Phil. Bank of Commerce vs.

CA Mortgage Case
G.R. No. 97626, March 14, 1997
The negligence must be the proximate cause of the loss
FACTS:
Rommels Marketing Corporation (RMC) maintained two separate current accounts
with PBC in connection with its business of selling appliances. The RMC General
Manager Lipana entrusted to his secretary, Irene Yabut, RMC funds amounting to
P300,000+ for the purpose of depositing the same to RMCs account with PBC.
However, it turned out that Yabut deposited the amounts in her husbands account
instead of RMC. Lipana never checked his monthly statement of accounts regularly
furnished by PBC so that Yabuts modus operandi went on for the span of more than
one year.
ISSUE:

What is the proximate cause of the loss Lipanas negligence in not

checking his monthly statements or the banks negligence through its
teller in validating the deposit slips?

HELD:
The bank teller was negligent in validating, officially stamping and signing all the
deposit slips prepared and presented by Yabut, despite the glaring fact that the
duplicate copy was not completely accomplished contrary to the self-imposed
procedure of the bank with respect to the proper validation of deposit slips, original or
duplicate.
The bank tellers negligence, as well as the negligence of the bank in the selection and
supervision of its bank teller, is the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the private
respondent, not the latters entrusting cash to a dishonest employee. Xxx Even if
Yabut had the fraudulent intention to misappropriate the funds, she would not have
been able to deposit those funds in her husbands current account, and then make
plaintiff believe that it was in the latters accounts wherein she had deposited them,
had it not been for the bank tellers aforesaid gross and reckless negligence.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance where both parties are negligent, but the negligent
act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one
who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed
to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. It means that the
antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the
supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another, if the
latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by
exercise of due diligence. (Phil. Bank of Commerce v. CA, supra