Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Equitable PCI Bank vs.

Ong  PCI Bank contended that the check issued to Sarande was returned on the ground that
GR NO. 156207 the account against which it was drawn was already closed.
September 15, 2006
By: Race Del Rosario ISSUE(s):
Topic: Manager or Cashier’s Check
Petitioners: Equitable PCI Bank W/N PCI Bank should pay the manager’s check issued to Rowena Ong.
Respondents: Rowena Ong
Ponente: J. Chico-Nazario HELD/RATIO:

YES
RECIT-READY SUMMARY:
 The PCI Bank’s contention that if it would be compelled to make good the managers
Sarande issued a check in favor of the respondent Rowena Ong which was subsequently
check it had issued, it will unjustly enrich the respondent is without merit. The main
converted into a manager’s check by the PCI bank. Said check was dishonored by the same
objective of the doctrine is to prevent one to enrich himself at the expense of another.
bank saying that the account it was drawn from was already closed. SC held that the
It is well to stress that the check of Sarande had been cleared by the PCI Bank for
issuance of the manager’s check is as good as the money it represents and is on the same
which reason the former issued the check to Ong. Having cleared the check earlier, PCI
footing as a certified check. PCI bank did not exercise due diligence in issuing the manager’s
Bank, therefore, became liable to Ong and it cannot allege want or failure of
check so they are liable to pay the respondent the amount in the check plus damages.
consideration between it and Sarande. Under settled jurisprudence, Ong is a stranger
as regards the transaction between PCI Bank and Sarande.
DOCTRINE: A managers check is an order of the bank to pay, drawn upon itself, committing
 PCI Bank next insists that since there was no consideration for the issuance of the
in effect its total resources, integrity and honor behind its issuance. By its peculiar character
managers check, ergo, Ong is not a holder in due course. This claim is equally without
and general use in commerce, a managers check is regarded substantially to be as good as
basis. Pertinent provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law are: (1) Sec 52 which
the money it represents.
defines a holder in due course; (2) Sec 42 on the presumption of consideration; (3) Sec
26 on what constitutes a holder for value; and (4) Sec 28 on the effect of want of
FACTS:
consideration.
 Easily discernible is that what Ong obtained from PCI Bank was not just any ordinary
 Warliza Sarande deposited in her account at Philippine Commercial International (PCI)
check but a managers check. A managers check is an order of the bank to pay, drawn
Bank Magsaysay Davao City Branch, a PCI Bank General Santos City Branch Check in
upon itself, committing in effect its total resources, integrity and honor behind its
the amount of P225,000.00.
issuance. By its peculiar character and general use in commerce, a managers check is
 5 days after, Sarande inquired whether the check had been cleared and she received
regarded substantially to be as good as the money it represents. A managers check
an affirmative answer. Relying on this assurance, she issued two checks drawn against
stands on the same footing as a certified check. The effect of certification is found in
her account. One of which was issued to Rowena Ong for P132,000.00 as payment for
Section 187, Negotiable Instruments Law.
a business transaction.
 From the foregoing, it is palpable and readily apparent that PCI Bank failed to exercise
 Instead of encashing, Ong requested to convert the proceeds into a manager’s check,
the highest degree of care required of it under Republic Act No. 8791, The General
to which the PCI bank obliged.
Banking Law of 2000.
 She then deposited said check to her account with Equitable bank but she received a
 Therefore, the petitioner is made to pay the amount specified in the check and moral
check-return slip saying that PCI stopped the payment on the ground of irregular
and exemplary damages because the respondent suffered humiliation arising from the
issuance.
dishonor of the check.
 Despite several demands, PCI refused to pay said amount which prompted Ong to file
a complaint against PCI Bank for the sum of money and damages.