it generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals. With banks, the degree of diligence required, contrary to the position of petitioner PNB, is more than that of a
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court good father of a family considering that the business of banking is imbued with public interest due to the nature
of their functions. The stability of banks largely depends on the confidence of the people in the honesty and
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - . . . The petition shall raise only questions of law which must efficiency of banks. Thus, the law imposes on banks a high degree of obligation to treat the accounts of its
be distinctly set forth. depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of banking. Section 2 of Republic Act
No. 8791, which took effect on 13 June 2000, makes a categorical declaration that the State recognizes the
"fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance."
We have oft "ruled that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable
by this Court – and they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the
trial court," and in the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in Damages:
the evidence on record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such
findings must stand. The courts a quo are in a much better position to evaluate properly the evidence. Specifically, in culpa contractual or breach of contract, as here, moral damages are recoverable only if the
defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is found guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or
At this juncture, it bears emphasizing that negligence of banking institutions should never be countenanced. The in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations. Verily, the breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious, or in
negligence here lies in the lackadaisical attitude exhibited by employees of petitioner PNB in their treatment of bad faith, oppressive or abusive.

Respondent Pike’s US Dollar Savings Account that resulted in the unauthorized withdrawal of $7,500.00. There is no reason to disturb the trial court’s finding of petitioner bank’s employees’ negligence in their
Nevertheless, though its employees may be the ones negligent, a bank’s liability as an obligor is not merely treatment of respondent Pike’s account. In the case on hand, the Court of Appeals sustained, and rightly so, that
vicarious but primary, as banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and an award of moral damages is warranted. For, as found by said appellate court, citing the case of Prudential Bank
supervision of their employees, and having such obligation, this Court cannot ignore the circumstances v. Court of Appeals, "the bank’s negligence is a result of lack of due care and caution required of managers and
surrounding the case at bar – how the employees of petitioner PNB turned their heads, nay, closed their eyes to employees of a firm engaged in so sensitive and demanding business, as banking, hence, the award of
the suspicious circumstances enfolding the two withdrawals subject of the case at bar. It may even be said that P20,000.00 as moral damages, is proper
they went out of their ways to disregard standard operating procedures formulated to ensure the security of
each and every account that they are handling. Petitioner PNB does not deny that the withdrawal slips used The award of exemplary damages is also proper as a warning to petitioner PNB and all concerned not to
were in breach of standard operating procedures of banks in the ordinary and usual course of banking operations recklessly disregard their obligation to exercise the highest and strictest diligence in serving their depositors.
as testified to by one of its witnesses, Mr. Lorenzo T. Bal, Assistant Vice President of Petitioner PNB’s Buendia
branch, on cross-examination.

By his own testimony, the witness negated the very reason for the bank’s bizarre "accommodation" of the
alleged verbal request of respondent Pike – that he was a "valued client." From the aforequoted, it appears that
the witness, Lorenzo Bal, was not even reasonably familiar with respondent Pike, yet, he was ready, willing and
able to accommodate the verbal request of said depositor. Worse still, the witness still approved the withdrawal
transaction without asking for any proof of identification for the reason that: 1) Davasol was in possession of a
pre-signed withdrawal slip; and 2) the witness "recognized" the signature of respondent Pike – even after
admitting that he did not bother to counter check the signature on the slip with the specimen signature card of