Xii. Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Querimit
Xii. Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Querimit
Xii. Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Querimit
Petitioner FEBTC alleged that it had given 2. ORDERING defendants to pay moral damages in
respondents late husband Dominador an the amount of P50,000.00;
accommodation to allow him to withdraw Estrellas
deposit.[12] Petitioner presented certified true
copies of documents showing that payment had 3. ORDERING defendants to pay exemplary
been made, to wit: damages in the amount of P50,000.00;
1. Four FEBTC Harrison Plaza Branch Dollar 4. ORDERING defendants to pay attorneys fees in
Demand Drafts Nos. 886694903, 886694904, the amount of P100,000.00 plus P10,000.00 per
886694905 and 886694906 for US$15,110.96 each, appearance of counsel; and
allegedly issued by petitioner to respondents
husband Dominador after payment on the
certificates of deposit;[13]
5. ORDERING defendants to pay the costs of the
suit.
Petitioner FEBTC thus failed to exercise that degree Third. Respondent is entitled to moral damages
of diligence required by the nature of its because of the mental anguish and humiliation she
business.[33] Because the business of banks is suffered as a result of the wrongful refusal of the
impressed with public interest, the degree of FEBTC to pay her even after she had delivered the
diligence required of banks is more than that of a certificates of deposit.[39] In addition, petitioner
good father of the family or of an ordinary business FEBTC should pay respondent exemplary damages,
firm. The fiduciary nature of their relationship with which the trial court imposed by way of example or
their depositors requires them to treat the accounts correction for the public good.[40] Finally,
of their clients with the highest degree of care.[34] respondent is entitled to attorneys fees since
A bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of petitioners act or omission compelled her to incur
its depositors with meticulous care whether such expenses to protect her interest, making such award
accounts consist only of a few hundred pesos or of just and equitable.[41] However, we find the award
millions of pesos. Responsibility arising from of attorneys fees to be excessive and accordingly
negligence in the performance of every kind of reduce it to P20,000.00.[42]
obligation is demandable.[35] Petitioner failed to
prove payment of the subject certificates of deposit
issued to the respondent and, therefore, remains
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present
liable for the value of the dollar deposits indicated
petition is hereby DENIED and the Decision in CA-
thereon with accrued interest.
G.R. CV No. 67147 AFFIRMED, with the
modification that the award of attorneys fees is
reduced to P20,000.00.
Second. The equitable principle of laches is not
sufficient to defeat the rights of respondent over the
subject certificates of deposit.
SO ORDERED.
[27] 10 Am Jur 2d 461. [42] Catungal v. Hao, G.R. No. 134972, March 22,
2001; Batingal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
[28] Clark v. Young, 21 So.2d 331 (1944); Cohn- 128636, Feb. 1, 2001.
Goodman Co. v. Peoples Saving Bank of Grand
Haven, 168 N.W. 1042 (1918).