Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.
Comparing this article to the previous article (Art 1171) which primarily focuses on Fraud or Dolo, Article 1172 only focuses on negligence. It is important to take note that the kind of negligence cited in Art 1172 is the simple negligence. Otherwise, if it is gross in nature amounting to badfaith, and such badfaith is tantamount to fraud or dolo, then the previous article applies.
Further, there are 3 kinds of negligence under Article 1172, to wit;
A. Contractual Negligence or Culpa Contractual.
Here, there is an existing contract between the parties, and the negligent act of one party resulted in the breach of such contract. This kind of negligence is governed by Art. 1170 of the Civil Code.
B. Civil Negligence or Quasi-delicts.
Here, the wrongful act, negligence or omission creates a legal tie between the parties, without prior contract or obligation between. It is governed by Art. 2176 of the Civil Code.
C. Criminal Negligence or Culpa Criminal
Here, the negligence resulted to a criminal offense. It is governed under Art. 365 of the RPC.
Now, it is important to note the rule on "no person shall recover civil damages twice from the same act or omission. Hence, if a person already invoked and won the civil aspect of a case under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, he can no longer avail the civil aspect provided under Art. 365 of the RPC under the principle Unjust Enrichment.
Central Bank vs Citytrust Banking Corp
Pursuant to RA 625, the Citytrust Banking Corp. maintained a demand deposit account from the petitioner Central Bank.
As requires under the law, the Citytrust frunished the Central Bank the list of its authorized rouving tellers who are authorized to withdraw, sign a receipts and perform other transactions on behalf of it. For security reason, the petioner Central Bank issued identification cards to the authorized rouving tellers of Citytrust. One of whom was Flores.
In one of his transactions, Flores were able to encash two cash slips debited under the account of Citytrust. The said transaction was made fraudulently as Flores put a fictitious nmae in the transaction instead ot his. Unfortunately, this was not noticed by the Central Bank teller on duty.
After almost two years, the Citytrust discovered tne loss/theft committed by Flores and filed a case of Estafa against the latter while file a recovery of sum of money against the petitioner praying for it to restore the amount debited as the Centrak Bank negligently allowed the transaction despite the fact the Flores put a fictitious name in the transaction not one of the authorized persons to withdraw.
The RTC and the CA ruled that the plaintiff and the defendant are both equally negligent in the transaction. Therefore, they are equally liable.
Hence, a petition was filed in the SC.
WON the petitioner is correct in its contention that the failure of the Citytrust to stricly supervise its personnel is the proximate cause of the fraud committed by Flores.
WON the Central Bank must shoulder the entire obligation arising from the fraud committed by Flores
The petition is lack of merit. The fact that the Central Bank teller did not verify the signature of Flores because of a flimsy reason that Flores had previous transactions with them for a number of years cannot be just. That circumstance did not excuse her for focusing attention to or atleast glancing at Flores during the time the latter was signing. Would she have done that, she would be able to notice that Flores put a fictitious name in the transaction.
The Court further added that the law recognizes the fiduciary nature of banking as it requires a highest standard of integrity and performance
In other words, the bank has an obligation to observe meticulous care when dealing with their clients, always bear in mind their fiduciary nature of relationship.
However, the Citytrust failure to timely examine the checks, cancel the checks and the delay of its report on the loss/theft should mitigate the petitioner's liability.
And that is in accordance with Art. 2179 of the Civil Code which provides that if the plaintiff's negligende was only contributory and the immediate and proximate cause of the injury was the defendant's lack of due care, the plantiff may still recover damages but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
With that, the Court ruled partly infavor to both parties on a ratio of 60/40. 60% for the petitioner and 40% for the plaintiff.
Therefore, the rulings of RTC and CA were AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
