PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE, now absorbed by PHILIPPINE RMC’s CONTENTION:

COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, ROGELIO LACSON, Private respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the proximate
DIGNA DE LEON, MARIA ANGELITA PASCUAL, et al., vs. cause of the loss was the negligent act of the bank, thru its teller Ms.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROMMEL'S MARKETING CORP., Azucena Mabayad, in validating the deposit slips, both original and
represented by ROMEO LIPANA, its President & General duplicate, presented by Ms. Yabut to Ms. Mabayad, notwithstanding the
Manager, respondents. fact that one of the deposit slips was not completely accomplished.

FACTS: RULING:
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the private respondent Essence of the Doctrine of “Last Clear Chance.”—
Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC) represented by its President  Furthermore, under the doctrine of “last clear chance” (also referred
and General Manager Romeo Lipana, to recover from the former to, at times as “supervening negligence” or as “dis-covered peril”),
Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC for brevity), now absorbed by petitioner bank PBC was indeed the culpable party.
the Philippine Commercial International Bank,  This doctrine, in essence, states that where both parties are
 the sum of P304,979.74 representing various deposits it had made negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time
in its current account with said bank but which were not credited to than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose
its account, fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who
 and were instead deposited to the account of one Bienvenido had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and
Cotas, allegedly due to the gross and inexcusable negligence of failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.
the petitioner bank.
Stated differently, the rule would also mean that an antecedent
From May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976, petitioner Romeo Lipana claims to negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for
have entrusted RMC funds in the form of cash totalling P304,979.74 to the supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought
his secretary, Irene Yabut, for the purpose of depositing said funds in by another, if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have
the current accounts of RMC with PBC. avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
 It turned out, however, that these deposits, on all occasions, were  Here, assuming that private respondent RMC was negligent in
not credited to RMC's account but were instead deposited to entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, thus providing the latter
Yabut’s husband, Bienvenido Cotas who likewise maintains an with the opportunity to defraud the company, as advanced by the
account with the same bank. petitioner (PBC), yet it cannot be denied that the petitioner bank
 During this period, petitioner bank had, however, been regularly (PBC), thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to avert the
furnishing private respondent with monthly statements injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing their
showing its current accounts balances. self-imposed validation procedure.
 Unfortunately, it had never been the practice of Romeo Lipana to
check these monthly statements of account reposing complete Considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their
trust and confidence on petitioner bank. depositors, banks are duty bound to treat the accounts of their
clients with the highest degree of care.—
Irene Yabut's modus operandi was to furnish 2 copies of deposit slip  In the case of banks, however, the degree of diligence required
upon and both are always validated and stamped by the teller Azucena is more than that of a good father of a family.
Mabayad.  Considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their
 original showed the name of her husband as depositor and his depositors, banks are duty bound to treat the accounts of their
current account number - retained by the bank clients with the highest degree of care.
 duplicate copy was written the account number of her husband but
the name of the account holder was left blank A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the failure to duly credit him
 After validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the his deposits as soon as they are made, can cause the depositor not a
space left blank in the duplicate copy and change the account little embarrassment if not financial loss and perhaps even civil and
number to RMC's account number criminal litigation.—
 As elucidated in Simex International (Manila), Inc. v. Court of
With the daily remittance records also prepared by Ms. Yabut and Appeals, in every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat
submitted to private respondent RMC together with the validated his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such account
duplicate slips with the latter's name and account number, consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions.
 she made her company believe that all the while the amounts she  The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to
deposited were being credited to its account when, in truth and in the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be done
fact, they were being deposited by her and credited by the if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money
petitioner bank in the account of Cotas. the depositor can dispose as he sees fit, confident that the bank
 This went on in a span of more than one (1) year without private will deliver it as and to whomever he directs.
respondent's knowledge.  A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the failure to duly
credit him his deposits as soon as they are made, can cause
RTC: (PBC and AZUCENA MABAYAD jointly and severally liable) the depositor not a little embarrassment if not financial loss
Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC demanded from and perhaps even civil and criminal litigation.
petitioner bank the return of its money, but as its demand went
unheeded, it filed a collection suit before the Regional Trial Court of It cannot be denied that private respondent (RMC) was likewise
Pasig which found petitioner bank negligent and ruled as follows: negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account.—
 Defendants' counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.2  The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that, indeed,
private respondent (RMC) was likewise negligent in not
CA: (AFFIRMED with modification, deleting awards of exemplary checking its monthly statements of account.
damages and attorney’s fees.  Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series
of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary.
ISSUE:  The damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an amount
1. WON applying the last clear chance, PBC’s teller is negligent if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a little
for failing to avoid the injury by not exercising the proper vigilance in their financial affairs.
validation procedure. – YES  This omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence
2. WON there was contributory negligence by RMC. - YES which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the
private respondent under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code.
PBC’s CONTENTION:
Petitioners submit that the proximate cause of the loss is the negligence WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is modified by
of respondent RMC and Romeo Lipana in entrusting cash to a reducing the amount of actual damages private respondent is entitled to by 40%.
dishonest employee in the person of Ms. Irene Yabut.5 Petitioners may recover from Ms. Azucena Mabayad the amount they would pay
the private respondent. Private respondent shall have recourse against Ms. Irene
Yabut. In all other respects, the appellate court's decision is AFFIRMED.