1.

Philippine Banking Corporation vs CA

Doctrine: Fiduciary Duty

The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a
good father of a family. Thus, the bank’s fiduciary duty imposes upon it a higher level of accountability
than that expected of depositor.

2.Simex International (Manila) Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals

Doctrine: Treatment of Accounts with Meticulous Care

In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether
such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. A blunder on the part of the bank,
such as the dishonor of a check without good reason, can cause the depositor not a little
embarrassment if not also financial loss and perhaps even civil and criminal litigation.

3. Metropolitan Bank vs Cabilzo

Doctrine: Indispensable Institution

The Supreme Court never fails to stress the remarkable significance of a banking institution to
commercial transactions, in particular, and to the country’s economy in general.13 The banking
system is an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of
every civilized nation. Whether as
mere passive entities for the safekeeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business
and commerce, banks have become an ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to
regard them with respect and even gratitude, and most of all, confidence.

5. Reyes vs CA

Doctrine: Degree of Diligence

Degree of diligence required of banks, is more than that of a good father of a family where the
fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors is concerned. In other words banks are duty
bound to treat the deposit accounts of their depositors with the highest degree of care. But the said
ruling applies only to cases where banks act under their fi duciary capacity, that is, as depositary of
the deposits of their depositors. But the same higher degree of diligence is not expected to be
exerted by banks in commercial transactions that do not involve their fiduciary relationship
with their depositors.

6. BPI vs IAC

Doctrine: Set-Off

While, banks have the right of set-off, the issue of whether it acted judiciously is an entirely different
matter.14 As businesses affected with public interest, and because of the nature of their functions,
banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always
having in mind the fi duciary nature of their relationship.
7. Manlapat vs CA

Doctrine: Dealing with Registered Lands

Banks should exercise more care and prudence in dealing even with registered lands, than private
individuals,bfor their business is one affected with public interest.38bBanks keep in trust money
belonging to their depositors,bwhich they should guard against loss by not committing any act of
negligence that amounts to lack of good faith. Absent good faith, banks would be denied the
protective mantle of the land registration statute, Act 496 (Land Registration Law), which extends only
to purchasers for value and good faith, as well as to mortgagees of the same character and
description. The rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title
does not apply to banks.

8. UCPB vs. Basco, G.R. No. 142668

Doctrine: Banks may Exclude Persons in their Premises

Banks are mandated to exercise a higher degree of diligence in the handling of its affairs than that
expected of an ordinary business enterprise. Banks handle transactions involving millions of pesos
and properties worth considerable sums of money. The banking business will thrive only as long as it
maintains the trust and confidence of its customers/clients. Indeed, the very nature of their work, the
degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of officials and employees of the bank is
far greater than those of ordinary officers and employees in the other business fi rms. Hence, no
effort must be spared by banks and their officers and employees to ensure and preserve the trust and
confidence of the general public and its customers/clients, as well as the integrity of its records and
the safety and well-being of its customers/clients while in its premises. For the said purpose, banks
may impose reasonable conditions or limitations to access by non-employees to its premises and
records, such as the exclusion of non-employees from the working areas for employees, even absent
any imminent or actual unlawful aggression on or an invasion of its properties or usurpation thereof,
provided that such limitations are not contrary to the law.

Aznar vs City Bank and BPI vs CA

Doctrine: Liability for Damages

It is settled that in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains,
he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the
plaintiff – a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The
underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in
contemplation of law; thus there must first be a breach before damages may be awarded and the
breach of such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.

BPI vs CASA Montesori

Doctrine: Moral Damages

The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset, it being a significant part of the
foundation of his business. Any adverse refl ection thereon constitutes some material loss to him.68
As a general rule, a corporation — being an artificial person without feelings, emotions and senses,
and having existence only in legal contemplation — is not entitled to moral damages,69 because it
cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish.70 However, for breach of the fiduciary duty
required of a bank, a corporate client
may claim such damages when its good reputation is besmirched by such breach, and social
humiliation results therefrom.