In the Philippines, the relationship between a bank and its client is not a simple commercial encounter; it is one "steeped in public interest." Because banks handle money and invite the public into their high-security environments, the law imposes a standard of diligence that goes beyond that of a typical business owner.

When a customer is injured or killed inside a bank branch—whether due to a slip-and-fall, a structural failure, or a violent crime—the legal framework for liability primarily rests on Quasi-Delict (Torts) and specific jurisprudence regarding the extraordinary diligence required of financial institutions.

1. The Legal Basis: Art. 2176 of the Civil Code

The foundation of premises liability is Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which states:

"Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done..."

To hold a bank liable, a claimant must generally prove:

Damage suffered by the plaintiff (injury or death).
Fault or negligence by the bank (an act or omission).
Causal connection between the fault and the damage.

2. The Standard of Care: "Highest Degree of Diligence"

While ordinary businesses must exercise the diligence of a "good father of a family," Philippine courts have consistently held that the business of banks is impressed with public interest.

Extraordinary Diligence: Banks are required to exercise the highest degree of care in the selection and supervision of their employees and the maintenance of their facilities.
Fiduciary Nature: The Supreme Court (e.g., in Simex International v. AFP Savings and Loan Association) has emphasized that the bank-client relationship is fiduciary, requiring a level of meticulousness that ensures the safety of both the client’s funds and their person while on the premises.

3. Common Scenarios for Liability

A. Physical Hazards (Slip and Fall)

If a customer slips on a wet floor without warning signs or trips over a loose carpet, the bank is liable if it had "constructive notice" of the hazard. Under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), if the instrument causing the injury was under the exclusive control of the bank and the accident wouldn't normally happen without negligence, the burden of proof may shift to the bank to prove it wasn't negligent.

B. Third-Party Violence (Robberies and Shootings)

This is the most complex area of premises liability. While a bank is not an insurer of all risks, it must provide adequate security.

Foreseeability: If a bank is in a high-crime area or has received threats and fails to provide armed guards or working CCTV, it may be held liable for injuries occurring during a heist.
Security Guard Negligence: Under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for the negligence of their employees. If a security guard’s accidental discharge of a firearm or failure to follow protocol leads to a customer's death, the bank is often held vicariously liable.

4. Defenses Available to the Bank

A bank is not automatically liable for every injury. Common legal defenses include:

Proximate Cause: The bank may argue that the injury was caused by the victim’s own negligence (e.g., ignoring "Staff Only" signs or entering a restricted area).
Fortuitous Event (Caso Fortuito): Under Art. 1174, no person is responsible for events that could not be foreseen or, though foreseen, were inevitable. However, for a robbery to be considered a fortuitous event, the bank must prove it was not negligent in its security measures.
Contributory Negligence: If the customer was partially at fault, the court may reduce the damages awarded (Art. 2179).

5. Compensable Damages

If liability is established, the heirs or the victim may claim:

Actual/Compensatory Damages: Medical bills, funeral expenses, and loss of earning capacity.
Moral Damages: For physical suffering, mental anguish, and fright.
Exemplary Damages: Imposed as a correction for the public good if the bank acted with gross negligence.
Attorney’s Fees.

Type of Damage	Basis in Philippine Law
Actual	Proven receipts and loss of income (Art. 2199).
Moral	Spiritual suffering and injury to feelings (Art. 2217).
Exemplary	Wanton or fraudulent conduct (Art. 2229).

Summary of Judicial Trend

Philippine jurisprudence tends to favor the protection of the "little guy" (the depositor/customer). The courts rarely accept the defense of "fortuitous event" in bank robberies if it is shown that the security guard was sleeping, the cameras were broken, or the entry protocols were lax. The high standard of diligence makes it imperative for banks to maintain a "safety-first" environment.

Would you like me to draft a demand letter template or a more detailed breakdown of the "Loss of Earning Capacity" formula used by Philippine courts?