Practice question
A bank whose negligence is found proximate relies on the customer’s contributing failure to examine statements and demands complete dismissal. It cites Philippine Bank of Commerce, where the Court instead apportioned the loss. What is wrong with the argument?
- Every contributing lapse bars all recovery
- It converts the particular contributory finding into a complete bar contrary to the cited disposition
- The bank’s own negligence disappears automatically
- A customer’s loss can never be apportioned
- Philippine Bank of Commerce awarded no actual damages
Legal references
- Civil Code, Articles 1735, 1755-1756, 2176, 2179, 2184-2185 and 2214: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97626, March 14, 1997, MAIN decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_97626_1997.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.