PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LEONILO

MARCOS, respondents.



Facts:

Leonilo Marcos filed in court a complaint for sum of
money with damages against Phil. Banking Corporation
(PBC). Marcos allegedly made a time deposit in 2
occasions the amt. of P664,897.67 and P764,897.67
through the persuasion of his friend Pagsaligan, one of
the banks officials. The bank issued receipt for the first
deposit while a letter-certification was issued for his
second deposit by Pagsaligan. Pagsaligan kept the
various time deposit certificates. When Marcos wanted to
withdraw his time deposit and its accumulated interest
Pagsaligan encouraged him to open a letter of credit to
the bank by executing 3 trust receipts agreement. He
signed blank forms for domestic letter of credits, trust
receipts agreements and promissory notes. He was
required to deposit 30% of the total amount of credit and
his time deposit will secure the remaining 70% of the
letters of credit.

He is now accusing the bank for unjustly collecting
payment without deducting the 30% of his down
payment and charging him with accumulating interests
since his time deposit serves as collateral for his
remaining obligation. He further denied making a loan of
P500,000 with 25% interest per annum covered by
a promissory note produced by the bank. The bank
explained that the promissory notes he executed are
distinct from the trust receipt agreement and denied
falsifying the promissory note covering for the loan of
P500,000. The evidence presented on the promissory
note however is merely a machine copy of the document.
The said loan was already paid by offsetting it from his
time deposit.

Issue: Whether or not the bank failed to take a proper
account on Marcos deposits and payment of his loans?

Ruling: The court held that the bank is liable for
offsetting the time deposit of Marcos to the
fictitious promissory note for the 500,000 loan. The court
upheld the findings of the lower court on the
discrepancies shown by the machine copy of
the duplicate of thepromissory note and the suspicious
claim of the bank that it could not produce the original
copy thereof. The mere machine copy of the document
has no evidentiary value before the court. The court held
that the bank did not forge the promissory note.
Pagsaligan did to cover up his failure to give the proper
account of Marcos time deposits. This however does not
excuse the bank to return to Marcos the correct amount
of his time deposit with interest. Bank has the fiduciary
duty before its clients. Its duty is to observe the highest
standards of integrity and performance. Assuming
Pagsaligan is responsible for the spurious promissory
note the court held that a bank is liable for the wrongful
acts of its officers. The court made the proper account of
the total amount due to Marcos ordering the bank to give
to him the same plus moral and exemplary damages.


MANUEL M. SERRANO, petitioner,
vs.
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; OVERSEAS
BANK OF MANILA; EMERITO M. RAMOS, SUSANA B.
RAMOS, EMERITO B. RAMOS, JR., JOSEFA RAMOS
DELA RAMA, HORACIO DELA RAMA, ANTONIO B.
RAMOS, FILOMENA RAMOS LEDESMA, RODOLFO
LEDESMA, VICTORIA RAMOS TANJUATCO, and
TEOFILO TANJUATCO, respondents.
Rene Diokno for petitioner.



Petition for mandamus and prohibition, with preliminary
injunction, that seeks the establishment of joint and
solidary liability to the amount of Three Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos, with interest, against respondent
Central Bank of the Philippines and Overseas Bank of
Manila and its stockholders, on the alleged failure of the
Overseas Bank of Manila to return the time deposits
made by petitioner and assigned to him, on the ground
that respondent Central Bank failed in its duty to exercise
strict supervision over respondent Overseas Bank of
Manila to protect depositors and the general
public.
1
Petitioner also prays that both respondent banks
be ordered to execute the proper and necessary
documents to constitute all properties fisted in Annex "7"
of the Answer of respondent Central Bank of the
Philippines in G.R. No. L-29352, entitled "Emerita M.
Ramos, et al vs. Central Bank of the Philippines," into a
trust fund in favor of petitioner and all other depositors of
respondent Overseas Bank of Manila. It is also prayed
that the respondents be prohibited permanently from
honoring, implementing, or doing any act predicated
upon the validity or efficacy of the deeds of mortgage,
assignment. and/or conveyance or transfer of whatever
nature of the properties listed in Annex "7" of the Answer
of respondent Central Bank in G.R. No. 29352.
2

A sought for ex-parte preliminary injunction against both
respondent banks was not given by this Court.
Undisputed pertinent facts are:
On October 13, 1966 and December 12, 1966, petitioner
made a time deposit, for one year with 6% interest, of
One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) with
the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.
3
Concepcion
Maneja also made a time deposit, for one year with 6-
% interest, on March 6, 1967, of Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with the same respondent
Overseas Bank of Manila.
4

On August 31, 1968, Concepcion Maneja, married to
Felixberto M. Serrano, assigned and conveyed to
petitioner Manuel M. Serrano, her time deposit of
P200,000.00 with respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.
5

Notwithstanding series of demands for encashment of the
aforementioned time deposits from the respondent
Overseas Bank of Manila, dating from December 6, 1967
up to March 4, 1968, not a single one of the time deposit
certificates was honored by respondent Overseas Bank of
Manila.
6

Respondent Central Bank admits that it is charged with
the duty of administering the banking system of the
Republic and it exercises supervision over all doing
business in the Philippines, but denies the petitioner's
allegation that the Central Bank has the duty to exercise
a most rigid and stringent supervision of banks, implying
that respondent Central Bank has to watch every move
or activity of all banks, including respondent Overseas
Bank of Manila. Respondent Central Bank claims that as
of March 12, 1965, the Overseas Bank of Manila, while
operating, was only on a limited degree of banking
operations since the Monetary Board decided in its
Resolution No. 322, dated March 12, 1965, to prohibit the
Overseas Bank of Manila from making new loans and
investments in view of its chronic reserve deficiencies
against its deposit liabilities. This limited operation of
respondent Overseas Bank of Manila continued up to
1968.
7

Respondent Central Bank also denied that it is guarantor
of the permanent solvency of any banking institution as
claimed by petitioner. It claims that neither the law nor
sound banking supervision requires respondent Central
Bank to advertise or represent to the public any remedial
measures it may impose upon chronic delinquent banks
as such action may inevitably result to panic or bank
"runs". In the years 1966-1967, there were no findings to
declare the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila as
insolvent.
8

Respondent Central Bank likewise denied that a
constructive trust was created in favor of petitioner and
his predecessor in interest Concepcion Maneja when their
time deposits were made in 1966 and 1967 with the
respondent Overseas Bank of Manila as during that time
the latter was not an insolvent bank and its operation as
a banking institution was being salvaged by the
respondent Central Bank.
9

Respondent Central Bank avers no knowledge of
petitioner's claim that the properties given by respondent
Overseas Bank of Manila as additional collaterals to
respondent Central Bank of the Philippines for the
former's overdrafts and emergency loans were acquired
through the use of depositors' money, including that of
the petitioner and Concepcion Maneja.
10

In G.R. No. L-29362, entitled "Emerita M. Ramos, et al.
vs. Central Bank of the Philippines," a case was filed by
the petitioner Ramos, wherein respondent Overseas Bank
of Manila sought to prevent respondent Central Bank
from closing, declaring the former insolvent, and
liquidating its assets. Petitioner Manuel Serrano in this
case, filed on September 6, 1968, a motion to intervene
in G.R. No. L-29352, on the ground that Serrano had a
real and legal interest as depositor of the Overseas Bank
of Manila in the matter in litigation in that case.
Respondent Central Bank in G.R. No. L-29352 opposed
petitioner Manuel Serrano's motion to intervene in that
case, on the ground that his claim as depositor of the
Overseas Bank of Manila should properly be ventilated in
the Court of First Instance, and if this Court were to allow
Serrano to intervene as depositor in G.R. No. L-29352,
thousands of other depositors would follow and thus
cause an avalanche of cases in this Court. In the
resolution dated October 4, 1968, this Court denied
Serrano's, motion to intervene. The contents of said
motion to intervene are substantially the same as those
of the present petition.
11

This Court rendered decision in G.R. No. L-29352 on
October 4, 1971, which became final and executory on
March 3, 1972, favorable to the respondent Overseas
Bank of Manila, with the dispositive portion to wit:
WHEREFORE, the writs prayed for in the petition are
hereby granted and respondent Central Bank's
resolution Nos. 1263, 1290 and 1333 (that prohibit
the Overseas Bank of Manila to participate in
clearing, direct the suspension of its operation, and
ordering the liquidation of said bank) are hereby
annulled and set aside; and said respondent Central
Bank of the Philippines is directed to comply with its
obligations under the Voting Trust Agreement, and
to desist from taking action in violation therefor.
Costs against respondent Central Bank of the
Philippines.
12

Because of the above decision, petitioner in this case filed
a motion for judgment in this case, praying for a decision
on the merits, adjudging respondent Central Bank jointly
and severally liable with respondent Overseas Bank of
Manila to the petitioner for the P350,000 time deposit
made with the latter bank, with all interests due therein;
and declaring all assets assigned or mortgaged by the
respondents Overseas Bank of Manila and the Ramos
groups in favor of the Central Bank as trust funds for the
benefit of petitioner and other depositors.
13

By the very nature of the claims and causes of action
against respondents, they in reality are recovery of time
deposits plus interest from respondent Overseas Bank of
Manila, and recovery of damages against respondent
Central Bank for its alleged failure to strictly supervise
the acts of the other respondent Bank and protect the
interests of its depositors by virtue of the constructive
trust created when respondent Central Bank required the
other respondent to increase its collaterals for its
overdrafts said emergency loans, said collaterals
allegedly acquired through the use of depositors money.
These claims shoud be ventilated in the Court of First
Instance of proper jurisdiction as We already pointed out
when this Court denied petitioner's motion to intervene in
G.R. No. L-29352. Claims of these nature are not proper
in actions for mandamus and prohibition as there is no
shown clear abuse of discretion by the Central Bank in its
exercise of supervision over the other respondent
Overseas Bank of Manila, and if there was, petitioner
here is not the proper party to raise that question, but
rather the Overseas Bank of Manila, as it did in G.R. No.
L-29352. Neither is there anything to prohibit in this
case, since the questioned acts of the respondent Central
Bank (the acts of dissolving and liquidating the Overseas
Bank of Manila), which petitioner here intends to use as
his basis for claims of damages against respondent
Central Bank, had been accomplished a long time ago.
Furthermore, both parties overlooked one fundamental
principle in the nature of bank deposits when the
petitioner claimed that there should be created a
constructive trust in his favor when the respondent
Overseas Bank of Manila increased its collaterals in favor
of respondent Central Bank for the former's overdrafts
and emergency loans, since these collaterals were
acquired by the use of depositors' money.
Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits.
They are really loans because they earn interest. All kinds
of bank deposits, whether fixed, savings, or current are
to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the law
on loans.
14
Current and savings deposit are loans to a
bank because it can use the same. The petitioner here in
making time deposits that earn interests with respondent
Overseas Bank of Manila was in reality a creditor of the
respondent Bank and not a depositor. The respondent
Bank was in turn a debtor of petitioner. Failure of he
respondent Bank to honor the time deposit is failure to
pay s obligation as a debtor and not a breach of trust
arising from depositary's failure to return the subject
matter of the deposit
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit,
with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
Separate Opinions: AQUINO, J., concurring:
The petitioner prayed that the Central Bank be ordered to
pay his time deposits of P350,000, plus interests, which
he could not recover from the distressed Overseas Bank
of Manila, and to declare all the assets assigned or
mortgaged by that bank and the Ramos group to the
Central Bank as trust properties for the benefit of the
petitioner and other depositors.
The petitioner has no causes of action agianst the Central
Bank to obtain those reliefs. They cannot be granted in
petitioner's instant original actions in this Court for
mandamus and prohibition. It is not the Central Bank's
ministerial duty to pay petitioner's time deposits or to
hold the mortgaged properties in trust for the depositors
of the Overseas Bank of Manila. The petitioner has no
cause of action for prohibition, a remedy usually available
against any tribunal, board, corporation or person
exercising judicial or ministerial functions.
Since the Overseas Bank of Manila was found to be
insolvent and the Superintendent of Banks was ordered
to take over its assets preparatory to its liquidation under
section 29 of Republic Act No. 265 (p. 197, Rollo,
Manifestation of September 19, 1973), petitioner's
remedy is to file his claim in the liquidating proceeding

SIMEX INTERNATIONAL (MANILA),
INCORPORATED, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and TRADERS
ROYAL BANK, respondents.


A bank may be held liable for damages by reason of its
unjustified dishonor of a check, which caused damage to
its clients credit standing. The bank must record every
single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo,
and as promptly as possible. This has to be done if the
account is to reflect at any given time the amount of
money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit,
confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever
he directs. The bank is a fiduciary of the depositors
money.
Facts: Simex International is a private corporation
engaged in the exportation of food products. It buys
these products from various local suppliers and then sells
them abroad to the Middle East and the United States.
Most of its exports are purchased by the petitioner on
credit. Simex was a depositor of the Far East Savings
Bank and maintained a checking account in its branch in
Cubao, Quezon City which issued several checks against
its deposit but was surprised to learn later that they had
been dishonored for insufficient funds. As a consequence,
several suppliers sent a letter of demand to the
petitioner, threatening prosecution if the dishonored
check issued to it was not made good and also withheld
delivery of the order made by the petitioner. One supplier
also cancelled the petitioners credit line and demanded
that future payments be made by it in cash or certified
check. The petitioner complained to the respondent bank.
Investigation disclosed that the sum of P100,000.00
deposited by the petitioner on May 25, 1981, had not
been credited to it. The error was rectified only a month
after, and the dishonored checks were paid after they
were re-deposited. The petitioner then filed a complaint
in the then Court of First Instance of Rizal against the
bank for its gross and wanton negligence.
Issue: Whether or not the bank can be held liable for
negligence by reason of its unjustified dishonor of a
check
Held: 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. The
bank must record every single transaction accurately,
down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible.
This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any
given time the amount of money the depositor can
dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank will
deliver it as and to whomever he directs. A blunder on
the part of the bank, such as the dishonour 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.
Considering all this, we feel that the award of nominal
damages in the sum of P20,000.00 was not the proper
relief to which the petitioner was entitled.
Article 2205 of the Civil Code provides that actual or
compensatory damages may be received (2) for injury
to the plaintiff s business standing or commercial credit.
There is no question that the petitioner did sustain actual
injury as a result of the dishonored checks and that the
existence of the loss having been established absolute
certainty as to its amount is not required.
7
Such injury
should bolster all the more the demand of the petitioner
for moral damages and justifies the examination by this
Court of the validity and reasonableness of the said
claim. ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment is hereby
MODIFIED and the private respondent is ordered to pay
the petitioner, in lieu of nominal damages, moral
damages in the amount of P20,000.00 , and exemplary
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 plus the original
award of attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00, and
costs.




BPI vs. IAC February 21, 1992
Facts: Spouses Arthur & Vivienne Canlas opened a joint
account in Commercial Bank & Trust Comp (CBTC) with
initial deposit of P2,250. Arthur Canlas had an existing
separate personal account in the same branch. Upon
opening the joint account, the new accounts teller
pulled out form the banks files the old and existing
signature card of Arthur Canlas, for ID and reference. By
mistake, she placed the old personal account number of
Arthur Canlas on the deposit slip for the new
jointchecking account of the spouses so that the initial
deposit of P2,250 for the joint checking account was
miscredited to Arthur's personal account. The spouses
subsequently deposited other amounts in their joint
account.
As a consequence, two checks were dishonored which the
Canlas had issued against their joint account. The bank
was unable to contract the spouses because of a wrong
address.
Spouses Canlas filed a complaint for damages against
CBTC in CFI Pampanga. During the pendency of the case,
the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and CBTC were
merged. As the surviving corporation under the merger
agreement and under Section 80 (5) of the Corporation
Code of the Philippines, BPI took over the prosecution
and defense of any pending claims, actions or
proceedings by and against CBTC.
RTC Pampanga rendered a decision against BPI, ordering
them to pay actual damages (P5,000), moral damages
(P300,000), and exemplary damages (P150,000). On
appeal, the IAC deleted the actual damages and reduced the
other awardsactual damages (P50,000), moral damages
(P50,000) and exemplary damages (P50,000).
Issue: Whether or not BPI is guilty of gross negligence in
the handling of the spouses Canlas bank account.
Held: YES.IAC decision modified by deleting the award of
exemplary damages.
The bank is not expected to be infallible but it must bear
the blame for not discovering the mistake of its teller
despite the established procedure requiring the papers
and bank books to pass through a battery of bank
personnel whose duty it is to check and countercheck
them for possible errors. Apparently, the officials
andemployees tasked to do that did not perform their
duties with due care, as may be gathered from the
testimony of the bank's lone witness, Antonio Enciso,
who casually declared that "the approving officer does
not have to see the account numbers and all those
things. Those are very petty things for the approving
manager to look into." Unfortunately, it was a "petty
thing," like the incorrect account number that the bank
teller wrote on the initial deposit slip for the newly-
opened joint current account of the Canlas spouses that
sparked this half-a-million-peso damage suit against the
bank.
While the bank's negligence may not have been attended
with malice and bad faith, nevertheless, it caused serious
anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation to the private
respondents for which they are entitled to recover
reasonable moral damages.
However, the absence of malice and bad faith renders the
award of exemplary damages improper.
Citytrust banking Corp., vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court






Facts:
Emme Herrero, businesswoman, made regular
deposits with Citytrust Banking Corp. at its Burgoa
branch in Calamba, Laguna. She deposited the amount of
P31, 500 in order to amply cover 6 postdated checks she
issued. All checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of
funds upon the presentment for encashment. Citytrust
banking Corp. asserted that it was due to Herreros fault
that her checks were dishonored, for he inaccurately
wrote his account number in the deposit slip. RTC
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. CA reversed
the decision of RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not Citytrust banking Corp. has the
duty to honor checks issued by Emme Herrero despite
the failure to accurately stating the account number
resulting to insufficiency of funds for the check.

Held:
Yes, even it is true that there was error on the
account number stated in the deposit slip, its is,
however, indicated the name of Emme Herrero. This is
controlling in determining in whose account the deposit is
made or should be posted. This is so because it is not
likely to commit an error in ones name than merely
relying on numbers which are difficult to remember.
Numbers are for the convenience of the bank but was
never intended to disregard the real name of its
depositors. The bank is engaged in business impressed
with public trust, and it is its duty to protect in return its
clients and depositors who transact business with it. It
should not be a matter of the bank alone receiving
deposits, lending out money and collecting interests. It is
also its obligation to see to it that all funds invested with
it are properly accounted for and duly posted in its
ledgers.

Exactly the same issue was addressed by the appellate
court, which, after its deliberations, made the following
findings and conclusions:
1

We cannot uphold the position of defendant. For, even
if it be true that there was error on the part of the
plaintiff in omitting a "zero" in her account number,
yet, it is a fact that her name, "Emme E. Herrero", is
clearly written on said deposit slip (Exh. "B"). This is
controlling in determining in whose account the
deposit is made or should be posted. This is so
because it is not likely to commit an error in one's
name than merely relying on numbers which are
difficult to remember, especially a number with eight
(8) digits as the account numbers of defendant's
depositors. We view the use of numbers as simply for
the convenience of the bank but was never intended
to disregard the real name of its depositors. The bank
is engaged in business impressed with public interest,
and it is its duty to protect in return its many clients
and depositors who transact business with it. It
should not be a matter of the bank alone receiving
deposits, lending out money and collecting interests.
It is also its obligation to see to it that all funds
invested with it are properly accounted for and duly
posted in its ledgers.
In the case before Us, We are not persuaded that
defendant bank was not free from blame for the
fiasco. In the first place, the teller should not have
accepted plaintiff's deposit without correcting the
account number on the deposit slip which, obviously,
was erroneous because, as pointed out by defendant,
it contained only seven (7) digits instead of eight (8).
Second, the complete name of plaintiff depositor
appears in bold letters on the deposit slip (Exh. "B").
There could be no mistaking in her name, and that
the deposit was made in her name, "Emma E.
Herrero." In fact, defendant's teller should not have
fed her deposit slip to the computer knowing that her
account number written thereon was wrong as it
contained only seven (7) digits. As it happened,
according to defendant, plaintiff's deposit had to be
consigned to the suspense accounts pending
verification. This, indeed, could have been avoided at
the first instance had the teller of defendant bank
performed her duties efficiently and well. For then she
could have readily detected that the account number
in the name of "Emma E. Herrero" was erroneous and
would be rejected by the computer. That is, or should
be, part of the training and standard operating
procedure of the bank's employees. On the other
hand, the depositors are not concerned with banking
procedure. That is the responsibility of the bank and
its employees. Depositors are only concerned with the
facility of depositing their money, earning interest
thereon, if any, and withdrawing therefrom,
particularly businessmen, like plaintiff, who are
supposed to be always "on-the-go". Plaintiff's account
is a "current account" which should immediately be
posted. After all, it does not earn interest. At least,
the forbearance should be commensurated with
prompt, efficient and satisfactory service.
Bank clients are supposed to rely on the services
extended by the bank, including the assurance that
their deposits will be duly credited them as soon as
they are made. For, any delay in crediting their
account can be embarrassing to them as in the case
of plaintiff.
We agree with plaintiff that
. . . even in computerized systems of accounts,
ways and means are available whereby deposits
with erroneous account numbers are properly
credited depositor's correct account numbers.
They add that failure on the part of the
defendant to do so is negligence for which they
are liable. As proof thereof plaintiff alludes to
five particular incidents where plaintiff
admittedly wrongly indicated her account
number in her deposit slips
(Exhs. "J", "L", "N", "O" and "P"), but were
nevertheless properly credited her deposit (pp.
4-5, Decision).
We have already ruled in Mundin v. Far East Bank &
Trust Co., AC-G.R. CV No. 03639, prom. Nov. 2,
1985, quoting the court a quo in an almost identical
set of facts, that
Having accepted a deposit in the course of its
business transactions, it behooved upon defendant
bank to see to it and without recklessness that the
depositor was accurately credited therefor. To post a
deposit in somebody else's name despite the name of
the depositor clearly written on the deposit slip is
indeed sheer negligence which could have easily been
avoided if defendant bank exercised due diligence and
circumspection in the acceptance and posting of
plaintiff's deposit.
We subscribe to the above disquisitions of the appellate
court. In Simex International (Manila), Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 183 SCRA 360, reiterated in Bank of Philippine
Islands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 206 SCRA 408,
we similarly said, in cautioning depository banks on their
fiduciary responsibility, that
In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat
his account with utmost fidelity, whether such account
consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions.
The bank must record every single transaction
accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly
as possible. This has to be done if the account is to
reflect at any given time the amount of money the
depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that
the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs.
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.
The point is that as a business affected with public
interest and because of the nature of its functions, the
bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its
depositors with meticulous care, always having in
mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.
We agree with petitioner, however, that it is wrong to
award, along with nominal damages, temperate or
moderate damages. The two awards are incompatible
and cannot be granted concurrently. Nominal damages
are given in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has
been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him
(Art. 2221, New Civil Code; Manila Banking
Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 131 SCRA 271).
Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than
nominal but less than compensatory damages, on the
other hand, may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with
reasonable certainty (Art. 2224, New Civil Code).
In the instant case, we also find need for vindicating the
wrong done on private respondent, and we accordingly
agree with the Court of Appeals in granting to her
nominal damages but not in similarly awarding temperate
or moderate damages.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is MODIFIED by
deleting the award of temperate or moderate damages.
In all other respects, the appellate court's decision is
AFFIRMED. No costs in this instance.
SO ORDERED.