Banks Can’t Contract Away Liability for Fraud or Bad Faith

Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals and Rory W. Lim, G.R. No. 97785, March 29, 1996

Imagine you’re sending money to a loved one overseas, relying on the bank’s promise of a swift transfer. But the money is delayed, causing significant financial hardship. Can the bank simply hide behind a clause in their agreement that absolves them of all responsibility? This case explores the limits of such contractual waivers, particularly when a bank acts negligently or in bad faith.

In Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a bank could validly stipulate that it would not be responsible for losses due to errors or delays in telegraphic transfers, even if those errors or delays were caused by the bank’s own negligence. The court ultimately ruled that such waivers are unenforceable when the bank acts fraudulently or in bad faith, emphasizing that contracts cannot violate public policy.

Understanding Contracts of Adhesion and Public Policy

The case revolves around the concept of a “contract of adhesion,” which is a contract where one party (usually a large corporation) sets the terms, and the other party simply has to “take it or leave it.” While these contracts are generally valid, Philippine law recognizes that they can be problematic when the terms are unfair or oppressive, especially when one party has significantly more bargaining power than the other.

A key principle at play here is that of “public policy.” This refers to the idea that certain contractual terms are simply unacceptable because they harm the overall well-being of society. For example, a contract that allows a party to profit from illegal activities would be against public policy and therefore unenforceable.

Article 1409 of the Civil Code is very clear on this. It states: “The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: (1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy… These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived.”

Here’s an example: Imagine a power company includes a clause in its service agreement stating it’s not liable for damages caused by power outages, even if those outages are due to the company’s negligence. Such a clause would likely be deemed against public policy because it would allow the power company to shirk its responsibility to provide reliable service, potentially endangering public safety.

The PCIB Case: A Story of Delayed Transfers and Dishonored Checks

The case began when Rory Lim purchased a telegraphic transfer from PCIB for P200,000, intending to send the money to his account at Equitable Banking Corporation in Cagayan de Oro. The funds were meant to cover checks he had issued to suppliers. However, PCIB delayed the transfer for 21 days, leading to the dishonor of Lim’s checks due to insufficient funds.

The application form for the telegraphic transfer contained a clause stating that PCIB would not be responsible for any losses caused by errors or delays. PCIB argued that this clause protected them from liability.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• March 13, 1986: Rory Lim purchases a telegraphic transfer from PCIB.
• Lim issues checks to suppliers, expecting the transferred funds to cover them.
• PCIB delays the transfer for 21 days due to internal errors.
• Lim’s checks bounce, damaging his credit standing.
• Lim sues PCIB for damages.

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Lim, finding the exculpatory clause invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, albeit with modifications to the damages awarded. PCIB then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that PCIB’s actions amounted to bad faith, noting that “freedom of contract is subject to the limitation that the agreement must not be against public policy and any agreement or contract made in violation of this rule is not binding and will not be enforced.”

The Court quoted Article 21 of the Civil Code, stating that “[a]ny person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

The Court stated, “Any attempt to completely exempt one of the contracting parties from any liability in case of loss notwithstanding its bad faith, fault or negligence, as in the instant case, cannot be sanctioned for being inimical to public interest and therefore contrary to public policy.”

What This Means for Banks and Customers

This case sends a clear message to banks and other service providers: you cannot use contractual waivers to shield yourselves from liability when you act fraudulently, negligently, or in bad faith. The public has a right to expect a certain level of competence and integrity from these institutions, and the law will not allow them to escape responsibility for their misconduct.

For customers, this case provides reassurance that they are not entirely at the mercy of large corporations. Even if you sign a contract with seemingly one-sided terms, the courts will scrutinize those terms to ensure they are fair and consistent with public policy.

Key Lessons

• Waivers are not absolute: Banks and other service providers cannot contract away liability for their own fraud, negligence, or bad faith.
• Public policy matters: Contracts that violate public policy are unenforceable.
• Customers have rights: Even in contracts of adhesion, customers have the right to fair treatment and recourse for damages caused by the other party’s misconduct.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a contract of adhesion?

A: A contract of adhesion is a contract where one party sets the terms, and the other party simply has to accept them or reject the contract entirely.

Q: Are contracts of adhesion always invalid?

A: No, contracts of adhesion are generally valid, but courts will scrutinize them to ensure they are not unfair or oppressive, especially when one party has significantly more bargaining power.

Q: What does it mean for a contract to be against public policy?

A: A contract is against public policy if it violates the principles of law or morality that protect the overall well-being of society.

Q: Can a bank be held liable for delays in fund transfers?

A: Yes, a bank can be held liable for delays in fund transfers if the delays are caused by the bank’s negligence, fraud, or bad faith, even if there is a clause in the contract that attempts to limit the bank’s liability.

Q: What should I do if I believe a bank has acted negligently in handling my funds?

A: You should document all relevant information, including dates, amounts, and communications with the bank. Consult with a lawyer to discuss your legal options.

ASG Law specializes in banking litigation and contract law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.