195. gonzales vs philippine commercial and international bank

7/26/2019 195. Gonzales vs Philippine Commercial and International Bank

1/38

Gonzales vs PCIB

Facts:

Gonzales was a client of PCIB. He was granted a credit line by the bank through a Credit-n-

Hand-!oan "gree#ent $CH!"%. He drew fro# the credit line through a check and said

credit line was secured by a collateral in the for# of his accounts with PCIB which was a

foreign currency de&osit worth '() *+++.

He obtained below loans fro# PCIB:

,. obtained with his wife P++/

0. obtained with s&ouses Panlilio P,12 P3++/

the abo4e loans $total: ,.*1% were co4ered by 3 &ro#issory notes and were secured by a real

estage #ortgage on a land co owned by Gonzales and s&ouses Panlilio. the &ro#issory notesstates the solidary liability of Gonzales ands&ouses Panlilio. Howe4er2 it was the s&ouses

Panlilio who recei4ed the &roceeds of ,.*1. 5he #onthly interest dues were &aid by the

s&ouses Panlilio through auto debit fro# their PCIB account. howe4er2 they defaulted in the

&ay#ent because their PCIB account had insufficient de&osits.

Gonzales issued a check to 6ene 'nson worth 0+/ drawn against his credit line but said

check was subse7uently dishonored due to ter#ination of gonzales8 credit line because of the

un&aid &eriod interest dues fro# the loans. PCIB also froze the foreign currency de&osit

account of Gonzales.

Issue: 9; Gonzales is liable for the three &ro#issory notes co4ering PHP,.*1 loan he

#ade with s&ouses Panlilio>-,30 of the 6egional 5rial Court

$65C%2 Branch ,3* in 1akati City. 5he 65C found ?ustification for res&ondents

dishonor of &etitioners check and found &etitioner solidarily liable with the

s&ouses ose and ocelyn Panlilio $s&ouses Panlilio% for the three &ro#issory

notes they e@ecuted in fa4or of res&ondent Phili&&ine Co##ercial and

International Bank $PCIB%.

1[1Rollo, pp. 2!"44. #enned by A$$ociate %u$tice Arturo &. 'aya( and concurred

in by A$$ociate %u$tice$ )odri(o . +o$ico and a-im S. Abdula/id.

2[2)ecord$, pp. 71"74. #enned by %ud(e Sito 3arella, %r.


4/38

T)e *a+s

Petitioner Dusebio Gonzales $Gonzales% was a client of PCIB for a good

, years before he filed the instant case. His account with PCIB was handled by

res&ondent Ddna ca#&o $ca#&o% until she was re&laced by res&ondent

6oberto ;oceda $;oceda%.

In ctober ,>>02 PCIB granted a credit line to Gonzales through the

e@ecution of a Credit-n-Hand !oan "gree#ent3J3K $CH!"%2 in which the

aggregate a#ount of the accounts of Gonzales with PCIB ser4ed as collateral

for and his a4ail#ent li#it under the credit line. Gonzales drew fro# said credit

line through the issuance of check. "t the institution of the instant case2Gonzales had a Foreign Currency )e&osit $FC)% of '() *2L,.L0 with PCIB.

n ctober 3+2 ,>>2 Gonzales and his wife obtained a loan for PhP

++2+++. (ubse7uently2 on )ece#ber 0M2 ,>> and anuary 32 ,>>>2 the s&ouses

Panlilio and Gonzales obtained two additional loans fro# PCIB in the a#ountsof PhP ,2+++2+++ and PhP 3++2+++2 res&ecti4ely. 5hese three loans a#ounting to

PhP ,2*++2+++ were co4ered by three &ro#issory notes.JK 5o secure the loans2

a real estate #ortgage $6D1% o4er a &arcel of land co4ered by 5ransfer

Certificate of 5itle $5C5% ;o. 3*+,0 was e@ecuted by Gonzales and the s&ouses

[5d. at 17, 19.

4[45d. at 10"1.


5/38

Panlilio. ;otably2 the &ro#issory notes s&ecified2 a#ong others2 the solidary

liability of Gonzales and the s&ouses Panlilio for the &ay#ent of the loans.

Howe4er2 it was the s&ouses Panlilio who recei4ed the loan &roceeds of PhP

,2*++2+++.

5he #onthly interest dues of the loans were &aid by the s&ouses Panlilio

through the auto#atic debiting of their account with PCIB. But the s&ouses

Panlilio2 fro# the #onth of uly ,>>*2 defaulted in the &ay#ent of the &eriodic

interest dues fro# their PCIB account which a&&arently was not #aintained

with enough de&osits. PCIB allegedly called the attention of Gonzales regarding

the uly ,>>* defaults and the subse7uent accu#ulating &eriodic interest dues

which were left still left un&aid.

In the #eanti#e2 Gonzales issued a check dated (e&te#ber 3+2 ,>>* in

fa4or of 6ene 'nson $'nson% for PhP 0+2+++ drawn against the credit line

$CH!"%. Howe4er2 on ctober ,32 ,>>*2 u&on &resent#ent for &ay#ent by

'nson of said check2 it was dishonored by PCIB due to the ter#ination by PCIB

of the credit line under CH!" on ctober L2 ,>>* for the un&aid &eriodic

interest dues fro# the loans of Gonzales and the s&ouses Panlilio. PCIB

likewise froze the FC) account of Gonzales.

Conse7uently2 Gonzales had a falling out with 'nson due to the dishonor

of the check. 5hey had a heated argu#ent in the &re#ises of the Phili&&ine

Colu#bian "ssociation $PC"% where they are both #e#bers2 which caused

great e#barrass#ent and hu#iliation to Gonzales. 5hereafter2 on ;o4e#ber 2


6/38

,>>*2 'nson sent a de#and letterJK to Gonzales for the PhP 0+2+++. "nd on

)ece#ber 32 ,>>*2 the counsel of 'nson sent a second de#and letterMJMK to

Gonzales with the threat of legal action. 9ith his FC) account that PCIB froze2

Gonzales was forced to source out and &ay the PhP 0+2+++ he owed to 'nson

in cash.

n anuary 0*2 ,>>>2 Gonzales2 through counsel2 wrote PCIB insisting

that the check he issued had been fully funded2 and de#anded the return of the

&roceeds of his FC) as well as da#ages for the un?ust dishonor of the check.L

JLK PCIB re&lied on 1arch 002 ,>>> and stood its ground in freezing Gonzales

accounts due to the outstanding dues of the loans.*J*K n 1ay 0M2 ,>>>2

Gonzales reiterated his de#and2 re#inding PCIB that it knew well that the

actual borrowers were the s&ouses Panlilio and he ne4er benefited fro# the

&roceeds of the loans2 which were ser4iced by the PCIB account of the s&ouses

Panlilio.>J>K

PCIBs refusal to heed his de#ands co#&elled Gonzales to file the instant

case for da#ages with the 65C2 on account of the alleged un?ust dishonor of the

check issued in fa4or of 'nson.

[5d. at !.

[5d. at 9.

7[75d. at 40"41.

![!5d. at 42.

9[95d. at 4"44.


7/38

T)e R-ln/ o0 )e RTC

"fter due trial2 on )ece#ber ,+2 0++,2 the 65C rendered a )ecision in

fa4or of PCIB. 5he decretal &ortion reads:

9HD6DF6D2 ?udg#ent is rendered as follows

$a% on the first issue2 &laintiff is liable to &ay defendant Bank as

&rinci&al under the &ro#issory notes2 D@hibits "2 B and CN

$b% on the second issue2 the Court finds that there is ?ustification on

&art of the defendant Bank to dishonor the check2 D@hibit HN

$c% on the third issue2 &laintiff and defendants are not entitled to

da#ages fro# each other.

;o &ronounce#ent as to costs.( 6)D6D).,+J,+K

5he 65C found Gonzales solidarily liable with the s&ouses Panlilio on

the three &ro#issory notes relati4e to the outstanding 6D1 loan. 5he trial court

found no fault in the ter#ination by PCIB of the CH!" with Gonzales and in

freezing the latters accounts to answer for the &ast due PhP ,2*++2+++ loan. 5he

trial court ruled that the dishonor of the check issued by Gonzales in fa4or of

'nson was &ro&er considering that the credit line under the CH!" had already

been ter#inated or re4oked before the &resent#ent of the check.

"ggrie4ed2 Gonzales a&&ealed the 65C )ecision before the C".

10[105d. at 70.


8/38

T)e R-ln/ o0 )e CA

n (e&te#ber 0M2 0++L2 the a&&ellate court rendered its )ecision

dis#issing Gonzales a&&eal and affir#ing in totothe 65C )ecision. 5hefallo

reads:

9HD6DF6D2 in 4iew of the foregoing2 the decision2 dated )ece#ber

,+2 0++,2 in Ci4il Case ;o. >>-,30 is hereby "FFI61D) in toto.

( 6)D6D).,,J,,K

In dis#issing Gonzales a&&eal2 the C"2first2 confir#ed the 65Cs

findings that Gonzales was indeed solidarily liable with the s&ouses Panlilio for

the three &ro#issory notes e@ecuted for the 6D1 loanNsecond2 it likewise found

neither fault nor negligence on the &art of PCIB in dishonoring the check issued

by Gonzales in fa4or of 'nson2 ratiocinating that PCIB was #erely e@ercising

its rights under the contractual sti&ulations in the CH!" brought about by the

outstanding &ast dues of the 6D1 loan and interests for which Gonzales was

solidarily liable with the s&ouses Panlilio to &ay under the &ro#issory notes.

5hus2 we ha4e this &etition.

T)e Iss-es

11[11Rollo, p. 4.


9/38

Gonzales2 as before the C"2 raises again the following assign#ent of

errors:

I - I; ;5 C;(I)D6I;G 5H"5 5HD !I"BI!I5= "6I(I;G F61

P61I((6= ;5D( $DOHIBI5( "2 B ";) C2 PD5I5I;D6N

DOHIBI5( ,2 0 ";) 32 6D(P;)D;5% PD65"I;D) 5 B669D6

(D 1". P";!I!I ";) ;5 5 "PPD!!";5 "( 6DCG;ID)

";) "C/;9!D)GDJ)K B= 6D(P;)D;5 PHI!IPPI;D

C11D6CI"! I;)'(56I"! B";/ $6D(P;)D;5 B";/%.

II - I; FI;)I;G 5H"5 5HD 6D(P;)D;5( 9D6D ;5 "5 F"'!5 ;6

G'I!5= F G6(( ;DG!IGD;CD I; )I(H;6I;G PD5I5I;D6(

CHDC/ )"5D) 3+ (DP5D1BD6 ,>>* I; 5HD "1';5 F P0+2+++.++

F6 5HD 6D"(; "CC';5 C!(D)2 I;(5D") F 1D6D!= 6DFD6

5 )6"9D6 GIED; 5HD F"C5 5H"5 DED; "F5D6 )I(H;62

6D(P;)D;5 (IG;D) " CD65IFIC"5I; )"5D) L )DCD1BD6 ,>>*

5H"5 C6D)I5 ; H";) $CH% !"; "G6DD1D;5 9"( (5I!!

E"!I) 9I5H " C!!"5D6"! F F6DIG; C'66D;C= )DP(I5

$FC)% F J'()K *2L,.L0.

III - I; ;5 "9"6)I;G )"1"GD( "G"I;(5 6D(P;)D;5(

)D(PI5D P6D(D;5"5I; F C!D"6 P6F 5 ('PP65 "C5I;

F6 )"1"GD(.,0J,0K

T)e Co-1s R-ln/

5he core issues can be su##arized2 as follows:first2 whether Gonzales is

liable for the three &ro#issory notes co4ering the PhP ,2*++2+++ loan he #ade

with the s&ouses Panlilio where a 6D1 o4er a &arcel of land co4ered by 5C5

;o. 3*+,0 was constituted as securityN andsecond2 whether PCIB &ro&erly

12[125d. at 12.


10/38

dishonored the check of Gonzales drawn against the CH!" he had with the

bank.

5he &etition is &artly #eritorious.

*1s Iss-e( Solda1l2 La3l2 on P1o4sso12 Noes

" close &erusal of the records shows that the courts a quocorrectly found

Gonzales solidarily liable with the s&ouses Panlilio for the three &ro#issory

notes.

5he &ro#issory notes co4ering the PhP ,2*++2+++ loan show the

following:

$,%Pro#issory ;ote B)-+>+-,LMM->2,3J,3K dated ctober 3+2 ,>>2 for

PhP ++2+++ was s/ned 32 Gonzales and )s 50e2 essica GonzalesN

$0%Pro#issory ;ote B)-+>+-0,00->2,J,K dated )ece#ber 0M2 ,>>2

for PhP ,2+++2+++ was s/ned 32 Gonzales and )e s6o-ses PanlloN and

1[1)ecord$, pp. 10"11.

14[145d. at 12"1.


11/38

$3%Pro#issory ;ote B)-+>+-+,,->M2,J,K dated anuary 32 ,>>M2 for PhP

3++2+++ was s/ned 32 Gonzales and )e s6o-ses Panllo.

Clearly2 Gonzales is liable for the loans co4ered by the abo4e &ro#issory

notes.First2 Gonzales ad#itted that he is an acco##odation &arty which PCIB

did not dis&ute. In his testi#ony2 Gonzales ad#itted that he #erely

acco##odated the s&ouses Panlilio at the suggestion of ca#&o2 who was then

handling his accounts2 in order to facilitate the fast release of the loan. Gonzales

testified:

"55=. )D D('(:

;ow in this case you filed against the bank you #entioned there was a loan

also a&&lied for by the Panlilios in the su# of P,.* 1illion Pesos. 9ill you

&lease tell this Court how this ca#e aboutJ,>K 7uoting the

definition of an acco##odation &arty under (ection 0> of the ;egotiable

Instru#ents !aw2 the Court cited that an acco##odation &arty is a &erson who

has signed the instru#ent as #aker2 drawer2 acce&tor2 or indorser2 without

recei4ing 4alue therefor2 and for the &ur&ose of lending his na#e to so#e other

&erson.0+J0+K 5he Court further e@&lained:

J"Kn acco##odation &arty is one who #eets all the three re7uisites2

viz: $,% he #ust be a &arty to the instru#ent2 signing as #aker2 drawer2

acce&tor2 or indorserN $0% he #ust not recei4e 4alue thereforN and $3% he #ust

sign for the &ur&ose of lending his na#e or credit to so#e other &erson. "n

acco##odation &arty lends his na#e to enable the acco##odated &arty to

obtain credit or to raise #oneyN he recei4es no &art of the consideration for the

1![1!5d. at 77, 'SN, %uly , 2000, p. 4.

19[19&.). No. 1411, September , 2007, 2 S+)A 244.

20[205d. at 272"27.


14/38

instru#ent but assu#es liability to the other &artyies thereto. 5he

acco##odation &arty is liable on the instru#ent to a holder for 4alue e4en

though the holder2 at the ti#e of taking the instru#ent2 knew hi# or her to be

#erely an acco##odation &arty2 as if the contract was not for

acco##odation.

"s &etitioner acknowledged it to be2 the relation between an

acco##odation &arty and the acco##odated &arty is one of &rinci&al and

suretythe acco##odation &arty being the surety. "s such2 he is dee#ed an

original &ro#isor and debtor fro# the beginningN he is considered in law as

the sa#e &arty as the debtor in relation to whate4er is ad?udged touching the

obligation of the latter since their liabilities are interwo4en as to be

inse&arable. "lthough a contract of suretyshi& is in essence accessory or

collateral to a 4alid &rinci&al obligation2 the suretys liability to the creditor is

immediate2 primary and asoluteN he is directly and equallybound with the

&rinci&al. "s an e7ui4alent of a regular &arty to the undertaking2 a surety

beco#es liable to the debt and duty of the &rinci&al obligor e4en without&ossessing a direct or &ersonal interest in the obligations nor does he recei4e

any benefit therefro#.0,J0,K

5hus2 the knowledge2 ac7uiescence2 or e4en de#and by ca#&o for an

acco##odation by Gonzales in order to e@tend the credit or loan of PhP

,2*++2+++ to the s&ouses Panlilio does not e@onerate Gonzales fro# liability on

the three &ro#issory notes.

Fourth2 the solidary liability of Gonzales is clearly sti&ulated in the

&ro#issory notes which unifor#ly begin2 For 4alue recei4ed2 the undersigned

$the B669D6% 7onl2 and seve1all2 &ro#ise to &ay @ @ @. (olidary

liability cannot be &resu#ed but #ust be established by law or contract. 00J00K

"rticle ,0+L of the Ci4il Code &ertinently states that there is solidary liability

only when the obligation e@&ressly so states2 or when the obligation re7uires

21[215d. at 27"2746 citation$ omitted.

22[22Hi-Cement Corporation v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, &.). No.1240, September 2!, 2007, 4 S+)A 29, 2!.


15/38

solidarity. 5his is true in the instant case where Gonzales2 as acco##odation

&arty2 is i##ediately2 e7ually2 and absolutely bound with the s&ouses Panlilio

on the &ro#issory notes which indubitably sti&ulated solidary liability for all the

borrowers. 1oreo4er2 the three &ro#issory notes ser4e as the contract between

the &arties. Contracts ha4e the force of law between the &arties and #ust be

co#&lied with in good faith.03J03K

Se+ond Iss-e( I461o6e1 Ds)ono1 o0 C)e+8

Ha4ing ruled that Gonzales is solidarily liable for the three &ro#issory

notes2 9e shall now touch u&on the 7uestion of whether it was &ro&er for PCIB

to dishonor the check issued by Gonzales against the credit line under the

CH!".

9e answer in the negati4e.

"s a rule2 an a&&eal by certiorari under 6ule of the 6ules of Court is

li#ited to re4iew of errors of law.0J0K 5he factual findings of the trial court2

es&ecially when affir#ed by the a&&ellate court2 are generally binding on us

unless there was a #isa&&rehension of facts or when the inference drawn fro#

2[2Panlilio v. Citibank, N.A., &.). No. 1, Noember 2!, 2007, 9 S+)A

9, !2"!6 citin( +558 +O:, Art. 119.

24[24Usero v. Court of Appeals, &.). No. 1211, %anuary 2, 200, 449 S+)A2, !.


16/38

the facts was #anifestly #istaken.0J0K 5he instant case falls within the

e@ce&tion.

5he courts a quofound and held that there was a &ro&er dishonor of the

PhP 0+2+++ check issued by Gonzales against the credit line2 because the credit

line was already closed &rior to the &resent#ent of the check by 'nsonN and the

closing of the credit line was likewise &ro&er &ursuant to the sti&ulations in the

&ro#issory notes on the banks right to set off or a&&ly all #oneys of the debtor

in PCIBs hand and the sti&ulations in the CH!" on the PCIBs right to

ter#inate the credit line on grounds of default by Gonzales.

Gonzales argues otherwise2 &ointing out that he was not infor#ed about

the default of the s&ouses Panlilio and that the (e&te#ber 0,2 ,>>* account

state#ent of the credit line shows a balance of PhP 0L+2+++ which was likewise

borne out by the )ece#ber L2 ,>>* PCIBs certification that he has '()

*2L,.L0 in his FC) account which is #ore than sufficient collateral to

guarantee the PhP 0+2+++ check2 dated (e&te#ber 3+2 ,>>*2 he issued against

the credit line.

" careful scrutiny of the records shows that the courts a quoco##itted

re4ersible error in not finding negligence by PCIB in the dishonor of the PhP

0+2+++ check.

2[2Casol v. Purefoods Corporation, &.). No. 10, September 22, 200,470 S+)A !, !9.


17/38

*1s. 5here was no &ro&er notice to Gonzales of the default and

delin7uency of the PhP ,2*++2+++ loan. It #ust be borne in #ind that while

solidarily liable with the s&ouses Panlilio on the PhP ,2*++2+++ loan co4ered by

the three &ro#issory notes2 Gonzales is only an acco##odation &arty and as

such only lent his na#e and credit to the s&ouses Panlilio. 9hile not

e@onerating his solidary liability2 Gonzales has a right to be &ro&erly a&&rised of

the default or delin7uency of the loan &recisely because he is a co-signatory of

the &ro#issory notes and of his solidary liability.

9e note that it is indeed understandable for Gonzales to &ush the s&ouses

Panlilio to &ay the outstanding dues of the PhP ,2*++2+++ loan2 since he was

only an acco##odation &arty and was not &ersonally interested in the loan.

5hus2 a #eeting was set by Gonzales with the s&ouses Panlilio and the PCIB

officers2 ;oceda and ca#&o2 in the s&ouses Panlilios ?ewelry sho& in (1

1ega#all on ctober 2 ,>>*. 'nfortunately2 the #eeting did not &ush through

due to the hea4y traffic ;oceda and ca#&o encountered.

(uch knowledge of the default by Gonzales was2 howe4er2 not enough to

&ro&erly a&&rise Gonzales about the default and the outstanding dues. Eerily2 it

is not enough to be #erely infor#ed to &ay o4er a hundred thousand without

being for#ally a&&rised of the e@act aggregate a#ount and the corres&onding

dues &ertaining to s&ecific loans and the dates they beca#e due.

Gonzales testified that he was not duly notified about the outstanding

interest dues of the loan:


18/38

"55=. )D D('(:

;ow when 1r. Panlilios was encountering &roble#s with the bank did the

defendant bank Jad4iseK you of any &roble# with the sa#e account>* you were the one who reco##ended the

cancellation of this credit on hand facility>* letter is

only the loan of ,.* #illion is it not2 as you can see fro# the letterJ>K 9e

further e@&lained the nature of no#inal da#ages inAlmeda v. Cario:

@ @ @ Its award is thus not for the &ur&ose of inde#nification for a loss

but for the recognition and 4indication of a right. Indeed2 no#inal da#ages are

da#ages in na#e only and not in fact. 9hen granted by the courts2 they are

not treated as an e7ui4alent of a wrong inflicted but si#&ly a recognition of

the e@istence of a technical in?ury. " 4iolation of the &laintiffs right2 e4en if

only technical2 is sufficient to su&&ort an award of no#inal da#ages.

Conve1sel2, so lon/ as )e1e s a s)o5n/ o0 a volaon o0 )e 1/) o0 )e

6lan00, an a5a1d o0 no4nal da4a/es s 61o6e1.+J+K $D#&hasis urs.%

In the &resent case2 Gonzales had the right to be infor#ed of the accrued

interest and #ost es&ecially2 for the sus&ension of his CH!". For failure to do

so2 the bank is liable to &ay no#inal da#ages. 5he a#ount of such da#ages is

addressed to the sound discretion of the court2 taking into account the rele4ant

circu#stances.,J,K In this case2 the Court finds that the grant of PhP +2+++ as

no#inal da#ages is &ro&er.

49[49rancisco v. errer, *r., &.). No. 142029, February 2!, 2001, S+)A 21,

27.

0[0&.). No. 1214, %anuary 1, 200, 9 S+)A 144, 10.

1[1Anc(eta v. 'estin$ inancial Plans, Inc., &.). No. 179702, February 1,

2010, 12 S+)A 4!, 46 citin(A%abon v. N+RC, &.). No. 1!9, Noember17, 2004, 442 S+)A 1.


33/38

1oreo4er2 as 9e held in "#$A%C& v. CA20J0K failure to gi4e &rior

notice when re7uired2 such as in the instant case2 constitutes a breach of contract

and is a clear 4iolation of "rt. 0, of the Code. In cases such as this2 "rt. 00,> of

the Code &ro4ides that #oral da#ages #ay be reco4ered in acts referred to in its

"rt. 0,. Further2 "rt. 000+ of the Code &ro4ides that JwKillful in?ury to &ro&erty

#ay be a legal ground for awarding #oral da#ages if the court should find that2

under the circu#stances2 such da#ages are ?ustly due. 5he sa#e rule a&&lies to

breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

(i#ilarly2 e4ery &erson who2 contrary to law2 willfully or negligently causes

da#age to another2 shall inde#nify the latter for the sa#e.3J3K D4idently2

Gonzales is entitled to reco4er #oral da#ages.

D4en in the absence of #alice or bad faith2 a de&ositor still has the right

to reco4er reasonable #oral da#ages2 if the de&ositor suffered #ental anguish2

serious an@iety2 e#barrass#ent2 and hu#iliation.JK "lthough inca&able of

&ecuniary esti#ation2 #oral da#ages are certainly reco4erable if they are the

&ro@i#ate result of the defendants wrongful act or o#ission. 5he factual

antecedents bolstered by undis&uted testi#onies likewise show the #ental

anguish and an@iety Gonzales had to endure with the threat of 'nson to file a

suit. Gonzales had to &ay 'nson PhP 0+2+++2 while his FC) account in PCIB

was frozen2 &ro#&ting Gonzales to de#and fro# PCIB and to file the instant

suit.

2[2No. 8"9019, %anuary 22, 19!!, 17 S+)A 24, 24!.

[+558 +O:, Art. 20.

4[4Bank of P(ilippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, &.). No. 1202, %anuary2, 2007, 12 S+)A 20, 41.


34/38

5he award of #oral da#ages is ai#ed at a restoration within the li#its of

the &ossible2 of the s&iritual status quo anteit #ust always reasonablya&&ro@i#ate the e@tent of in?ury and be &ro&ortional to the wrong co##itted.

JK 5hus2 an award of PhP +2+++ is reasonable #oral da#ages for the un?ust

dishonor of the PhP 0+2+++ which was the &ro@i#ate cause of the conse7uent

hu#iliation2 e#barrass#ent2 an@iety2 and #ental anguish suffered by Gonzales

fro# his loss of credibility a#ong his friends2 colleagues and &eers.

Further#ore2 the initial carelessness of the banks o#ission in not &ro&erly

infor#ing Gonzales of the outstanding interest duesaggra4ated by its gross

neglect in o#itting to gi4e &rior notice as sti&ulated under the CH!" and in

not gi4ing actual notice of the ter#ination of the credit line?ustifies the grant of

e@e#&lary da#ages of PhP ,+2+++. (uch an award is i#&osed by way of

e@a#&le or correction for the &ublic good.

Finally2 an award for attorneys fees is likewise called for fro# PCIBs

negligence which co#&elled Gonzales to litigate to &rotect his interest. In

accordance with "rt. 00+*$,% of the Code2 attorneys fees #ay be reco4ered

when e@e#&lary da#ages are awarded. 9e find that the a#ount of PhP +2+++

as attorneys fees is reasonable.

[olidbank Corporation v. Arrieta, &.). No. 12727, February 17, 200, 41S+)A 711, 721"7226 citation$ omitted.


35/38

9HERE*ORE2 this &etition is PARTL:GRANTED. "ccordingly2 the

C" )ecision dated ctober 002 0++L in C"-G.6. CE ;o. LMM is hereby

RE&ERSED and SET ASIDE. 5he Phili&&ine Co##ercial and International

Bank $now Banco )e ro% is ORDEREDto &ay Dusebio Gonzales PhP +2+++

as no#inal da#ages2 PhP +2+++ as #oral da#ages2 PhP ,+2+++ as e@e#&lary

da#ages2 and PhP +2+++ as attorneys fees.

;o &ronounce#ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO '. &ELASCO, 'R.

"ssociate ustice


36/38

9D C;C'6:

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief ustice

Chair&erson

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO


37/38

"ssociate ustice "ssociate ustice

'OSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

"ssociate ustice

C E R T I * I C A T I O N

Pursuant to (ection ,32 "rticle EIII of the Constitution2 I certify that the

conclusions in the abo4e )ecision had been reached in consultation before the

case was assigned to the writer of the o&inion of the Courts )i4ision.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief ustice


38/38

195. gonzales vs philippine commercial and international bank

Documents