Scribd
Upload
111 views1 page

Singson v. Bank of The Philippine Islands G.R. No. L-24837, June 27, 1968

The Supreme Court ruled that a contractual relationship does not preclude recovering damages from a tort. In this case, the Bank of the Philippine Islands froze Julian Singson's bank account after incorrectly interpreting a writ of garnishment that was only intended for another defendant. Though the bank rectified its mistake, Singson sued for damages. The Supreme Court found the bank committed a tort against Singson and awarded nominal damages of 1,000 pesos plus 500 pesos in attorney's fees to vindicate Singson's rights, despite the contractual relationship between a bank and its customers.

Uploaded by

Hearlie Ortega
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
111 views1 page

Singson v. Bank of The Philippine Islands G.R. No. L-24837, June 27, 1968

The Supreme Court ruled that a contractual relationship does not preclude recovering damages from a tort. In this case, the Bank of the Philippine Islands froze Julian Singson's bank account after incorrectly interpreting a writ of garnishment that was only intended for another defendant. Though the bank rectified its mistake, Singson sued for damages. The Supreme Court found the bank committed a tort against Singson and awarded nominal damages of 1,000 pesos plus 500 pesos in attorney's fees to vindicate Singson's rights, despite the contractual relationship between a bank and its customers.

Uploaded by

Hearlie Ortega
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Singson v.

Bank of the Philippine Islands


G.R. No. L-24837, June 27, 1968
Facts:
 Singson, was one of the defendants in a civil case of the CFI, Manila, in which judgment had been
rendered sentencing him and his co-defendants therein, namely, Celso Lobregat and Villa-Abrille &
Co., to pay the sum of P105,539.56 to the plaintiff therein, Philippine Milling Co. Singson and Lobregat
had seasonably appealed from said judgment, but not Villa-Abrille & Co., as against which said
judgment, accordingly, became final and executory.
 A a writ of garnishment was given to BPI — in which the Singsons had a current account — insofar as
Villa-Abrille's credits against the Bank were concerned.
 Upon its receipt, when the clerk of the bank read the name of Singson in the title of the said
garnishment, without further reading the body and informing himself that said garnishment was
merely intended for the deposits of defendant Villa-Abrille &Co., et al, the clerk prepared a letter
informing Singson of the garnishment of his deposits by the plaintiff in that case.
 Subsequently, two checks issued by the plaintiff Julian C. Singson, one in favor of B. M. Glass Service
and another in favor of the Lega Corporation, were dishonored by the bank.
 B.M. Glass Service then wrote to Singson that the check was not honored by BPI because his account
there had already been garnished and that they are now constrained to close his credit account with
them.
 Singson wrote to BPI, claiming that his name was NOT included in the Writ of Execution and Notice of
Garnishment, which was served upon the bank.
 The defendants immediately rectified the mistake that had been inadvertently committed.
 Singson then commenced the present action against the Bank and its president, Santiago Freixas,
for damages in consequence of said illegal freezing of plaintiffs' account.
 The lower court dismissed the complaint ruling that the plaintiffs' claim for damages cannot be based
upon a tort or quasi-delict, their relationship with the defendants being contractual in nature.
Issue:
Does the existence of a contractual relation between the parties bar recovery of damages?
 
Held:
NO. The SC have repeatedly held that the existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the
commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent recovery of damages thereof. In Air
France vs. Carrascoso, involving an airplane passenger who, despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally
ousted from his first-class accommodation and compelled to take a seat in the tourist
compartment, was held entitled to recover damages from the air-carrier, upon the ground of tort on the
latter's part, for, although the relation between a passenger and a carrier is "contractual both in
origin and nature ... the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort"

In view, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering, particularly, the circumstance, that the
wrong done to the plaintiff was remedied as soon as the President of the bank realized the mistake they had
committed, the Court finds that an award of nominal damages the amount of which need not be proven in the
sum of P1,000, in addition to attorney's fees in the sum of P500, would suffice to vindicate plaintiff's rights.
 
"The judgment appealed from is reversed holding defendant BPI to pay to the plaintiffs nominal damages, and
attorney's fees, apart from the costs."
 

You might also like