Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Pia
Rempillo,
another
customer
service
representative of the BANK, saw VILLANUEVAs checkbook
requisition slip. She took it and proceeded to check the
BANKs checkbook register which contained all the names
and account numbers of the BANKs clients who were
issued checkbooks. Upon seeing the name Isagani
Villanueva -- Account No. 33-00446-3 in the checkbook
register, Rempillo copied the aforesaid account number on
the space intended for it in VILLANUEVAs requisition slip. [2]
On 17 June 1986, VILLANUEVA received from the
BANK his requested checkbook. On the same day, he
immediately signed Check No. 396701 bearing the
amount of P50,000 payable to the order of Kingly
Commodities Traders and Multi Resources, Inc. (hereafter
Kingly Commodities). VILLANUEVA thereafter delivered the
check to Helen Chu, his investment consultant at Kingly
Commodities, with his express instruction to use said
check in placing a trading order at Kingly Commodities
BANKING for MT
Page 1 of 40
Page 2 of 40
BANKING for MT
Page 3 of 40
BANKING for MT
Page 4 of 40
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 112392. February 29, 2000]
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and BENJAMIN C.
NAPIZA, respondents.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 37392
affirming in toto that of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 139,[2] which dismissed the complaint filed by
petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands against private
respondent Benjamin C. Napiza for sum of money. Sdaad
On September 3, 1987, private respondent deposited in
Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) Savings Account No.
028-187[3] which he maintained in petitioner banks
Buendia Avenue Extension Branch, Continental Bank
Managers Check No. 00014757[4] dated August 17, 1984,
payable to "cash" in the amount of Two Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) and duly endorsed by private
respondent on its dorsal side.[5] It appears that the check
belonged to a certain Henry Chan who went to the office
of private respondent and requested him to deposit the
check in his dollar account by way of accommodation and
for the purpose of clearing the same. Private respondent
acceded, and agreed to deliver to Chan a signed blank
withdrawal slip, with the understanding that as soon as
the check is cleared, both of them would go to the bank to
withdraw the amount of the check upon private
respondents presentation to the bank of his passbook.
Using the blank withdrawal slip given by private
respondent to Chan, on October 23, 1984, one Ruben
Gayon, Jr. was able to withdraw the amount of $2,541.67
from FCDU Savings Account No. 028-187. Notably, the
withdrawal slip shows that the amount was payable to
Ramon A. de Guzman and Agnes C. de Guzman and was
duly initialed by the branch assistant manager, Teresita
Lindo.[6]
On November 20, 1984, petitioner received
communication from the Wells Fargo Bank International of
New York that the said check deposited by private
respondent was a counterfeit check[7] because it was "not
of the type or style of checks issued by Continental Bank
International."[8] Consequently, Mr. Ariel Reyes, the
manager of petitioners Buendia Avenue Extension Branch,
instructed one of its employees, Benjamin D. Napiza IV,
who is private respondents son, to inform his father that
the check bounced.[9] Reyes himself sent a telegram to
private respondent regarding the dishonor of the check. In
turn, private respondents son wrote to Reyes stating that
the check had been assigned "for encashment" to Ramon
A. de Guzman and/or Agnes C. de Guzman after it shall
have been cleared upon instruction of Chan. He also said
that upon learning of the dishonor of the check, his father
immediately tried to contact Chan but the latter was out of
town.[10]
Private respondents son undertook to return the amount of
$2,500.00 to petitioner bank. On December 18, 1984,
Reyes reminded private respondent of his sons promise
and warned that should he fail to return that amount
BANKING for MT
Page 5 of 40
Page 6 of 40
Page 7 of 40
Page 8 of 40
Page 9 of 40
Page 10 of 40
Page 11 of 40
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 121413
January 29, 2001
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK
(formerly INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND
AMERICA),petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and FORD PHILIPPINES, INC.
and CITIBANK, N.A., respondents.
G.R. No. 121479
January 29, 2001
FORD PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner-plaintiff,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and CITIBANK, N.A. and
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL
BANK, respondents.
G.R. No. 128604
January 29, 2001
FORD PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
CITIBANK, N.A., PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL BANK and COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
QUISUMBING, J.:
G.R. Nos. 121413 and 121479 are twin petitions for review
of the March 27, 1995 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 25017, entitled "Ford Philippines, Inc. vs.
Citibank, N.A. and Insular Bank of Asia and America (now
Philipppine Commercial International Bank), and the
August 8, 1995 Resolution,2 ordering the collecting bank,
Philippine Commercial International Bank, to pay the
amount of Citibank Check No. SN-04867.
Page 12 of 40
Page 13 of 40
IT IS SO ORDERED."7
PCI Bank moved to reconsider the above-quoted decision
of the Court of Appeals, while Ford filed a "Motion for
Partial Reconsideration." Both motions were denied for
lack of merit.
Separately, PCIBank and Ford filed before this Court,
petitions for review by certiorari under Rule 45.
In G.R. No. 121413, PCIBank seeks the reversal of the
decision and resolution of the Twelfth Division of the Court
of Appeals contending that it merely acted on the
instruction of Ford and such casue of action had already
prescribed.
PCIBank sets forth the following issues for consideration:
I. Did the respondent court err when, after finding
that the petitioner acted on the check drawn by
respondent Ford on the said respondent's
instructions, it nevertheless found the petitioner
liable to the said respondent for the full amount of
the said check.
II. Did the respondent court err when it did not
find prescription in favor of the petitioner.8
In a counter move, Ford filed its petition docketed as G.R.
No. 121479, questioning the same decision and resolution
of the Court of Appeals, and praying for the
reinstatement in toto of the decision of the trial court
which found both PCIBank and Citibank jointly and
severally liable for the loss.
In G.R. No. 121479, appellant Ford presents the following
propositions for consideration:
I. Respondent Citibank is liable to petitioner Ford
considering that:
1. As drawee bank, respondent Citibank
owes to petitioner Ford, as the drawer of
the subject check and a depositor of
respondent Citibank, an absolute and
contractual duty to pay the proceeds of
the subject check only to the payee
thereof, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue.
BANKING for MT
Page 14 of 40
Page 15 of 40
Page 16 of 40
xxx
xxx
Page 17 of 40
Page 18 of 40
Page 19 of 40
Page 20 of 40
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126152. September 28, 1999]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT
OF APPEALS and LILY S. PUJOL, respondents.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK filed this petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals [1] which
affirmed the award of damages by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 154, Pasig City in favor of private respondent Lily
S. Pujol.[2]
Sometime prior to 23 October 1990 private
respondent Lily S. Pujol opened with petitioner Philippine
BANKING for MT
Page 21 of 40
Page 22 of 40
ROMERO, J.:
This petition for certiorari seeks to annul the decision of
respondent Court of Appeals dated October 29, 1992 in CA
GR CV No. 26571 affirming the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Lipa, Batangas Branch XIII for damages,
and the Resolution dated November 11, 1993 denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid
decision.
The case emanated from a dispute between the Rural
Bank of Padre Garcia, Inc. (RBPG) and Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Company (MBTC) relative to a credit
memorandum dated April 5, 1982 from the Central Bank in
the amount of P304,000.00 in favor of RBPG.
The records show that Isabel Katigbak is the president and
director of RBPG, owning 65% of the shares thereof.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC) is the rural
bank's depository bank, where Katigbak maintains current
accounts with MBTC's main office in Makati as well as its
Lipa City branch.
On April 6, 1982, MBTC received from the Central Bank a
credit memo dated April 5, 1982 that its demand deposit
account was credited with P304,000.00 for the account of
RBPG, representing loans granted by the Central Bank to
RBPG. On the basis of said credit memo, Isabel Katigbak
issued several checks against its account with MBTC in the
total amount of P300,000.00, two (2) of which (Metrobank
Check Nos. 0069 and 0070) were payable to Dr. Felipe C.
Roque and Mrs. Eliza Roque for P25,000.00 each. Said
checks issued to Dr. and Mrs. Roque were deposited by the
Roques with the Philippine Banking Corporation,
Novaliches Branch in Quezon City. When these checks
were forwarded to MBTC on April 12, 1982 for payment
(six (6) days from receipt of the Credit Memo), the checks
were returned by MBTC with the annotations "DAIF TNC"
(Drawn Against Insufficient Funds Try Next Clearing) so
they were redeposited on April 14, 1982. These
were however again dishonored and returned unpaid for
the following reason: "DAIF TNC NO ADVICE FROM
CB."
After the second dishonor of the two (2) checks, Dr. Felipe
Roque, a member of the Board of Directors of Philippine
Banking Corporation, allegedly went to the Office of
Antonio Katigbak, an officer of RBPG, chiding him for the
bouncing checks. In order to appease the doctor, RBPG
paid Dr. Roque P50,000.00 in cash to replace the aforesaid
checks.
On April 13, 1982, Isabel Katigbak who was in Hongkong
on a
business-vacation trip together with her sons Alfredo and
Antonio, both of whom were also officers of RBPG,
received overseas phone calls from Mrs. Maris KatigbakSan Juan at her residence in San Lorenzo Village, Makati,
informing Isabel Katigbak that a certain Mr. Rizal Dungo,
Assistant Cashier of MBTC insisted on talking to her (Mrs.
San Juan), berating her about the checks which bounced,
saying "Nag-issue kayo ng tseke, wala namang pondo,"
even if it was explained to Mr. Dungo that Mrs. San Juan
was not in any way connected with RBPG.
Mrs. Katigbak testified that she informed Mrs. San Juan to
request defendant MBTC to check and verify the records
regarding the aforementioned Central Bank credit memo
for P304,000.00 in favor of RBPG as she was certain that
BANKING for MT
Page 23 of 40
Page 24 of 40
FIRST DIVISION
BANKING for MT
Page 25 of 40
KAPUNAN, J.:
This petition seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated January 12, 1993 in CA-G.R. CV No. 31083,
entitled Ramon Tan, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation, defendant-appellant,
reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated
December 28, 1990 ordering respondent bank Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), Binondo Branch,
to pay petitioner damages and attorney's fees in the
amount of ONE MILLION THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND
(P1,035,000.00) PESOS.
The following are the uncontroverted facts:
Petitioner Ramon Tan, a trader-businessman and
community leader in Puerto Princesa, had maintained
since 1976 Current Account No. 109058068 with
respondent bank's Binondo branch. On March 11, 1988, to
avoid carrying cash while enroute to Manila, he secured a
Cashier's Check No. L 406000126 from the Philippine
Commercial Industrial Bank (PCIB), Puerto Princesa
branch, in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00)
Pesos, payable to his order. He deposited the check in his
account with RCBC Binondo on March 15. On the same
day, RCBC erroneously sent the same cashier's check for
clearing to the Central Bank which was returned for having
been "missent" or "misrouted." 1 The next day, March 16,
RCBC debited the amount covered by the same cashier's
check from the account of the petitioner. Respondent bank
at this time had not informed the petitioner of its action
which the latter claims he learned of only 42 days after,
specifically on March 16, when he received the bank's
debit memo.2 Relying on the common knowledge that a
cashier's check was as good as cash, that the usual
banking practice that local checks are cleared within three
(3) working days and regional checks within seven (7)
working days, and the fact that the cashier's check was
accepted, petitioner issued two (2) personal checks both
dated March 18. Check No. 040719 in the name of Go Lac
for Five Thousand Five Hundred (P5,5000.00) Pesos was
presented on April 25, 3 more than 30 days from
petitioner's deposit date of the cashier's check. Check
No. 040718 in the name of MS Development Trading
Corporation for Six Thousand Fifty-Three Pesos and
Seventy Centavos (P6,053.70) was returned twice on
March 24, nine (9) days from his deposit date and again
on April 26, twenty-two days after the day the cashier's
check was deposited for insufficiency of funds. 4
Petitioner, alleging to have suffered humiliation and loss of
face in the business sector due to the bounced checks,
filed a complaint against RCBC for damages in the
Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa,
Branch 47, docketed as Civil Case No. 2101. 5
During the trial, petitioner sought to prove:
First, that it was RCBC's responsibility to call his attention
there and then that he had erroneously filled the wrong
deposit slip at the time he deposited the cashier's check
Page 26 of 40
Page 27 of 40
Page 28 of 40
BANKING for MT
Page 29 of 40
KAPUNAN, J.:p
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Revised Rules of Court assailing the decision and
resolution of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 38281 dated 31 January 1994 and 5 July 1994,
respectively, which affirmed the decision of the Regional
Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-89-4033 declaring Philippine
National Bank liable to Carmelo H. Flores for damages.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On 11 July 1989, private respondent Carmelo H. Flores
(Flores) purchased from petitioner at its Manila Pavilion
Hotel unit, two (2) manager's checks worth P500,000.00
BANKING for MT
Page 30 of 40
11
13
II
WHETHER OR NOT PNB CAN PRESENT
COMPETENT AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT ITS ALLEGATION IN THE
ANSWER THAT MR. FLORES ACTUALLY
PAID P900,040 AND NOT P1,000,040 FOR
THE SUBJECT MANAGER'S CHECKS.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE AWARD FOR P1
MILLION MORAL DAMAGES, P1 MILLION
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AND P50,000
ATTORNEY'S FEES, AS COMPARED TO THE
ACTUAL CLAIM OF P100,000 IS
DISPROPORTIONATE AND
UNCONSCIONABLE. 15
We shall deal with the first and second issues raised by
petitioner together as they are interrelated.
Petitioner concedes that it issued the subject receipt for
P1,000,040.00 to Flores; yet, in the same breath, it
immediately counters that said receipt is not the best
evidence to prove how much money Flores actually paid
for the purchase of petitioner's manager's checks.
Further, petitioner insists that the issue in the instant case
is not the contents of the subject receipt but the exact
amount of money Flores paid to PNB, an inquiry which,
petitioner avers, allows the presentation of
evidence aliunde.
Petitioner's contentions are unmeritorious.
A "receipt" is defined as:
A written and signed acknowledgment
that money has been paid or goods have
been delivered. A receipt is merely
presumptive evidence and is not
conclusive.
A written acknowledgment that money or
a thing of value has been received. Since
a receipt is a mere acknowledgment of
payment, it may be subject to
explanation or contradiction. A receipt
may be used as evidence against one just
as any other declaration or admission. A
simple receipt not under seal is
presumptive evidence only and may be
rebutted or explained by other evidence
of mistake in giving it, or of non-payment
or of the circumstances under which it
was given. 16 (Emphasis ours.)
Although a receipt is not conclusive evidence, in the case
at bench, an exhaustive review of the records fails to
disclose any other evidence sufficient and strong enough
BANKING for MT
Page 31 of 40
Page 32 of 40
reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation and
similar injury, are
incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
As to exemplary
damages, Article 2229 of
the Civil Code provides
that such damages may
be imposed by way of
example or correction for
the public good. While
exemplary damages
cannot be recovered as
a matter of right, they
need not be proved,
although plaintiff must
show that he is entitled
to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages
before the court may
consider the question of
whether or not
exemplary damages
should be awarded. 22
Page 33 of 40
24
29
we stated,
Page 34 of 40
BANKING for MT
Page 35 of 40
FIRST DIVISION
vs.
BANKING for MT
Page 36 of 40
Page 37 of 40
10
[Emphasis ours]
Page 38 of 40
A: Yes, sir.
13
Page 39 of 40
We do not agree.
While it is true that had private respondent checked the
monthly statements of account sent by the petitioner bank
to RMC, the latter would have discovered the loss early on,
such cannot be used by the petitioners to escape liability.
This omission on the part of the private respondent does
not change the fact that were it not for the wanton and
reckless negligence of the petitioners' employee in
validating the incomplete duplicate deposit slips
presented by Ms. Irene Yabut, the loss would not have
occurred. Considering, however, that the fraud was
committed in a span of more than one (1) year covering
various deposits, common human experience dictates that
the same would not have been possible without any form
of collusion between Ms. Yabut and bank teller Mabayad.
Ms. Mabayad was negligent in the performance of her
duties as bank teller nonetheless. Thus, the petitioners are
entitled to claim reimbursement from her for whatever
they shall be ordered to pay in this case.
The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that,
indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not
checking its monthly statements of account. Had it done
so, the company would have been alerted to the series of
frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The
damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an
amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had
exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs.
This omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence
BANKING for MT
Page 40 of 40