Singson v. BPI

Facts:

Singson was one of the defendants in a civil case filed before the CFI Manila. Judgment was rendered sentencing him and his co-defendants Celso Lobregat and Villa-Abrille & Co. to pay the sum of P105,539.56 to Philippine Milling Co. Singson and Lobregat appealed, while the decision became final and executory as to Villa-Abrille. A writ of garnishment was issued to BPI against the Villa-Abrille’s account.

The clerk of BPI who received the writ saw the petitioner’s name and, without reading the full text, wrote a letter for the signature of the bank President, informing Singson of the garnishment. Subsequently, Singson issued two checks. The one issued in favor of B.M. Glass Service was dishonoured, and so petitioner’s account with the latter was closed. Singson wrote a letter to the bank, claiming that his account is not included in the writ of garnishment. Having confirmed so, the bank President Santiago Friexas apologized to Singson and rectified the mistake. Singson filed a claim for damages. The lower court ruled that damages for quasi-delict cannot be sustained because the relationship between the parties is contractual. Petitioner and his wife appealed the case.

Issue:

Whether damages based on torts can be awarded based on a contract

Held:

The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent recovery of damages therefor. The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.