Scribd
Upload
52 views

RCBC vs. CA

The petitioner RCBC filed a case against the private respondent for defaulting on his car payments. The private respondent had purchased a car and was making monthly installment payments through post-dated checks. However, one check for August 1991 was unsigned. RCBC encashed all checks except this one, but did not notify the private respondent about the missing signature for 16 months. The RTC and Court of Appeals both found in favor of the private respondent, dismissing the complaint and awarding damages. They determined that RCBC failed in its duty to promptly notify the private respondent about the missing signature. The acceleration clause in the contract requiring full payment for any missed installment was not applicable in this case since the lack of signature was not a

Uploaded by

Fairyssa Bianca Sagot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
52 views

RCBC vs. CA

The petitioner RCBC filed a case against the private respondent for defaulting on his car payments. The private respondent had purchased a car and was making monthly installment payments through post-dated checks. However, one check for August 1991 was unsigned. RCBC encashed all checks except this one, but did not notify the private respondent about the missing signature for 16 months. The RTC and Court of Appeals both found in favor of the private respondent, dismissing the complaint and awarding damages. They determined that RCBC failed in its duty to promptly notify the private respondent about the missing signature. The acceleration clause in the contract requiring full payment for any missed installment was not applicable in this case since the lack of signature was not a

Uploaded by

Fairyssa Bianca Sagot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, 21

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and FELIPE LUSTRE, respondents.
FACTS:

Private respondent Atty. Felipe Lustre purchased a car he made a down payment and the balance to
be paid in 24 equal monthly instalments. Private respondent issued 24 post-dated checks. The first was dated
April 10, 1991; subsequent checks were dated every 10th day of each succeeding month. To secure the
balance, private respondent executed a promissory note and a contract of chattel mortgage and was assigned
all its rights and interests in the chattel mortgage to petitioner (RCBC).All the checks were thereafter encashed
and debited by RCBC from private respondent's account, except for RCBC Check No. 279805 representing
the payment for August 10, 1991, which was unsigned.

On the theory that respondent defaulted in his payments petitioner, demanded from private respondent
the payment of the balance of the debt in a letter dated January 21, 1993, The latter refused, prompting
petitioner to file an action for replevin and damages before the Pasay (RTC).

ISSUE: WON THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT be held liable for damages.


HELD
The Court said that NO private respondent cannot be held liable for damages.
Under Art. 1170 of the Civil Code states that those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty
of delay are liable for damages. The delay in the performance of the obligation, however, must be either
malicious or negligent.
In the case at bar assuming that private respondent was guilty of delay in the payment of the value of
unsigned check, private respondent cannot be held liable for damages because there is no evidence that
private respondent acted with malice or negligence in failing to sign the check.
The court said that this whole controversy could have been avoided if only petitioner bothered to call up
private respondent and ask him to sign the check. Good faith not only in compliance with its contractual
obligations, but also in observance of the standard in human relations, for every person "to act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith."
The bank should observe extra ordinary diligence. The relationship between the two is the debtor-
creditor relationship or fiduciary in nature. It is not just a simple relationship. There was negligence on the part
of the bank because the bank fails to inform the client.
thus, petitioner is liable for damages caused to private respondent.

1.RTC rendered a decision DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND AWARD THE DAMAGES TO
RESPONDENT.
2.On appeal by petitioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC
3.paragraph 11 of the Chattel Mortgage contract [containing the acceleration clause] should be construed to
cover only deliberate and advertent failure on the part of the mortgagor to pay an amortization as it became
due in line with the consistent holding of the Supreme Court construing obscurities and ambiguities in the
restrictive sense against the drafter

4.The "default" was therefore not a case of failure to pay, the check being sufficiently funded, and which
amount was in fact already debited [sic] from appellee's account by the appellant bank which subsequently re-
credited the amount to defendant-appelle's account for lack of signature. All these actions RCBC did on its own
without notifying defendant until sixteen (16) months later when it wrote its demand letter dated January 21,
1993.

5. Clearly, appellant bank was remiss in the performance, of its functions for it could have easily called the
defendant's attention to the lack of signature on the check and sent the check to or summoned, the latter to
affix his signature.

6. Notably, all the other checks issued by the appellee dated subsequent to August 10, 1991 and dated earlier
than the demand letter, were duly encashed.

7. contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se; they are not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the
contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent.
8. While ambiguities in a contract of adhesion are to be construed against the party that prepared the same, 10
this rule applies only if the stipulations in such contract are obscure or ambiguous. If the terms thereof are clear
and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall
control.

9. THE CONTRACT PROVIDES THAT In case the MORTGAGOR fails to pay any of the installments, or to
pay the interest that may be due as provided in the said promissory note, the whole amount remaining unpaid
therein shall immediately become due and payable and the mortgage on the property (ies) herein-above
described may be foreclosed by the MORTGAGEE, or the MORTGAGEE may take any other legal action to
enforce collection of the obligation hereby secured,

10. The above terms leave no room for construction. All that is required is the application thereof.

11. Petitioner's conduct, in the light of the circumstances of this case, can only be described as mercenary.

12. Failing thus, petitioner is liable for damages caused to private respondent. 20 These include moral damages
for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation
suffered by the latter. 21

13. The trial court found that private respondent was a client who has shared transactions for over twenty
years with a bank . . ..The unfair treatment given the defendant is unpardonable since he was put to shame
and embarrassment after the case was filed in Court. He is a lawyer in his own right, married to another
member of the bar. He sired children who are all professionals in their chosen field. He is known to the
community of golfers with whom he gravitates. Surely the filing of the case made defendant feel so bad and
bothered.

14. (a) Moral damages — from P200,000.00 to P100,000.00


(b) Exemplary damages — from P100,000.00 to P75,000.00
(c) Attorney's fees — from P50,000.00 to P 30,000.00

You might also like