- Simex had a checking account with Traders Royal Bank (TRB) and deposited P190,380.74 but TRB failed to credit P100,000 of the deposit. As a result, several checks from Simex were dishonored for insufficient funds which damaged Simex's business reputation and credit standing.
- While TRB was negligent, Simex was not entitled to P1M in moral damages as claimed but P20K in moral damages was appropriate given the impairment to Simex's business reputation.
- TRB acted with gross negligence and in a wanton manner by not immediately correcting its error or providing a satisfactory explanation, warrant
- Simex had a checking account with Traders Royal Bank (TRB) and deposited P190,380.74 but TRB failed to credit P100,000 of the deposit. As a result, several checks from Simex were dishonored for insufficient funds which damaged Simex's business reputation and credit standing.
- While TRB was negligent, Simex was not entitled to P1M in moral damages as claimed but P20K in moral damages was appropriate given the impairment to Simex's business reputation.
- TRB acted with gross negligence and in a wanton manner by not immediately correcting its error or providing a satisfactory explanation, warrant
- Simex had a checking account with Traders Royal Bank (TRB) and deposited P190,380.74 but TRB failed to credit P100,000 of the deposit. As a result, several checks from Simex were dishonored for insufficient funds which damaged Simex's business reputation and credit standing.
- While TRB was negligent, Simex was not entitled to P1M in moral damages as claimed but P20K in moral damages was appropriate given the impairment to Simex's business reputation.
- TRB acted with gross negligence and in a wanton manner by not immediately correcting its error or providing a satisfactory explanation, warrant
- Simex had a checking account with Traders Royal Bank (TRB) and deposited P190,380.74 but TRB failed to credit P100,000 of the deposit. As a result, several checks from Simex were dishonored for insufficient funds which damaged Simex's business reputation and credit standing.
- While TRB was negligent, Simex was not entitled to P1M in moral damages as claimed but P20K in moral damages was appropriate given the impairment to Simex's business reputation.
- TRB acted with gross negligence and in a wanton manner by not immediately correcting its error or providing a satisfactory explanation, warrant
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
SIMEX INTERNATIONAL (MANILA) Inc. vs. CA & TRADERS ROYAL business standing or commercial credit.
" The amount of loss
BANK does not need to be absolutely certain to be awarded. 1990|Cruz i. Article 2216 of the Civil Code specifically provides that "no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in Petitioner, Simex, is a private corporation engaged in the exportation order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated of food products. He had a checking account with respondent, Traders Royal or exemplary damages may be adjudicated." Bank (TRB) in Romulo Avenue, Cubao, which he constantly deposited in to b. Moral damages is not awarded to penalize but to the amount of P190,380.74. Simex issued several checks drawing from the compensate the plaintiff for the injuries he/she may have bank but it was dishonored for insufficient funds. On June 1981, as a suffered. consequence, petitioner received demand letters from its suppliers for the i. The RTC failed to consider that claimed losses need dishonored checks, had its credit line canceled and was withheld supplies. not be established exactly precisely because of their nature as they are not susceptible of pecuniary Upon investigation after Simex complained on June 10, it was found estimation. out that the P100,000 deposited was not credited to it. The error was rectified c. Moral damages and not nominal damages is the proper on June 17 and the dishonored checks were consequently paid. Simex relief to which the petitioner is entitled. demanded reparation from TRB for its gross and wanton negligence to no i. Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, "nominal avail. damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the Petitioner filed before the RTC for a complaint for moral damages plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the (P1M), nominal damages (P20k) and attorney's fees and costs (P5k). defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not The RTC later held that respondent bank was guilty of negligence for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any but petitioner nonetheless was not entitled to moral damages since loss suffered by him." there was no proof of bad faith as it was a simple omission and the d. Exemplary damages under Art. 2229 says that "Exemplary dishonored checks were eventually paid. or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, ISSUE: W/N TRB acted with gross and wanton negligence amounting to the temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages" and Art. award of damages - YES. 2232 "In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, HELD: fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner" is 1. Simex was indeed prejudiced by the omission. Its credit line warranted. was canceled and orders were not acted upon meant that its i. The banking system is indispensable and plays a business declined and its reputation was tarnished in the vital role in the economic life of every civilized business community. nation. People regard them with respect, gratitude a. Article 2205, CC provides that actual or compensatory and confidence. damages may be received "(2) for injury to the plaintiff s ii. The depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether the account only has a few hundreds or millions. iii. The bank must record every single transaction ITC: The dishonored checks took almost a month when properly, the accurately, down to the last centavo, and as checks should have been paid immediately upon presentment. The initial promptly as possible. This has to be done if the carelessness of the bank and the lack of promptitude in repairing its account is to reflect at any given time the amount of error justifies the grant of moral damages. The laxity it showed regarding money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, the complaining depositor constituted gross negligence, if not wanton bad confident that the bank will deliver it as and to faith. whomever he directs. A blunder by the bank can cause the depositor financial loss and litigation. The P1M claimed is preposterous because its business is not that big, or its name not that prestigious to generate such an extravagant amount. Moreover, a corporation is not as a rule entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shock. The only exception to this rule is where the corporation has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in its social humiliation. o However, its prestige was indeed impaired. Moral damages to the amount of P20k should be awarded. Banks are businesses affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is obligated to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. ITC, the bank violated its relationship and did not immediately correct its mistake upon being informed nor gave a satisfactory explanation for the error and the lack of promptness in rectifying such. Such constitutes "wanton manner" and TRB deserves to be imposed exemplary damages of P50,000. P5k in attorney's costs and fees.