Westmont Bank vs Dela Rosa-Ramos

Facts:
Respondent maintained a current account with the United Overseas Bank where he
would meet its Signature Verifier, Tan. Tan offered a special arrangement wherein he
would finance of place sufficient funds in her checking/current account whenever there
would be an overdraft or when the amount of said checks would exceed the
balance of her current account. In order to guarantee payment for such
funding, Respondent issued four Associated Bank postdated checks payable to
Cash. The first check was a stale guarantee check and was also altered. The value
indicated in the check was charged against her checking bank. The
second check bounced so she replaced the same with her good customers check
and cash and gave it to Tan. Tan re deposited it in Cos account. The third check was
undated and it was Tan who placed the date. It was again re deposited in Cos account.
The last check was also undated.
Claiming that the four checks mentioned were deposited
her consent, the respondent instituted the present claim.

by Tan

without

Issue/Held:
Public Interest is intimately carved into the banking industry because of the primordial
concern here is the trust and confidence of the public. The fiduciary nature of every
banks relationship with its clients impels it to exercise the highest degree of care of
care, definitely more than that of a reasonable man or a good father of a family. Ramos
was defrauded and she lost her money because of the negligence attributable to the
Bank and its employees. Indeed, it was the employees who directly dealt with Ramos,
but the bank cannot distance itself from them. That they were the ones who gained at
the expense of Ramos will not excuse it of its fundamental responsibility to her. As
regards to the first check, the Bank, clearly, has not taken to heart its fiduciary
responsibility to its clients. Rather than ask and wonder why there were indeed
subsequent transactions, the more paramount issue is why the Bank did not double
check the genuineness of the check despite the obvious alteration. As to the second
and third checks, the admission made by Ramos that she had to issue a replacement
check only proves that these checks were never paid and charged or debited against
her account. The replacement check is a totally different matter and is not covered as
an issue in this case. As to the last check, it was considered good as cash if funded and
hence may be withdrawn on the very same day it was deposited. Thus, it is only the first
check that should be made to answer. Since, there is no denying that it was Ramos who
exposed herself to risk when she entered into that arrangement. Thus, the bank should
pay 50% of the actual damages.