solidbank & metrobank vs. tan

8/12/2019 Solidbank & Metrobank vs. Tan

1/6

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 167346 April 2, 2007

SOLIDBAN CORPORATION! METROPOLITAN BAN AND TRUST

COMPAN",*Petitioner,

vs.SPOUSES PETER #$% SUSAN TAN,Responents.

D ! " I S I O N

CORONA,J.:

#ssaile in this petition for revie$ b% certiorari uner Rule &' of the Rules of "ourt are

the ecision(an resolution)of the "ourt of #ppeals "#+ ate Noveber )-, )& anMarch (, )', respectivel%, in "#/0.R. "V No. '1-(1,2affirin3 the ecision of the

Re3ional Trial "ourt RT"+ of Manila, 4ranch 2(.&

On Deceber ), (55(, responents6 representative, Rei3ia Frias, eposite $ith

petitioner ten chec7s $orth P&'',5-). 0race Neri, petitioner6s teller no. 1 in its 8uan9una, Manila 4ranch, receive t$o eposit slips for the chec7s, an ori3inal an a

uplicate. Neri verifie the chec7s an their aounts in the eposit slips then returne the

uplicate cop% to Frias an 7ept the ori3inal cop% for petitioner.

In accorance $ith the usual practice bet$een petitioner an responents, the latter6s

passboo7 $as left $ith petitioner for the recorin3 of the eposits on the ban76s le3er.

9ater, responents retrieve the passboo7 an iscovere that one of the chec7s,

Metropolitan 4an7 an Trust "opan% Metroban7+ chec7 no. &25'&, pa%able to cashin the su of P)', $as not poste therein.

Ieiatel%, responents notifie petitioner of the proble. Petitioner sho$e

responent Peter Tan a uplicate

cop% of a eposit slip inicatin3 the list of chec7s eposite b% Frias. 4ut it i not

inclue the issin3 chec7. The eposit slip bore the stap ar7 :teller no. ;: instea of:teller no. 1: $ho previousl% receive the chec7s.

Still later, responent Peter Tan learne fro Metroban7 $here he aintaine an

account+ that Metroban7 chec7 no. &25'& ha cleare after it $as ine


2/6


3/6

Petitioner file a otion for reconsieration but the "# isisse it. Eence, this

appeal.1a\^/phi1.net

4efore us, petitioner faults the "# for upholin3 the RT" ecision. Petitioner ar3ues that=(+ the finin3s of the RT" an the "# $ere not supporte b% the evience an recors

of the caseC )+ the a$ar of aa3es in favor of responents $as un$arrante an 2+the application b% the RT", as affire b% the "#, of the provisions of the "ivil "oe on

coon carriers to the instant case $as erroneous.;

The petition ust fail.

On the first issue, petitioner contens that the lo$er courts erre in finin3 it ne3li3ent

for the loss of the subect chec7. #ccorin3 to petitioner, the fact that the chec7 $as

eposite in Preier 4an7 affire its clai that it i not receive the chec7.

#t the outset, the "ourt stresses that it accors respect to the factual finin3s of the trial

court an, unless it overloo7e substantial atters that $oul alter the outcoe of thecase, this "ourt $ill not isturb such finin3s.1e eticulousl% revie$e the recors of

the case an foun no reason to eviate fro the rule. Moreover, since the "# affirethese finin3s on appeal, the% are final an conclusive on us.5e therefore sustain the

RT"6s an "#6s finin3s that petitioner $as inee ne3li3ent an responsible for

responents6 lost chec7.

On the issue of aa3es, petitioner ar3ues that the oral an e


4/6

irreproachable service.(2For petitioner6s failure to carr% out its responsibilit% an to

account for responents6 lost chec7, $e hol that the lo$er courts i not err in a$arin3

eR=
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#fnt17


5/6


6/6

1Lipat v. Pai!i "anking Corporation, &' Phil. &( )2+.

5"ordalba v. Court o! #ppeals, &)' Phil. &; ))+.

(Petitioner6s Meoranu, rollo, p. (';.

((Philippine "anking Corporation v. Court o! #ppeals$ 0.R. No. ();&-5, ('8anuar% )&, &(5 S"R# &1;.

()Petitioner6s Meoranu, rollo, p. (';.

(2See Prudential "ank v. Court o! #ppeals, 21& Phil. 1(; )+C"ank o! the

Philippine %slands v. Casa &ontessori %nternational, 0.R. No. (&5&'&, )1 Ma%

)&, &2 S"R# )-(.

(&Supra, at '.

('I., #rticles (;22, (;2' an (;'- of the "ivil "oe.

(-Canlas v. #sian Savings "ank et al.$ 212 Phil. 2(' )+Cseealso"ank o! the

Philippine %slands v. Court o! #ppeals, 0.R. No. ()212, )- Noveber (55), )(-

S"R# '(.

(;Si'e( %nternational )&anila* v. Court o! #ppeals, 0.R. No. 11(2, (5 March

(55, (12 S"R# 2-.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_167346_2007.html#rnt17

solidbank & metrobank vs. tan

Documents