Westmont Bank vs Dela Rosa-Ramos

Facts:
Respondent maintained a current account with the United Overseas Bank where he would meet
its Signature Verifier, Tan Tan offered a special arrangement wherein he would finance of place
sufficient funds in her checking!current account whenever there would "e an overdraft or when
the amount of said checks would e#ceed the "alance of her current account $n order to
guarantee pa%ment for such funding, Respondent issued four &ssociated Bank postdated
checks pa%a"le to 'ash The first check was a stale guarantee check and was also altered The
value indicated in the check was charged against her checking "ank The second check
("ounced) so she replaced the same with her good customers check and cash and gave it to
Tan Tan redeposited it in 'o*s account The third check was undated and it was Tan who
placed the date $t was again redeposited in 'o*s account The last check was also undated
'laiming that the four checks mentioned were deposited "% Tan without her consent, the
respondent instituted the present claim
$ssue!+eld:
,u"lic $nterest is intimatel% carved into the "anking industr% "ecause of the primordial concern
here is the trust and confidence of the pu"lic The fiduciar% nature of ever% "ank*s relationship
with its clients impels it to e#ercise the highest degree of care of care, definitel% more than that
of a reasona"le man or a good father of a famil%
Ramos was defrauded and she lost her mone% "ecause of the negligence attri"uta"le to the
Bank and its emplo%ees $ndeed, it was the emplo%ees who directl% dealt with Ramos, "ut the
"ank cannot distance itself from them That the% were the ones who gained at the e#pense of
Ramos will not e#cuse it of its fundamental responsi"ilit% to her
&s regards to the firs t check, the Bank, clearl%, has not taken to heart its fiduciar% responsi"ilit%
to its clients Rather than ask and wonder wh% there were indeed su"se-uent transactions, the
more paramount issue is wh% the Bank did not dou"le check the genuineness of the check
despite the o"vious alteration
&s to the second and third checks, the admission made "% Ramos that she had to issue a
replacement check onl% proves that these checks were never paid and charged or de"ited
against her account The replacement check is a totall% different matter and is not covered as
an issue in this case
&s to the last check, it was considered good as cash if funded and hence ma% "e withdrawn on
the ver% same da% it was deposited
Thus, it is onl% the first check that should "e made to answer Since, there is no den%ing that it
was Ramos who e#posed herself to risk when she entered into that arrangement Thus, the
"ank should pa% ./0 of the actual damages