Spouses Cabasal v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.

 Spouses Cabasal v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., 

G.R. No. 233846, 

November 18, 2020

DOCTRINE: Article 19 is the general rule which governs the conduct of human relations.

By itself, it is not the basis of an actionable tort. Article 19 describes the degree of care

required so that an actionable tort may arise when it is alleged together with Article 20 or

Article 21.

FACTS:

Petitioners spouses Nestor Cabasal (Nestor) and Ma. Belen Cabasal (Belen)

(collectively, petitioners) were granted by BPI Family Savings Bank (BPI) a credit line for

their build and sell business. Sometime in 1997, petitioners purchased two (2) real

properties with improvements using said credit line as source of payment. Consequently,

petitioners executed (2) Mortgage Loan Agreements 6 in favor of BPI. While looking for

prospective buyers for the properties, petitioners religiously paid their amortizations.

However, it took them three (3) years to find a willing buyer in the person of Eloisa

Guevarra Co (Eloisa) who agreed to buy their properties by way of sale with assumption

of mortgage.

At that time, petitioners' accounts with BPI were already past due. Hence, Nestor

asked for an updated statement of account from respondent Alma De Leon (respondent).

On 06 July 2000, Nestor and Eloisa went to BPI to obtain a copy of petitioners' statement

of account, and to effectuate the transfer of mortgage to Eloisa. However, respondent

informed them that their transfer agreement would not be recognized by BPI since Eloisa

was not a client of the bank.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the CA failed to apply Article 20 of the Civil Code to the duly proven

negligence committed by respondent Alma de leon which respondent bank is vicariously

liable

HELD:

NO. There was no negligence on the part of the respondent BPI. The principle of

abuse of rights, as enshrined in Article 19 of the Civil Code, provides that every person

must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice,

give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Article 19 is the general rule

which governs the conduct of human relations. By itself, it is not the basis of an actionable

tort. Article 19 describes the degree of care required so that an actionable tort may arise

when it is alleged together with Article 20 or Article 21.

Whether the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages

under Article 20 or other applicable provision of law depends on the circumstances of

each case. Article 20 covers violations of existing law as basis for an injury. It allows

recovery should the act have been willful or negligent. "Willful" may refer to the intention

to do the act and the desire to achieve the outcome that the plaintiff in tort action considers

as injurious. "Negligence" may refer to a situation where the act was consciously done

but without intending the injurious result. Article 21, on the other hand, concerns injuries

that may be caused by acts which are not necessarily proscribed by law. This article

requires that the act be willful, that is, that there was an intention to do the act and a desire

to achieve the outcome. In cases under Article 21, the legal issues revolve around

whether such outcome should be considered a legal injury on the part of the plaintiff or

whether the commission of the act was done in violation of the standards of care required

in Article 19.

After a perusal of the facts and evidence on hand, the Court holds that contrary to

the RTC's findings, petitioners failed to prove that respondent and BPI acted in bad faith

or negligence so as to be liable under Articles 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code. Bad faith

does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or

some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through

some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. It is, therefore, a

question of intention, which can be inferred from one's conduct and/or contemporaneous

statements.

Similarly, petitioners cannot also fault respondent for not being able to direct them

to the proper loan division of BPI. Respondent was under no obligation to do that. She

could have done so as a courtesy to Nestor, the latter being a client of BPI, but her failure

to extend such assistance at that time is not tantamount to negligence or bad faith on her

part, much less be the proximate cause why the transaction between Nestor and Eloisa

failed to materialize.