The tale of a missing zero
A depositor sued City Trust Corporation for damages. The depositor, instead of stating her correct account number 29000823 inaccurately wrote 2900823. Because of this error, six postdated checks amounting to P20,209.00 she issued were dishonored for funds’ insufficiency.
In holding the bank liable, the Supreme Court said that “we cannot uphold the defendant bank’s position.”
For, even if it be true that there was an error on the part of the plaintiff in omitting a zero in her account number, yet, it is a fact that her name, Emma E. Herrero, is written on the said deposit slip.
This is controlling in determining 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 the defendant’s deposits.
We view the use of numbers as simply for the bank’s convenience but were never intended to disregard the real name of its depositors. The bank is engaged in business impressed with public interests, 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 also should see to it that all funds invested with it are correctly accounted for and duly posted in its ledgers(City Trust Corporation v. The Immediate Appellate Court, cited in Ramon Tan vs. CA, et.al., G.R. No. 108555, Dec. 20, 1994)