View full case

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. NORMAN Y. PIKE

FACTS:

Norman Pike, a gay entertainer in Japan, filed a complaint for damages against the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Pike alleged that unauthorized withdrawals were made from his U.S. Dollar Savings Account while he was in Japan. Pike reported the incident to the police, leading to the arrest of Mr. Joy Manuel Davasol. Pike verbally protested the withdrawals to PNB but the bank refused to credit the amount back to his account. In a letter to PNB, Pike requested the hold-order on his account to be lifted so he could withdraw the remaining balance. PNB allowed Pike to withdraw the balance, but declined his request to credit the unauthorized withdrawals. Pike filed a complaint against PNB.

PNB claimed that Pike authorized the withdrawals and that the signatures on the withdrawal slips were not forgeries. Pike's counsel denied that Pike made any promise to not hold the bank responsible for the withdrawals. The trial court found PNB responsible for the unauthorized withdrawals and denied PNB's defense that there was an arrangement for pre-signed withdrawal slips. The court compared the signatures on the unauthorized withdrawal slips with Pike's known signatures and found them to be different. The trial court ruled in favor of Pike and ordered PNB to pay damages. PNB's motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the rate of interest and the amount of damages awarded. The Court of Appeals held that Pike did not waive his right to question the bank's negligence. PNB filed a petition seeking a review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, raising various issues including whether the principle of estoppel was properly applied, whether the signatures were proven to be forgeries, and whether damages can be awarded against a party in good faith.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the signatures on the withdrawal slips were forgeries or authentic.

  2. Whether respondent Pike executed a waiver absolving petitioner bank from any legal responsibility.

  3. Whether PNB was negligent in allowing withdrawals from the account of Norman Pike without proper authorization.

  4. Whether PNB is liable for the unauthorized withdrawals.

  5. Whether petitioner PNB exercised the degree of diligence required in dealing with their clients.

  6. Whether the award of damages is proper.

  7. Whether petitioner PNB should be held liable for actual damages.

  8. Whether respondent Pike is entitled to exemplary damages.

  9. Whether respondent Pike is entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court cannot review the factual findings made by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The findings that the signatures were forgeries and that there was no valid waiver must therefore stand. As a result, the petition for review by petitioner PNB fails.

  2. Yes, PNB was negligent in allowing withdrawals from Pike's account without proper authorization. The court found that PNB's witness failed to protect the bank's client and the bank itself by allowing Pike to make it appear as if he was the one actually withdrawing from the account. It was found that the witness did not call Pike's attention to the space provided for authorizing representatives to withdraw from and receive the proceeds of the withdrawal. The court considered this negligence amounting to bad faith on the part of PNB.

  3. Yes, PNB is liable for the unauthorized withdrawals. PNB failed to follow its own standard operating procedure by accepting verbal authorities for withdrawals. The court held that PNB's negligence in allowing the withdrawals without proper authorization made it liable for the unauthorized transactions.

  4. No, petitioner PNB did not exercise the degree of diligence required in dealing with their clients. The evidence showed that the bank's employee was careless in his treatment of the respondent's account. The law imposes a high degree of obligation on banks to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship.

  5. Yes, the award of damages is proper. The award of moral damages is allowed because there is evidence of mental suffering sustained by the respondent and the bank's actions amounted to gross negligence. The award of exemplary damages is also justified as a warning to the bank and others to not recklessly disregard their obligations.

  6. Petitioner PNB should be held liable for actual damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that PNB committed negligence in handling respondent Pike's account, resulting in the loss of his deposits. Thus, PNB should be held responsible for the consequential damages suffered by respondent Pike.

  7. Respondent Pike is entitled to exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are proper in cases where the defendant's act was attended by bad faith or gross negligence. In this case, the Court found that PNB acted recklessly and disregarded its obligation to exercise the highest and strictest diligence in serving its depositors. Therefore, the grant of exemplary damages as a warning to PNB and others in similar situations is justified.

  8. Respondent Pike is entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses. As a consequence of the award of exemplary damages, respondent Pike is also entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses. These amounts were determined by the Court based on the circumstances of the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the lower courts.

  • Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties, and carry more weight when affirmed by the trial court.

  • Negligence of banking institutions should not be countenanced. Banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.

  • The liability of a bank as an obligor is not merely vicarious but primary.

  • Banks have a duty to protect their clients and themselves from unauthorized transactions.

  • Banks should require proper authorization for withdrawals, especially when someone other than the account holder is making the withdrawal.

  • Negligence on the part of a bank in allowing unauthorized transactions can constitute bad faith and make the bank liable for damages.

  • Banks have a high degree of obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship.

  • The degree of diligence required of banks is higher than that of a good father of a family.

  • The bank's obligation to observe the highest standards of integrity and performance is deemed written into every deposit agreement.

  • Banks are required to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father of a family.

  • An award of moral damages in breach of contract cases is recoverable if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is found guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of contractual obligations.

  • The award of exemplary damages is proper as a warning to the defendant and others to not recklessly disregard their obligations.

  • Exemplary damages may be awarded when the defendant's act was attended by bad faith or gross negligence.

  • Attorney's fees and litigation expenses may be awarded when the plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages.