SOLIDBANK/METROPOLITAN BANK vs SPS PETER AND SUSAN TAN

FACTS: (The facts of this case have nothing to do with transportation or common carriers.
In fact, the closest relatable topic to transportation here is the decision of the lower court in
anchoring its decision to the principles and codal provisions of transportation laws- diligence
and public interest- so don’t be surprised if generally this case has nothing to do with
common carriers)

Representative of Sps Tan, Remigia Frias, deposited with petitioner bank 10 checks. “Teller
No. 8” received 2 deposit slips for the checks and an original duplicate. In accordance with
usual practice, the respondent’s passbook was left with petitioner for the recording of the
deposits. When they retrieved the said passbook, they discovered that one of the checks
payable to the sum of 25k was not posted therein. Immediately, the petitioner bank was
notified. The duplicate of the deposit slip was presented but it did not include the list of
checks deposited by the teller. They also saw that the deposit slip was marked “Teller 7”
instead of “Teller 8”.

Respondent Peter Tan learned that Metrobank check was indeed cleared after it was deposit
by a certain Dolores Lagsac in Premier Bank in Laguna. Respondents Tan demanded that the
petitioner pay the amount of the check but refused hence this case for collection of sum of
money.

Petitioner’s Defense: the deposited checks were spurious and the spouses were engaged in a
scheme to olleglly exact money from it (magboot ang bangko HAHA)

RTC and CA ruled in favor of the spouses

ISSUE: WN the bank may be held liable for the lost checks
WN this case is relevant to transportation law

HELD: The petition must fail.

1. The bank was not able to present the subject deposit slip which could have proven
their claim that they did not receive respondent’s missing check. Moreover, they
presented a false deposit slip to attempt to feign innocence hence there is bad faith
on the part of the Bank which purports dishonesty and unconscious wrongdoing.

2. The trial court did not commit any error when they anchored they conclusion to Art
1173 on the Civil Code under common carriers. The trial court merely made reference
to the kind of diligence petitioner Bank should have performed. Like common
carriers, banking business is imbued with public interest and should have exercised
extraordinary diligence. Granting RTC and CA based their ruling on the provisions on
common carries, the SC sees no reason to strike down the ruling on this ground alone.
In another case, the Court applied the doctrine of last clear chance (commonly applied
in transpo cases) to a banking transaction where it held the bank liable for the
encashment of a forged check.
We find no compelling reason to disallow the application of the provisions on
common carriers to this case if only to emphasize the fact that banking institutions
(like petitioner) have the duty to exercise the highest degree of diligence when
transacting with the public. By the nature of their business, they are required to
observe the highest standards of integrity and performance, and utmost
assiduousness as well