33.phil.com v. ca

8/9/2019 33.PHIL.COM v. CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/33philcom-v-ca 1/5

[G.R. No. 97785. March 29, 1996]

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BAN, petitioner,vs. CO!RT O" APPEAL# a$% ROR& '. LIM, respondents.

( E C I # I O N

"RANCI#CO, J .)

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the Decision of theCourt of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 1884 pro!ulgate" on #ul$ %& 1''%& an" theResolution "ate" (arch 11& 1''1& affir!ing with !o"ification the )u"g!ent of the

Regional Trial Court of Gingoog Cit$ which hel" petitioner *hilippine Co!!ercial+nternational ,ank *C+, lia/le for "a!ages resulting fro! its /reach of contract withprivate respon"ent Ror$ 0. i!.

Dispute" herein is the vali"it$ of the stipulation e!/o"ie" in the stan"ar" applicationfor!2receipt furnishe" /$ petitioner for the purchase of a telegraphic transfer whichrelieves it of an$ lia/ilit$ resulting fro! loss cause" /$ errors or "ela$s in the course of the "ischarge of its services.

The antece"ent facts are as follows3

n (arch 1& 1'85& private respon"ent Ror$ i! "elivere" to his cousin i! ngTian *C+, Check No. ### 64616457 in the a!ount of *6%%&%%%.%% for the purpose of

o/taining a telegraphic transfer fro! petitioner *C+, in the sa!e a!ount. The !one$was to /e transferre" to 9uita/le ,anking Corporation& Caga$an "e ro ,ranch& an"cre"ite" to private respon"ent:s account at the sai" /ank. ;pon purchase of thetelegraphic transfer& petitioner issue" the correspon"ing receipt "ate" (arch 1&1'85 <T2T No. 684= <1= which containe" the assaile" provision& to wit3

“AGREEMENT

xxx xxx xxx

In case of fund transfer, the undersigned hereby agrees that such transfer will be madewithout any resonsibility on the art of the !AN", or its corresondents, for any loss

occasioned by errors, or delays in the transmission of message by telegrah or cable

comanies or by the corresondents or agencies, necessarily emloyed by this !AN"

in the transfer of this money, all ris#s for which are assumed by the undersigned$%

>u/se9uent to the purchase of the telegraphic transfer& petitioner in turn issue" an""elivere" eight 8 9uita/le ,ank checks <6= to his suppliers in "ifferent a!ounts as

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/97785.htm#_edn1




8/9/2019 33.PHIL.COM v. CA


pa$!ent for the !erchan"ise that he o/taine" fro! the!. 0hen the checks werepresente" for pa$!ent& five of the! /ounce" for insufficienc$ of fun"s& <= while there!aining three were hel" overnight for lack of fun"s upon present!ent. <4= Conse9uentto the "ishonor of these checks& 9uita/le ,ank charge" an" collecte" the total a!ountof *1& 1%%.%% fro! private respon"ent. The "ishonor of the checks ca!e to private

respon"ent:s attention onl$ on April 6& 1'85& when 9uita/le ,ank notifie" hi! of thepenalt$ charges an" after receiving letters fro! his suppliers that his cre"it was /eingcut-off "ue to the "ishonor of the checks he issue".

;pon verification /$ private respon"ent with the Gingoog ,ranch ffice of petitioner *C+,& it was confir!e" that his telegraphic transfer T2T No. 684 for the su! of *6%%&%%%.%% ha" not $et /een re!itte" to 9uita/le ,ank& Caga$an "e ro /ranch. +nfact& petitioner *C+, !a"e the correspon"ing transfer of fun"s onl$ on April & 1'85&twent$ one 61 "a$s after the purchase of the telegraphic transfer on (arch 1&1'85.

Aggrieve"& private respon"ent "e!an"e" fro! petitioner *C+, that he /eco!pensate" for the resulting "a!age that he suffere" "ue to petitioner:s failure to

!ake the ti!el$ transfer of fun"s which le" to the "ishonor of his checks. +n a letter "ate" April 6& 1'85& *C+,:s ,ranch (anager Ro"olfo ?illar!ia acknowle"ge" their failure to trans!it the telegraphic transfer on ti!e as a result of their !istake in usingthe control nu!/er twice an" the petitioner /ank:s failure to re9uest confir!ation an"act positivel$ on the "isposition of the sai" telegraphic transfer.<@=

Nevertheless& petitioner refuse" to hee" private respon"ent:s "e!an" pro!ptingthe latter to file a co!plaint for "a!ages withthe Regional Trial Court of Gingoog Cit$<5= on #anuar$ 15& 1'87. +n his co!plaint& privaterespon"ent allege" that as a result of petitioner:s total "isregar" an" gross violation of its contractual o/ligation to re!it an" "eliver the su! of Two un"re" Thousan" *esos*6%%&%%%.%% covere" /$ T2T No. 684 to 9uita/le ,anking Corporation& Caga$an "e

ro ,ranch& private respon"ent:s checks were "ishonore" for insufficient fun"s there/$causing his /usiness an" cre"it stan"ing to suffer consi"era/l$ for which petitioner shoul" /e or"ere" to pa$ "a!ages. <7=

Answering the co!plaint& petitioner "enie" an$ lia/ilit$ to private respon"ent an"interpose" as special an" affir!ative "efense the lack of privit$ /etween it an" privaterespon"ent as it was not private respon"ent hi!self who purchase" the telegraphictransfer fro! petitioner. A""itionall$& petitioner pointe" out that private respon"ent isnevertheless /oun" /$ the stipulation in the telegraphic transfer application2for!receipt<8= which provi"es3

“x x x$ In case of fund transfer, the undersigned hereby agrees that such transfer will be made without any resonsibility on the art of the !AN", or its corresondents,

for any loss occasioned by errors or delays in the transmission of message by

telegrah or cable comanies or by corresondents or agencies, necessarily emloyed

by this !AN" in the transfer of this money, all ris#s for which are assumed by the

undersigned$%














8/9/2019 33.PHIL.COM v. CA


Accor"ing to petitioner& the$ utiliBe" the services of RC*+-Gingoog Cit$ to trans!it the!essage regar"ing private respon"ent:s telegraphic transfer /ecause their tele!achine was out of or"er at that ti!e. ,ut as it turne" out& it was onl$ on April &1'85 that petitioner:s Caga$an "e ro ,ranch ha" receive" infor!ation a/out the sai"telegraphic transfer.<'=

+n its "ecision "ate" #ul$ 67& 1'88<1%= the Regional Trial Court of Gingoog Cit$ hel"petitioner lia/le for /reach of contract an" struck "own the aforecite" provision foun" inpetitioner:s telegraphic transfer application for!2receipt ee!pting it fro! an$ lia/ilit$an" "eclare" the sa!e to /e invali" an" unenforcea/le. As foun" /$ the trial court& theprovision a!ounte" to a contract of a"hesion wherein the o/)ectiona/le portion wasunilaterall$ inserte" /$ petitioner in all its application for!s without giving an$opportunit$ to the applicants to 9uestion the sa!e an" epress their confor!it$ thereto.<11=Thus& the trial court a")u"ge" petitioner lia/le to private respon"ent for the followinga!ounts3

“&'ERE()RE, *udgment is hereby rendered in fa+or of laintiff and against the

defendant, ordering the latter to ay the former as follows

-./0,000$00 as moral damages1

-20,000$00 as exemlary damages1

-30,000$00 as attorney4s fees1 and

-5,500$00 as reimbursement for the surcharges aid by laintiff to the

E6uitable !an#ing 7ororation, lus costs, all with legal interest of /8 er

annum from the date of this *udgment until the same shall ha+e been aid infull$%<16=

;pon appeal /$ petitioner to the Court of Appeals& respon"ent court affir!e" with!o"ifications the )u"g!ent of the trial court an" or"ere" as follows3

“&'ERE()RE, remises considered, *udgment is hereby rendered affirming the

aealed decision with modification, as follows

The defendant9aellant is ordered to ay to the laintiff9aellee the following

1. The su! of our un"re" Thousan" *4%%&%%%.%% *esos as2for !oral "a!agesE

6. The su! of ort$ Thousan" *4%&%%%.%% *esos as ee!plar$ "a!age to serve asan ea!ple for the pu/lic goo"E

. The su! of Thirt$ Thousan" *%&%%%.%% *esos representing attorne$:s feesE

4. The su! of ne Thousan" ne un"re" *1&1%%.%% *esos as actual "a!age& an"

@. To pa$ the costs.









8/9/2019 33.PHIL.COM v. CA


:) )R;ERE;$%<1=

A !otion for reconsi"eration was file" /$ petitioner /ut respon"ent Court of Appeals"enie" the sa!e.<14=

>till unconvince"& petitioner elevate" the case to this Court through the instantpetition for review on certiorari invoking the vali"it$ of the assaile" provision foun" in theapplication for!2receipt ee!pting it fro! an$ lia/ilit$ in case of loss resulting fro!errors or "ela$s in the transfer of fun"s.

*etitioner !ainl$ argues that even assu!ing that the "ispute" provision is acontract of a"hesion& such fact alone "oes not !ake it invali" /ecause this t$pe of contract is not a/solutel$ prohi/ite". (oreover& the ter!s thereof are epresse" clearl$&leaving no roo! for "ou/t& an" /oth contracting parties un"erstoo" an" ha" fullknowle"ge of the sa!e.

*rivate respon"ent however conten"s that the agree!ent provi"ing non-lia/ilit$ onpetitioner:s part in case of loss cause" /$ errors or "ela$s "espite its recklessness an"

negligence is voi" for /eing contrar$ to pu/lic polic$ an" interest. <1@=

A contract of a"hesion is "efine" as one in which one of the parties i!poses area"$-!a"e for! of contract& which the other part$ !a$ accept or re)ect& /ut which thelatter cannot !o"if$.<15=ne part$ prepares the stipulation in the contract& while the other part$ !erel$ affies his signature or his Fa"hesion thereto&<17= giving no roo!for negotiation an" "epriving the latter of the opportunit$ to /argain on e9ual footing.<18= Nevertheless& these t$pes of contracts have /een "eclare" as /in"ing as or"inar$contracts& the reason /eing that the part$ who a"heres to the contract is free to re)ect itentirel$.<1'= +t is e9uall$ i!portant to stress& though& that the Court is not preclu"e" fro!ruling out /lin" a"herence to their ter!s if the atten"ant facts an" circu!stances show

that the$ shoul" /e ignore" for /eing o/viousl$ too one-si"e".<6%=

n previous occasions& it has /een "eclare" that a contract of a"hesion !a$ /estruck "own as voi" an" unenforcea/le& for /eing su/versive to pu/lic polic$& onl$ whenthe weaker part$ is i!pose" upon in "ealing with the "o!inant /argaining part$ an" isre"uce" to the alternative of taking it or leaving it& co!pletel$ "eprive" of the opportunit$to /argain on e9ual footing.<61= An" when it has /een shown that the co!plainant isknowle"gea/le enough to have un"erstoo" the ter!s an" con"itions of the contract& or one whose stature is such that he is epecte" to /e !ore pru"ent an" cautious withrespect to his transactions& such part$ cannot later on /e hear" to co!plain for /eingignorant or having /een force" into !erel$ consenting to the contract. <66=

The factual /ack"rop of the instant case& however& !ilitates against appl$ing theaforestate" pronounce!ents. That petitioner faile" to "ischarge its o/ligation totrans!it private respon"ent:s telegraphic transfer on ti!e in accor"ance with their agree!ent is alrea"$ a settle" !atter as the sa!e is no longer "ispute" in thispetition. Neither is the fin"ing of respon"ent Court of Appeals that petitioner acte"frau"ulentl$ an" in /a" faith in the perfor!ance of its o/ligation& /eing conteste" /$petitioner. *erforce& we are /oun" /$ these factual consi"erations.





















8/9/2019 33.PHIL.COM v. CA


aving esta/lishe" that petitioner acte" frau"ulentl$ an" in /a" faith& we fin" iti!plausi/le to a/solve petitioner fro! its wrongful acts on account of the assaile"provision ee!pting it fro! an$ lia/ilit$. +n Geral"eB vs. Court of Appeals&<6= it wasune9uivocall$ "eclare" that notwithstan"ing the enforcea/ilit$ of a contractual li!itation&responsi/ilit$ arising fro! a frau"ulent act cannot /e eculpate" /ecause the sa!e is

contrar$ to pu/lic polic$. +n"ee"& Article 61 of the Civil Co"e is 9uite eplicit in provi"ingthat F<a=n$ person who willfull$ causes loss or in)ur$ to another in a !anner that iscontrar$ to !orals& goo" custo!s or pu/lic polic$ shall co!pensate the latter for the"a!age. ree"o! of contract is su/)ect to the li!itation that the agree!ent !ust not/e against pu/lic polic$ an" an$ agree!ent or contract !a"e in violation of this rule isnot /in"ing an" will not /e enforce". <64=

The prohi/ition against this t$pe of contractual stipulation is !oreover treate" /$ lawas voi" which !a$ not /e ratifie" or waive" /$ a contracting part$. Article 14%' of theCivil Co"e states3

“ART$ 530.$ The following contracts are inexistent and +oid from the beginning

<5= Those whose cause, ob*ect or urose is contrary to law, morals, good customs,

ublic order or ublic olicy1

These contracts cannot be ratified$ Neither can the right to set u the defense of

illegality be wai+ed$%

;n"ou/te"l$& the services /eing offere" /$ a /anking institution like petitioner arei!/ue" with pu/lic interest.<6@= The use of telegraphic transfers have now /eco!eco!!onplace a!ong /usiness!en /ecause it facilitates co!!ercial transactions. An$

atte!pt to co!pletel$ ee!pt one of the contracting parties fro! an$ lia/ilit$ in case of loss notwithstan"ing its /a" faith& fault or negligence& as in the instant case& cannot /esanctione" for /eing ini!ical to pu/lic interest an" therefore contrar$ to pu/lic polic$.Resultingl$& there /eing no "ispute that petitioner acte" frau"ulentl$ an" in /a" faith& theawar" of !oral<65= an" ee!plar$ "a!ages were proper.

,ut notwithstan"ing petitioner:s lia/ilit$ for the resulting loss an" "a!age to privaterespon"ent& we fin" the a!ount of !oral "a!ages a")u"ge" /$ respon"ent court in thesu! of *4%%&%%%.%% eor/itant. ,earing in !in" that !oral "a!ages are awar"e"& notto penaliBe the wrong"oer& /ut rather to co!pensate the clai!ant for the in)uries that he!a$ have suffere"&<67= we /elieve that an awar" of Two un"re" Thousan" *esos*6%%&%%%.%% is reasona/le un"er the circu!stances.

'HERE"ORE& su/)ect to the foregoing !o"ification re"ucing the a!ount awar"e"as !oral "a!ages to the su! of Two un"re" Thousan" *esos *6%%&%%%.%%& theappeale" "ecision is here/$ A+R(D.

#O OR(ERE(.

*$o %+-/ a0a+a-3













33.phil.com v. ca

Documents