Digest

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 125851

July 11, 2006

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.G. SPORTSWEAR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, NARI GIDWANI, SPOUSES LETICIA AND LEON DE VILLA AND ALCRON INTERNATIONAL LTD., respondents. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: This petition for review on certiorari assails (a) the July 31, 1996 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, ordering respondent G.G. Sportswear Manufacturing Corp. to reimburse petitioner US $20,085; and exonerating the guarantors from liability; and (b) the January 17, 1997 Resolution 2 denying the motion for reconsideration. The facts are undisputed. On January 6, 1981, petitioner Allied Bank, Manila (ALLIED) purchased Export Bill No. BDO-81-002 in the amount of US $20,085.00 from respondent G.G. Sportswear Mfg. Corporation (GGS). The bill, drawn under a letter of credit No. BB640549 covered Men's Valvoline Training Suit that was in transit to West Germany (Uniger via Rotterdam) under Cont. #73/S0299. The export bill was issued by Chekiang First Bank Ltd., Hongkong. With the purchase of the bill, ALLIED credited GGS the peso equivalent of the aforementioned bill amounting to P151,474.52 and the receipt of which was acknowledged by the latter in its letter dated June 22, 1981. On the same date, respondents Nari Gidwani and Alcron International Ltd. (Alcron) executed their respective Letters of Guaranty, holding themselves liable on the export bill if it should be dishonored or retired by the drawee for any reason. Subsequently, the spouses Leon and Leticia de Villa and Nari Gidwani also executed a Continuing Guaranty/Comprehensive Surety (surety, for brevity), guaranteeing payment of any and all such credit accommodations which ALLIED may extend to GGS. When ALLIED negotiated the export bill to Chekiang, payment was refused due to some material discrepancies in the documents submitted by GGS relative to the exportation covered by the letter of credit. Consequently, ALLIED demanded payment from all the respondents based on the Letters of Guaranty and Surety executed in favor of ALLIED. However, respondents refused to pay, prompting ALLIED to file an action for a sum of money. In their joint answer, respondents GGS and Nari Gidwani admitted the due execution of the export bill and the Letters of Guaranty in favor of ALLIED, but claimed that they signed blank forms of the Letters of Guaranty and the Surety, and the blanks were only filled up by ALLIED after they had affixed their signatures. They also added that the documents did not cover the transaction involving the subject export bill. On the other hand, the respondents, spouses de Villa, claimed that they were not aware of the existence of the export bill; they signed blank forms of the surety; and averred that the guaranty was not meant to secure the export bill. Respondent Alcron, for its part, alleged that as a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, its branch in the Philippines is merely a liaison office confined to the following duties and responsibilities, to wit: acting as a message center between its office in Hongkong and its clients in the Philippines; conducting credit investigations on Filipino clients; and providing its office in Hongkong with shipping arrangements and other details in connection with its office in Hongkong. Respondent Alcron further alleged that neither its liaison office in the Philippines nor its then representative, Hans-Joachim Schloer, had the authority to issue Letters of Guaranty for and in behalf of local entities and persons. It also invoked laches against petitioner ALLIED. GGS and Nari Gidwani filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that since the plaintiff admitted not having protested the dishonor of the export bill, it thereby discharged GGS from liability. But the trial court denied the motion. After the presentation of evidence by the petitioner, only the spouses de Villa

presented their evidence. The other respondents did not. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the ruling of the trial court holding respondent GGS liable to reimburse petitioner ALLIED the peso equivalent of the export bill, but it exonerated the guarantors from their liabilities under the Letters of Guaranty. The CA decision reads as follows: For the foregoing considerations, appellee GGS is obliged to reimburse appellant Allied Bank the amount ofP151,474.52 which was the equivalent of GGS's contracted obligation of US$20,085.00. The lower court however correctly exonerated the guarantors from their liability under their Letters of Guaranty. A guaranty is an accessory contract. What the guarantors guaranteed in the instant case was the bill which had been discharged. Consequently, the guarantors should be correspondingly released. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant-appellee G.G. Sportswear Mfg. Corporation to pay appellant the sum of P151,474.52 with interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint, and the costs. SO ORDERED.3 The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but to no avail. Hence, this appeal, raising a single issue: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS NARI, DE VILLA AND ALCRON ARE LIABLE UNDER THE LETTERS OF GUARANTY AND THE CONTINUING GUARANTY/ COMPREHENSIVE SURETY NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT NO PROTEST WAS MADE AFTER THE BILL, A FOREIGN BILL OF EXCHANGE, WAS DISHONORED.4 The main issue raised before us is: Can respondents, in their capacity as guarantors and surety, be held jointly and severally liable under the Letters of Guaranty and Continuing Guaranty/Comprehensive Surety, in the absence of protest on the bill in accordance with Section 152 of the Negotiable Instruments Law? 5 The petitioner contends that part of the Court of Appeals' decision exonerating respondents Nari Gidwani, Alcron International Ltd., and spouses Leon and Leticia de Villa as guarantors and/or sureties. Respondents rely on Section 152 of the Negotiable Instruments Law to support their contention. Our review of the records shows that what transpired in this case is a discounting arrangement of the subject export bill, between petitioner ALLIED and respondent GGS. Previously, we ruled that in a letter of credit transaction, once the credit is established, the seller ships the goods to the buyer and in the process secures the required shipping documents of title. To get paid, the seller executes a draft and presents it together with the required documents to the issuing bank. The issuing bank redeems the draft and pays cash to the seller if it finds that the documents submitted by the seller conform with what the letter of credit requires. The bank then obtains possession of the documents upon paying the seller. The transaction is completed when the buyer reimburses the issuing bank and acquires the documents entitling him to the goods.6 However, in most cases, instead of going to the issuing bank to claim payment, the buyer (or the beneficiary of the draft) may approach another bank, termed the negotiating bank, to have the draft discounted.7 While the negotiating bank owes no contractual duty toward the beneficiary of the draft to discount or purchase it, it may still do so. Nothing can prevent the negotiating bank from requiring additional requirements, like contracts of guaranty and surety, in consideration of the discounting arrangement. In this case, respondent GGS, as the beneficiary of the export bill, instead of going to Chekiang First Bank Ltd. (issuing bank), went to petitioner ALLIED, to have the export bill purchased or discounted. Before ALLIED agreed to purchase the subject export bill, it required respondents Nari Gidwani and Alcron to execute Letters of Guaranty, holding them liable on demand,in case the subject export bill was dishonored or retired for any reason.8 Likewise, respondents Nari Gidwani and spouses Leon and Leticia de Villa executed Continuing Guaranty/Comprehensive Surety, holding themselves jointly and severally liable on any and all credit accommodations, instruments, loans, advances, credits and/or other obligation that may be granted by the petitioner ALLIED to respondent GGS. 9 The surety also contained a clause whereby said sureties waive protest and notice of dishonor of any and all such instruments, loans, advances, credits and/or obligations.10 These letters of guaranty and surety are now the basis of the petitioner's action.

At this juncture, we must stress that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith. 11 Nothing can stop the parties from establishing stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.12 Here, Art. 2047 of the New Civil Code is pertinent. Art. 2047 states, Art. 2047. By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such case the contract is called a suretyship. In this case, the Letters of Guaranty and Surety clearly show that respondents undertook and bound themselves as guarantors and surety to pay the full amount of the export bill. Respondents claim that the petitioner did not protest 13 upon dishonor of the export bill by Chekiang First Bank, Ltd. According to respondents, since there was no protest made upon dishonor of the export bill, all of them, as indorsers were discharged under Section 152 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Section 152 of the Negotiable Instruments Law pertaining to indorsers, relied on by respondents, is not pertinent to this case. There are well-defined distinctions between the contract of an indorser and that of a guarantor/surety of a commercial paper, which is what is involved in this case. The contract of indorsement is primarily that of transfer, while the contract of guaranty is that of personal security. 14 The liability of a guarantor/surety is broader than that of an indorser. Unless the bill is promptly presented for payment at maturity and due notice of dishonor given to the indorser within a reasonable time, he will be discharged from liability thereon.15 On the other hand, except where required by the provisions of the contract of suretyship, a demand or notice of default is not required to fix the surety's liability. 16 He cannot complain that the creditor has not notified him in the absence of a special agreement to that effect in the contract of suretyship.17 Therefore, no protest on the export bill is necessary to charge all the respondents jointly and severally liable with G.G. Sportswear since the respondents held themselves liable upon demand in case the instrument was dishonored and on the surety, they even waived notice of dishonor as stipulated in their Letters of Guarantee. As to respondent Alcron, it is bound by the Letter of Guaranty executed by its representative Hans-Joachim Schloer. As to the other respondents, not to be overlooked is the fact that, the "Suretyship Agreement" they executed, expressly contemplated a solidary obligation, providing as it did that "… the sureties hereby guarantee jointly and severally the punctual payment of any and all such credit accommodations, instruments, loans, … which is/are now or may hereafter become due or owing … by the borrower". 18 It is a cardinal rule that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control. 19 In the present case, there can be no mistaking about respondents' intent, as sureties, to be jointly and severally obligated with respondent G.G. Sportswear. Respondents also aver that, (1) they only signed said documents in blank; (2) they were never made aware that said documents will cover the payment of the export bill; and (3) laches have set in. Respondents' stance lacks merit. Under Section 3 (d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Hence, the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents and consequences. Said presumption acquires greater force in the case at bar where not only one document but several documents were executed at different times and at different places by the herein respondent guarantors and sureties. 20 In this case, having affixed their consenting signatures in several documents executed at different times, it is safe to presume that they had full knowledge of its terms and conditions, hence, they are precluded from asserting ignorance of the legal effects of the undertaking they assumed thereunder. It is also presumed that private transactions have been fair and regular 21 and that he who alleges has the burden of proving his allegation with the requisite quantum of evidence. 22 But here the records of this case do not support their claims. Last, we find the defense of laches unavailing. The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion

of the court and since laches is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations.23Respondents, however, failed to show that the collection suit against them as sureties was inequitable. Remedies in equity address only situations tainted with inequity, not those expressly governed by statutes.24 After considering the facts of this case vis-à-vis the pertinent laws, we are constrained to rule for the petitioner. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is herebyMODIFIED, and we hold that respondent Alcron International Ltd. is subsidiarily liable, while respondents Nari Gidwani, and Spouses Leon and Leticia de Villa are jointly and severally liable together with G.G. Sportswear, to pay petitioner Bank the sum of P151,474.52 with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint, and the costs. SO ORDERED. SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 148211

July 25, 2006

SINCERE Z. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. MARLYN P. NITE,* respondent. DECISION CORONA, J.: In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in annulling and setting aside the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The facts follow.1 Respondent allegedly took out a loan of P409,000 from petitioner. To secure the loan, respondent issued petitioner an Asian Bank Corporation (ABC) check (Check No. AYA 020195) in the amount of P325,500 dated February 8, 1994. The date was later changed to June 8, 1994 with the consent and concurrence of petitioner. The check was, however, dishonored due to a material alteration when petitioner deposited the check on due date. On August 24, 1994, respondent, through her representative Emily P. Abojada, remitted P235,000 to petitioner as partial payment of the loan. The balance of P174, 000 was due on or before December 8, 1994. On August 24, 1994, however, petitioner filed an action for a sum of money and damages (Civil Case No. Q-94-21495) against ABC for the full amount of the dishonored check. And in a decision dated May 23, 1997, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 101 ruled in his favor. 2 When respondent went to ABC Salcedo Village Branch on June 30, 1997 to withdraw money from her account, she was unable to do so because the trial court had ordered ABC to pay petitioner the value of respondent’s ABC check. On August 25, 1997, ABC remitted to the sheriff a manager’s check amounting to P325,500 drawn on respondent’s account. The check was duly received by petitioner on the same date. Respondent then filed a petition in the CA seeking to annul and set aside the trial court’s decision ordering ABC to pay petitioner the value of the ABC check.3 The CA ruled: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision dated May 23, 1997 of the public respondent is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE for extrinsic fraud. [Petitioner] Villanueva is hereby ordered to pay [Nite] — 1) the sum of [P146,500] as actual damages plus interest at 12% per annum from August 25, 1997 until full payment;

2) the sum of [P75,000] as moral damages; 3) the sum of [P50,000] as exemplary damages; and 4) the sum of [P50,000] as attorney’s fees and cost of suit. SO ORDERED.4 Thus, this petition. We find for respondent. Annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is promulgated. It can be filed by one who was not a party to the case in which the assailed judgment was rendered.Section 1 of Rule 47 provides: Section 1. Coverage. – This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Respondent may avail of the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47. The ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal and petition for relief were not available to her for the simple reason that she was not made a party to the suit against ABC. Thus, she was neither able to participate in the original proceedings nor resort to the other remedies because the case was filed when she was abroad. Annulment of judgment may be based only on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. 5 Extrinsic or collateral fraud pertains to such fraud which prevents the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court, or is used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy.6 This refers to acts intended to keep the unsuccessful party away from the courts as when there is a false promise of compromise or when one is kept in ignorance of the suit.7 We uphold the appellate court’s finding of extrinsic fraud: Barely 6 days after receipt of the partial payment of P235,000.00 and agreeing that the balance of P174,000.00 shall be paid on or before December 8, 1994, [Sincere] filed his complaint against [ABC] for the full amount of the dishonored check in the sum of P320,500.00 without impleading petitioner. The apparent haste by which [Sincere] filed his complaint and his failure to implead [Marlyn] clearly shows his intent to prevent [Marlyn] from opposing his action. [A]t the time news about [Marlyn] having left the country was widespread, appearing even in print media as early as May 1994, [Marlyn] paid [Sincere] the amount of P235,000.00 as partial payment on [August 18, 1994], through a representative. Notwithstanding the foregoing, SIX (6) days later or on [August 24, 1994, Sincere] instituted an action for collection with damages for the whole amount of the issued check. [Sincere] does not deny knowledge of such payment neither of the fact that he concurred in settling the balance of P174,000.00 on December 8, 1994. [His] actuation and pronouncement shows not only bad faith on his part but also of his fraudulent intention to completely exclude [Marlyn] from the proceedings in the court a quo. By doing what he did he prevented the [trial court] from fully appreciating the particulars of the case. 8 In any event, the RTC decision may be annulled for lack of jurisdiction over the person of respondent. The pertinent provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law are enlightening: SEC. 185. Check, defined. – A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand. Except as herein otherwise provided, the provisions of this Act applicable to a bill of exchange payable on demand apply to a check.9 (emphasis ours) SEC. 189. When check operates as an assignment. – A check of itself does not operate as an assignment of any part of the funds to the credit of the drawer with the bank, and the bank is not liable to the holder, unless and until it accepts or certifies the check. (emphasis ours) If a bank refuses to pay a check (notwithstanding the sufficiency of funds), the payee-holder cannot, in view of the cited sections, sue the bank. The payee should instead sue the drawer who might in turn sue the

bank. Section 189 is sound law based on logic and established legal principles: no privity of contract exists between the drawee-bank and the payee. Indeed, in this case, there was no such privity of contract between ABC and petitioner. Petitioner should not have sued ABC. Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in cases where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law.10 None of the foregoing exceptions to the relativity of contracts applies in this case. The contract of loan was between petitioner and respondent. No collection suit could prosper without respondent who was an indispensable party. Rule 3, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court states: Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. – Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (emphasis ours) An indispensable party is one whose interest in the controversy is such that a final decree will necessarily affect his rights. The court cannot proceed without his presence. 11 If an indispensable party is not impleaded, any judgment is ineffective.12 On this, Aracelona v. Court of Appeals13 declared: Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. As such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence being sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. It is precisely "when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) the action should be dismissed." The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44971 isAFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 137002

July 27, 2006

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, seeking to set aside a Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated 14 August 2004 ordering the petitioner to pay respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) deficiency documentary stamp tax of P690,030 for the year 1986, inclusive of surcharge and compromise penalty, plus 20% annual interest until fully paid. The Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision affirmed the Decision 2 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) dated 31 May 1994. From 28 February 1986 to 8 October 1986, petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) sold to the Central Bank of the Philippines (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) U.S. dollars for P1,608,541,900.00. BPI instructed, by cable, its correspondent bank in New York to transfer U.S. dollars deposited in BPI's account therein to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York for credit to the Central Bank's account therein. Thereafter, the Federal Reserve Bank sent to the Central Bank confirmation that such funds had been credited to its account and the Central Bank promptly transferred to the petitioner's account in the

Philippines the corresponding amount in Philippine pesos.3 During the period starting 11 June 1985 until 9 March 1987, the Central Bank enjoyed tax exemption privileges pursuant to Resolution No. 35-85 dated 3 May 1985 of the Fiscal Incentive Review Board. However, in 1985, Presidential Decree No. 1994 -- An Act Further Amending Certain Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code was enacted. This law amended Section 222 (now 173) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), by adding the foregoing: [W]henever one party to the taxable document enjoys exemption from the tax herein imposed, the other party thereto who is not exempt shall be the one directly liable for the tax. In 1988, respondent CIR ordered an investigation to be made on BPI's sale of foreign currency. As a result thereof, the CIR issued a pre-assessment notice informing BPI that in accordance with Section 195 (now Section 182)4 of the NIRC, BPI was liable for documentary stamp tax at the rate of P0.30 per P200.00 on all foreign exchange sold to the Central Bank. Total tax liability was assessed at P3,016,316.06, which consists of a documentary stamp tax liability of P2,412,812.85, a 25% surcharge of P603,203.21, and a compromise penalty of P300.00.5 BPI disputed the findings contained in the pre-assessment notice. Nevertheless, the CIR issued Assessment No. FAS-5-86-88-003022, dated 30 September 1988, which BPI received on 11 October 1988. BPI formally protested the assessment, but the protest was denied. On 10 July 1990, BPI received the final notice and demand for payment of its 1986 assessment for deficiency documentary stamp tax in the amount of P3,016,316.06. Consequently, a petition for review was filed with the CTA on 9 August 1990. 6 On 31 May 1994, the CTA rendered the Decision holding BPI liable for documentary stamp tax in connection with the sale of foreign exchange to the Central Bank from the period 29 July 1986 to 8 October 1986 only, thus substantially reducing the CIR's original assessment. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner is hereby ordered to pay respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the amount of P690,030 inclusive of surcharge and compromise penalty, plus 20% annual interest until fully paid pursuant to Section 249 (cc) (sic) (3) of the Tax Code. 7 The CTA ruled that BPI's instructions to its correspondent bank in the U.S. to pay to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, for the account of the Central Bank, a sum of money falls squarely within the scope of Section 51 of The Revised Documentary Stamp Tax Regulations (Regulations No. 26), dated 26 March 1924, the implementing rules to the earlier provisions on documentary stamp tax, which provides that: 8 What may be regarded as telegraphic transfer. — a local bank cables to a certain bank in a foreign country with which bank said local bank has a credit, and directs that foreign bank to pay to another bank or person in the same locality a certain sum of money, the document for and in respect such transaction will be regarded as a telegraphic transfer, taxable under the provisions of Section 1449(i) of the Administrative Code. Nevertheless, the CTA also noted that although Presidential Decree No. 1994, the law which passes the liability on to the non-exempt party, was published in the Official Gazette issue of 2 December 1985, the same was released to the public only on 18 June 1986, as certified by the National Printing Office. Therefore, Presidential Decree No. 1994 took effect only in July 1986 or 15 days after the issue of Official Gazette where the law was actually published, that is, circulated to the public. As a result of the delay, BPI's transactions prior to the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 1994 were not subject to documentary stamp tax. Hence, the CTA reduced the assessment from P3,016,316.06 to P690,030.00, plus 20% annual interest until fully paid pursuant to Section 249(c) of the NIRC.9 Both parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration, which the CTA denied in a Resolution dated 26 September 1994. BPI filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals on 11 November 1994. On 14 August 1998, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the CTA. The Court of Appeals ruled that the documentary stamp tax imposed under Section 195 (now Section 182) is not limited only to foreign bills of exchange and letters of credit but also includes the orders made by telegraph or by any other means for the payment of money made by any person drawn in but payable out of the Philippines. The Court of Appeals also maintained that telegraphic transfers, such as the one BPI sent to its correspondent bank in the U.S., are proper subjects for the imposition of documentary stamp tax under Section 195 (now Section

182) and Section 51 of Revenue Regulation No. 26. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the CTA's Decision imposing a 20% delinquency on the reduced assessment, in accordance with Section 24(c)(3) of the NIRC and the case of Philippine Refining Company v. Court of Appeals.10 Petitioner filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration on 9 September 1998, which the Court of Appeals denied on 29 December 1998.11 Hence this petition, wherein the petitioner raised the following issues: I WHETHER OR NOT, THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SALES OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE (SPOT CASH), AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SALES OF FOREIGN BILLS OF EXCHANGE, ARE SUBJECT TO DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX UNDER SECTION 182 OF THE TAX CODE II WHETHER OR NOT, THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE IMPOSITION OF A DELINQUENCY INTEREST OF 20% ON THE REVISED DEFICIENCY STAMP ASSESSMENT DESPITE A REDUCTION THEREOF BY THE COUR T OF TAX APPEALS WHICH ERRED IN ITS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT.12 The first issue raised by the petitioner is whether BPI is liable for documentary stamp taxes in connection with its sale of foreign exchange to the Central Bank in 1986 under Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC, quoted hereunder: Sec. 182. Stamp tax on foreign bills of exchange and letters of credit. On all foreign bills of exchange and letters of credit (including orders, by telegraph or otherwise, for the payment of money issued by express or steamship companies or by any person or persons) drawn in but payable out of the Philippines in a set of three or more according to the custom of merchants and bankers, there shall be collected a documentary stamp tax of thirty centavos on each two hundred pesos, or fractional part thereof, of the face value of such bill of exchange or letter of credit, or the Philippine equivalent of such face value, if expressed in foreign country. To determine what is being taxed under this section, a discussion on the nature of the acts covered by Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC is indispensable. This section imposes a documentary stamp tax on (1) foreign bills of exchange, (2) letters of credit, and (3) orders, by telegraph or otherwise, for the payment of money issued by express or steamship companies or by any person or persons. This enumeration is further limited by the qualification that they should be drawn in the Philippines and payable outside of the Philippines. A definition of a "bill of exchange" is provided by Section 39 of Regulations No. 26, the rules governing documentary taxes promulgated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in 1924: Sec. 39. Definition of "bill of exchange". The term bill of exchange denotes checks, drafts, and all other kinds of orders for the payment of money, payable at sight, or on demand or after a specific period after sight or from a stated date. Section 126 of The Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031) reiterates that it is an "order for the payment of money" and specifies the particular requisites that make it negotiable. Sec. 126. Bill of exchange defined. – A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to order or to bearer. Section 129 of the same law classifies bills of exchange as inland and foreign, the distinction is laid down by where the bills are drawn and paid. Thus, a "foreign bill of exchange" may be drawn outside the Philippines, payable outside the Philippines, or both drawn and payable outside of the Philippines. Sec. 129. Inland and foreign bills of exchange. -- An inland bill of exchange is a bill which is, or on its face purports to be, both drawn and payable within the Philippines. Any other bill is a foreign bill.

xxx The Code of Commerce loosely defines a "letter of credit" and provides for its essential conditions, thus: Art. 567. Letters of credit are those issued by one merchant to another or for the purpose of attending to a commercial transaction. Art 568. The essential conditions of letters of credit shall be: 1. To be issued in favor of a definite person and not to order. 2. To be limited to a fixed and specified amount, or to one or more undetermined amounts, but within a maximum the limits of which has to be stated exactly. A more explicit definition of a letter of credit can be found in the commentaries: A letter of credit is one whereby one person requests some other person to advance money or give credit to a third person, and promises that he will repay the same to the person making the advancement, or accept the bills drawn upon himself for the like amount. 13 A bill of exchange and a letter of credit may differ as to their negotiability, and as to who owns the funds used for the payment at the time payment is made. However, in both bills of exchange and letters of credit, a person orders another to pay money to a third person. The phrase "orders, by telegraph or otherwise, for the payment of money" used in reference to documentary stamp taxes may be found in an earlier documentary tax provision, Section 1449(i) of the Administrative Code of 1917, which was substantially reproduced in Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. Regulations No. 26, which provided the rules and guidelines for the documentary stamp tax imposed under the Administrative Code of 1917, contains an explanation for the phrase "orders, by telegraph or otherwise, for the payment of money": What may be regarded as telegraphic transfer. — a local bank cables to a certain bank in a foreign country with which bank said local bank has a credit, and directs that foreign bank to pay to another bank or person in the same locality a certain sum of money, the document for and in respect such transaction will be regarded as a telegraphic transfer, taxable under the provisions of Section 1449(i) of the Administrative Code. In this case, BPI ordered its correspondent bank in the U.S. to pay the Federal Reserve Bank in New York a sum of money, which is to be credited to the account of the Central Bank. These are the same acts described under Section 51 of Regulations No. 26, interpreting the documentary stamp tax provision in the Administrative Code of 1917, which is substantially identical to Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. These acts performed by BPI incidental to its sale of foreign exchange to the Central Bank are included among those taxed under Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. BPI alleges that the assailed decision must be reversed since the sale between BPI and the Central Bank of foreign exchange, as distinguished from foreign bills of exchange, is not subject to the documentary stamp taxes prescribed in Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. This argument leaves much to be desired. In this case, it is not the sale of foreign exchange per se that is being taxed under Section 195 of the NIRC. This section refers to a documentary stamp tax, which is an excise upon the facilities used in the transaction of the business separate and apart from the business itself. 14 It is not a tax upon the business itself which is so transacted, but it is a duty upon the facilities made use of and actually employed in the transaction of the business, and separate and apart from the business itself. 15 Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC covers foreign bills of exchange, letters of credit, and orders of payment for money, drawn in Philippines, but payable outside the Philippines. From this enumeration, two common elements need to be present: (1) drawing the instrument or ordering a drawee, within the Philippines; and (2) ordering that drawee to pay another person a specified amount of money outside the Philippines. What is being taxed is the facility that allows a party to draw the draft or make the order to pay within the Philippines and have the payment made in another country. A perusal of the facts contained in the record in this case shows that BPI, while in the Philippines, ordered its correspondent bank by cable to make a payment, and that payment is to be made to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Thus, BPI made use of the aforementioned facility. As a result, BPI need not

have sent a representative to New York, nor did the Federal Reserve Bank have to go to the Philippines to collect the funds which were to be credited to the Central Bank's account with them. The transaction was made at the shortest time possible and at the greatest convenience to the parties. The tax was laid upon this privilege or facility used by the parties in their transactions, transactions which they may effect through our courts, and which are regulated and protected by our government. BPI further alleges that since the funds transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank were taken from BPI's account with the correspondent bank, this is not the transaction contemplated under Section 51 of Regulations No. 26. BPI argues that Section 51 of Regulations No. 26, in using the phrase "with which local bank has credit," involves transactions wherein the drawee bank pays with its own funds and excludes from the coverage of the law situations wherein the funds paid out by the correspondent bank are owned by the drawer. In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine National Bank,16 the Court equated "credit" with the term "deposits," and identified the depositor as the creditor and the bank as the debtor. And as correctly stated by the trial court, the term "credit" in its usual meaning is a sum credited on the books of a company to a person who appears to be entitled to it. It presupposes a creditordebtor relationship, and may be said to imply ability, by reason of property or estates, to make a promised payment. It is the correlative to debt or indebtedness, and that which is due to any person, as distinguished from that which he owes. The same is true with the term "deposits" in banks where the relationship created between the depositor and the bank is that of creditor and debtor. By this definition of "credit," BPI's deposit account with its correspondent bank is much the same as the "credit" referred to in Section 51 of Regulations No. 26. Thus, the fact that the funds transferred to the Central Bank's account with the Federal Reserve Bank are from BPI's deposit account with the correspondent bank can only underline that the present case is the same situation described under Section 51 of Regulations No. 26. Moreover, the fact that the funds belong to BPI and were not advanced by the correspondent bank will not remove the transaction from the coverage of Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. There are transactions covered by this section wherein funds belonging to the drawer are used for payment. A bill of exchange, when drawn in the Philippines but payable in another country, would surely be covered by this section. And in the case of a bill of exchange, the funds may belong to the drawer and need not be advanced by the drawee, as in the case of a check or a draft. In the description of a draft provided hereunder, the drawee is in possession of funds belonging to the drawer of the bill: A draft is a form of a bill of exchange used mainly in transactions between persons physically remote from each other. It is an order made by one person, say the buyer of goods, addressed to a person having in his possession funds of such buyer ordering the addressee to pay the purchase price to the seller of the goods. Where the order is made by one bank to another, it is referred to as a bank draft.17 BPI argues that the foreign exchange sold was deposited and transferred within the U.S. and is therefore outside Philippine territory. This argument is unsubstantial. The documentary stamp tax is not imposed on the sale of foreign exchange, rather it is an excise tax on the privilege or facility which the parties used in their transaction. In the case of Allied Thread Co., Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila,18 the Court explained the scope encompassed by the power to levy an excise tax: The tax imposition here is upon the performance of an act, enjoyment of a privilege, or the engaging in an occupation, and hence is in the nature of an excise tax. The power to levy an excise upon the performance of an act or the engaging in an occupation does not depend upon the domicile of the person subject to the excise, nor upon the physical location of the property and in connection with the act or occupation taxed, but depends upon the place in which the act is performed or occupation engaged in (Emphasis supplied). In this case, the act of BPI instructing the correspondent bank to transfer the funds to the Federal Reserve Bank was performed in the Philippines. Therefore, the excise tax may be levied by the Philippine government. Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC would be rendered invalid if the fact that the payment was made outside of the country can be used as a basis for nonpayment of the tax.

The second issue is whether the delinquency interest of 20% per annum, as provided under Section 249(c) (3) of the NIRC, is applicable in this case. In the case of Philippine Refining Company v. Court of Appeals,19 this Court categorically ruled that even if an assessment was later reduced by the courts, a delinquency interest should still be imposed from the time demand was made by the CIR. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the deficiency tax assessment in this case, which was the subject of the demand letter of respondent Commissioner dated April 11, 1989, should have been paid within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. By reason of petitioner's default thereon, the delinquency penalties of 25% surcharge and interest of 20% accrued from April 11, 1989. The fact that petitioner appealed the assessment to the CTA and that the same was modified does not relieve petitioner of the penalties incident to delinquency. The reduced amount of P237,381.25 is but a part of the original assessment of P1,892,584.00. This doctrine is consistent with the earlier decisions of this Court justifying the imposition of additional charges and interests incident to delinquency by explaining that the nature of additional charges is compensatory and not a penalty. The above legal provision makes no distinctions nor does it establish exceptions. It directs the collection of the surcharge and interest at the stated rate upon any sum or sums due and unpaid after the dates prescribed in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Act for the payment of the amounts due. The provision therefore is mandatory in case of delinquency. This is justified because the intention of the law is precisely to discourage delay in the payment of taxes due to the State and, in this sense, the surcharge and interest charged are not penal but compensatory in nature – they are compensation to the State for the delay in payment, or for the concomitant use of the funds by the taxpayer beyond the date he is supposed to have paid them to the State. 20 The same principle was used in Ross v. U.S.21 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was only equitable for the government to collect interest from a taxpayer who, by the government's error, received a refund which was not due him. Even though [the] taxpayer here did not request the refund made to him, and the situation is entirely due to an error on the part of the government, taxpayer and not the government has had the use of the money during the period involved and it is not unjustly penalizing taxpayer to require him to pay compensation for this use of money. Based on established doctrine, these charges incident to delinquency are compensatory in nature and are imposed for the taxpayers' use of the funds at the time when the State should have control of said funds. Collecting such charges is mandatory. Therefore, the Decision of the Court of Appeals imposing a 20% delinquency interest over the assessment reduced by the CTA was justified and in accordance with Section 249(c)(3) of the NIRC. WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court DENIES this petition and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57362 dated 14 August 1998, ordering that petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands to pay Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the deficiency documentary stamp tax in the amount ofP690,030.00 inclusive of surcharge and compromise penalty, plus 20% annual interest from 7 June 1990 until fully paid. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION CITIBANK, N.A. (Formerly FirstNational City Bank) and INVESTORS’ FINANCE CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style of FNCB

G.R. No. 156132 Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J. Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO,

Finance,

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, Petitioners, CALLEJO, SR., and - versusCHICO-NAZARIO, JJ. MODESTA R. SABENIANO, Promulgated: Respondent. October 16, 2006 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,[1] under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, of the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, and the Resolution,[3] dated 20 November 2002, of the same court which, although modifying its earlier Decision, still denied for the most part the Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioners. Petitioner Citibank, N.A. (formerly known as the First National City Bank) is a banking corporation duly authorized and existing under the laws of the United States of America and licensed to do commercial banking activities and perform trust functions in the Philippines. Petitioner Investor’s Finance Corporation, which did business under the name and style of FNCB Finance, was an affiliate company of petitioner Citibank, specifically handling money market placements for its clients. It is now, by virtue of a merger, doing business as part of its successor-in-interest, BPI Card Finance Corporation. However, so as to consistently establish its identity in the Petition at bar, the said petitioner shall still be referred to herein as FNCB Finance.[4] Respondent Modesta R. Sabeniano was a client of both petitioners Citibank and FNCB Finance. Regrettably, the business relations among the parties subsequently went awry. On 8 August 1985, respondent filed a Complaint [5] against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 11336, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Respondent claimed to have substantial deposits and money market placements with the petitioners, as well as money market placements with the Ayala Investment and Development Corporation (AIDC), the proceeds of which were supposedly deposited automatically and directly to respondent’s accounts with petitioner Citibank. Respondent alleged that petitioners refused to return her deposits and the proceeds of her money market placements despite her repeated demands, thus, compelling respondent to file Civil Case No. 11336 against petitioners for “Accounting, Sum of Money and Damages.” Respondent eventually filed an Amended Complaint[6] on 9 October 1985 to include additional claims to deposits and money market placements inadvertently left out from her original Complaint. In their joint Answer[7] and Answer to Amended Complaint,[8] filed on 12 September 1985 and 6 November 1985, respectively, petitioners admitted that respondent had deposits and money market placements with them, including dollar accounts in the Citibank branch in Geneva, Switzerland (Citibank-Geneva). Petitioners further alleged

that the respondent later obtained several loans from petitioner Citibank, for which she executed Promissory Notes (PNs), and secured by (a) a Declaration of Pledge of her dollar accounts in Citibank-Geneva, and (b) Deeds of Assignment of her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance. When respondent failed to pay her loans despite repeated demands by petitioner Citibank, the latter exercised its right to off-set or compensate respondent’s outstanding loans with her deposits and money market placements, pursuant to the Declaration of Pledge and the Deeds of Assignment executed by respondent in its favor. Petitioner Citibank supposedly informed respondent Sabeniano of the foregoing compensation through letters, dated 28 September 1979 and 31 October 1979. Petitioners were therefore surprised when six years later, in 1985, respondent and her counsel made repeated requests for the withdrawal of respondent’s deposits and money market placements with petitioner Citibank, including her dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva and her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance. Thus, petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint and for the award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. When the parties failed to reach a compromise during the pre-trial hearing, [9] trial proper ensued and the parties proceeded with the presentation of their respective evidence. Ten years after the filing of the Complaint on 8 August 1985, a Decision[10] was finally rendered in Civil Case No. 11336 on 24 August 1995 by the fourth Judge[11] who handled the said case, Judge Manuel D. Victorio, the dispositive portion of which reads – WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, decision is hereby rendered as follows: (1) Declaring as illegal, null and void the setoff effected by the defendant Bank [petitioner Citibank] of plaintiff’s [respondent Sabeniano] dollar deposit with Citibank, Switzerland, in the amount of US$149,632.99, and ordering the said defendant [petitioner Citibank] to refund the said amount to the plaintiff with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, compounded yearly, from 31 October 1979 until fully paid, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment; (2) Declaring the plaintiff [respondent Sabeniano] indebted to the defendant Bank [petitioner Citibank] in the amount ofP1,069,847.40 as of 5 September 1979 and ordering the plaintiff [respondent Sabeniano] to pay said amount, however, there shall be no interest and penalty charges from the time the illegal setoff was effected on 31 October 1979; (3) Dismissing all other claims and counterclaims interposed by the parties against each other. Costs against the defendant Bank.

All the parties appealed the foregoing Decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 51930. Respondent questioned the findings of the RTC that she was still indebted to petitioner Citibank, as well as the failure of the RTC to order petitioners to render an accounting of respondent’s deposits and money market

placements with them. On the other hand, petitioners argued that petitioner Citibank validly compensated respondent’s outstanding loans with her dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva, in accordance with the Declaration of Pledge she executed in its favor. Petitioners also alleged that the RTC erred in not declaring respondent liable for damages and interest. On 26 March 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision[12] affirming with modification the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 11336, dated 24 August 1995, and ruling entirely in favor of respondent in this wise – Wherefore, premises considered, the assailed 24 August 1995 Decision of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, as follows: 1. Declaring as illegal, null and void the set-off effected by the defendantappellant Bank of the plaintiff-appellant’s dollar deposit with Citibank, Switzerland, in the amount of US$149,632.99, and ordering defendant-appellant Citibank to refund the said amount to the plaintiff-appellant with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, compounded yearly, from 31 October 1979 until fully paid, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment; 2. As defendant-appellant Citibank failed to establish by competent evidence the alleged indebtedness of plaintiff-appellant, the set-off of P1,069,847.40 in the account of Ms. Sabeniano is hereby declared as without legal and factual basis; 3. As defendants-appellants failed to account the following plaintiffappellant’s money market placements, savings account and current accounts, the former is hereby ordered to return the same, in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon by the contending parties as evidenced by the certificates of investments, to wit: (i) Citibank NNPN Serial No. 023356 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 22526) issued on 17 March 1977, P318,897.34 with 14.50% interest p.a.; (ii) Citibank NNPN Serial No. 23357 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 22528) issued on 17 March 1977, P203,150.00 with 14.50 interest p.a.; (iii) FNCB NNPN Serial No. 05757 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 04952), issued on 02 June 1977,P500,000.00 with 17% interest p.a.; (iv) FNCB NNPN Serial No. 05758 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 04962), issued on 02 June 1977, P500,000.00 with 17% interest per annum; (v) The Two Million (P2,000,000.00) money market placements of Ms. Sabeniano with the Ayala Investment & Development Corporation (AIDC) with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum compounded yearly, from 30 September 1976 until fully paid; 4. Ordering defendants-appellants to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff-

appellant the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) by way of moral damages, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) as exemplary damages, and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as attorney’s fees.

Apparently, the parties to the case, namely, the respondent, on one hand, and the petitioners, on the other, made separate attempts to bring the aforementioned Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, before this Court for review. G.R. No. 152985 Respondent no longer sought a reconsideration of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, and instead, filed immediately with this Court on 3 May 2002 a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review,[13] which, after payment of the docket and other lawful fees, was assigned the docket number G.R. No. 152985. In the said Motion, respondent alleged that she received a copy of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision on 18 April 2002 and, thus, had 15 days therefrom or until 3 May 2002 within which to file her Petition for Review. Since she informed her counsel of her desire to pursue an appeal of the Court of Appeals Decision only on 29 April 2002, her counsel neither had enough time to file a motion for reconsideration of the said Decision with the Court of Appeals, nor a Petition for Certiorari with this Court. Yet, the Motion failed to state the exact extension period respondent was requesting for. Since this Court did not act upon respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time to file her Petition for Review, then the period for appeal continued to run and still expired on 3 May 2002.[14] Respondent failed to file any Petition for Review within the prescribed period for appeal and, hence, this Court issued a Resolution, [15] dated 13 November 2002, in which it pronounced that – G.R. No. 152985 (Modesta R. Sabeniano vs. Court of Appeals, et al.). – It appearing that petitioner failed to file the intended petition for review on certiorari within the period which expired on May 3, 2002, the Court Resolves to DECLARE THIS CASE TERMINATED and DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court to INFORM the parties that the judgment sought to be reviewed has become final and executory.

The said Resolution was duly recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on 3 January 2003. G.R. No. 156132 Meanwhile, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Reconsideration of its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002. Acting upon the said Motion, the Court of Appeals issued the Resolution, [16] dated 20 November 2002, modifying its Decision of 26 March 2002, as follows – WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED as Sub-paragraph (V) paragraph 3 of the assailed Decision’s dispositive portion is hereby ordered DELETED.

The challenged 26 March 2002 Decision of the Court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

Assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002 and 20 November 2002, respectively, petitioners filed the present Petition, docketed as G.R. No. 156132. The Petition was initially denied[17] by this Court for failure of the petitioners to attach thereto a Certification against Forum Shopping. However, upon petitioners’ Motion and compliance with the requirements, this Court resolved[18] to reinstate the Petition. The Petition presented fourteen (14) assignments of errors allegedly committed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision, dated 26 March 2002, involving both questions of fact and questions of law which this Court, for the sake of expediency, discusses jointly, whenever possible, in the succeeding paragraphs. I The Resolution of this Court, dated 13 November 2002, in G.R. No. 152985, declaring the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, final and executory, pertains to respondent Sabeniano alone. Before proceeding to a discussion of the merits of the instant Petition, this Court wishes to address first the argument, persistently advanced by respondent in her pleadings on record, as well as her numerous personal and unofficial letters to this Court which were no longer made part of the record, that the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, had already become final and executory by virtue of the Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 152985, dated 13 November 2002. G.R. No. 152985 was the docket number assigned by this Court to respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review. Respondent, though, did not file her supposed Petition. Thus, after the lapse of the prescribed period for the filing of the Petition, this Court issued the Resolution, dated 13 November 2002, declaring the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, final and executory. It should be pointed out, however, that the Resolution, dated 13 November 2002, referred only to G.R. No. 152985, respondent’s appeal, which she failed to perfect through the filing of a Petition for Review within the prescribed period. The declaration of this Court in the same Resolution would bind respondent solely, and not petitioners which filed their own separate appeal before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 156132, the Petition at bar. This would mean that respondent, on her part, should be bound by the findings of fact and law of the Court of Appeals, including the monetary amounts consequently awarded to her by the appellate court in its Decision, dated 26 March 2002; and she can no longer refute or assail any part thereof. [19] This Court already explained the matter to respondent when it issued a Resolution [20] in G.R. No. 156132, dated 2 February 2004, which addressed her Urgent Motion for the Release of the Decision with the Implementation of the Entry of Judgment in the

following manner – [A]cting on Citibank’s and FNCB Finance’s Motion for Reconsideration, we resolved to grant the motion, reinstate the petition and require Sabeniano to file a comment thereto in our Resolution of June 23, 2003. Sabeniano filed a Comment dated July 17, 2003 to which Citibank and FNCB Finance filed a Reply dated August 20, 2003. From the foregoing, it is clear that Sabeniano had knowledge of, and in fact participated in, the proceedings in G.R. No. 156132. She cannot feign ignorance of the proceedings therein and claim that the Decision of the Court of Appeals has become final and executory. More precisely, the Decision became final and executory only with regard to Sabeniano in view of her failure to file a petition for review within the extended period granted by the Court, and not to Citibank and FNCB Finance whose Petition for Review was duly reinstated and is now submitted for decision. Accordingly, the instant Urgent Motion is hereby DENIED. (Emphasis supplied.)

To sustain the argument of respondent would result in an unjust and incongruous situation wherein one party may frustrate the efforts of the opposing party to appeal the case by merely filing with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review, ahead of the opposing party, then not actually filing the intended Petition. [21] The party who fails to file its intended Petition within the reglementary or extended period should solely bear the consequences of such failure. Respondent Sabeniano did not commit forum shopping. Another issue that does not directly involve the merits of the present Petition, but raised by petitioners, is whether respondent should be held liable for forum shopping. Petitioners contend that respondent committed forum shopping on the basis of the following facts: While petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, was still pending before the Court of Appeals, respondent already filed with this Court on 3 May 2002 her Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review of the same Court of Appeals Decision, docketed as G.R. No. 152985. Thereafter, respondent continued to participate in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930 by filing her Comment, dated 17 July 2002, to petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration; and a Rejoinder, dated 23 September 2002, to petitioners’ Reply. Thus, petitioners argue that by seeking relief concurrently from this Court and the Court of Appeals, respondent is undeniably guilty of forum shopping, if not indirect contempt. This Court, however, finds no sufficient basis to hold respondent liable for forum shopping. Forum shopping has been defined as the filing of two or more suits involving the

same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[22] The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought. [23] To guard against this deplorable practice, Rule 7, Section 5 of the revised Rules of Court imposes the following requirement – SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as cause for administrative sanctions.

Although it may seem at first glance that respondent was simultaneously seeking recourse from the Court of Appeals and this Court, a careful and closer scrutiny of the details of the case at bar would reveal otherwise. It should be recalled that respondent did nothing more in G.R. No. 152985 than to file with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time within which to file her Petition for Review. For unexplained reasons, respondent failed to submit to this Court her intended Petition within the reglementary period. Consequently, this Court was prompted to issue a Resolution, dated 13 November 2002, declaring G.R. No. 152985 terminated, and the therein assailed Court of Appeals Decision final and executory. G.R. No. 152985, therefore, did not progress and respondent’s appeal was unperfected. The Petition for Review would constitute the initiatory pleading before this Court, upon the timely filing of which, the case before this Court commences; much in the same way a case is initiated by the filing of a Complaint before the trial court. The Petition for Review establishes the identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought from this Court, and without such a Petition, there is technically no case before this Court. The Motion filed by respondent seeking extension of time within which to file her Petition for Review does not serve the same purpose as the Petition for Review itself. Such a Motion merely presents the important dates and the justification for the additional time requested for, but it does not go into the details of the appealed case. Without any particular idea as to the assignments of error or the relief respondent

intended to seek from this Court, in light of her failure to file her Petition for Review, there is actually no second case involving the same parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought, as that in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930. It should also be noted that the Certification against Forum Shopping is required to be attached to the initiatory pleading, which, in G.R. No. 152985, should have been respondent’s Petition for Review. It is in that Certification wherein respondent certifies, under oath, that: (a) she has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, that she is presenting a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, she shall report that fact within five days therefrom to this Court. Without her Petition for Review, respondent had no obligation to execute and submit the foregoing Certification against Forum Shopping. Thus, respondent did not violate Rule 7, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court; neither did she mislead this Court as to the pendency of another similar case. Lastly, the fact alone that the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, essentially ruled in favor of respondent, does not necessarily preclude her from appealing the same. Granted that such a move is ostensibly irrational, nonetheless, it does not amount to malice, bad faith or abuse of the court processes in the absence of further proof. Again, it should be noted that the respondent did not file her intended Petition for Review. The Petition for Review would have presented before this Court the grounds for respondent’s appeal and her arguments in support thereof. Without said Petition, any reason attributed to the respondent for appealing the 26 March 2002 Decision would be grounded on mere speculations, to which this Court cannot give credence. II As an exception to the general rule, this Court takes cognizance of questions of fact raised in the Petition at bar. It is already a well-settled rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals by virtue of Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this Court. There are, however, recognized exceptions to the foregoing rule, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the interference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when

the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[24] Several of the enumerated exceptions pertain to the Petition at bar. It is indubitable that the Court of Appeals made factual findings that are contrary to those of the RTC,[25] thus, resulting in its substantial modification of the trial court’s Decision, and a ruling entirely in favor of the respondent. In addition, petitioners invoked in the instant Petition for Review several exceptions that would justify this Court’s review of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, i.e., the Court of Appeals made conflicting findings of fact; findings of fact which went beyond the issues raised on appeal before it; as well as findings of fact premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. On the basis of the foregoing, this Court shall proceed to reviewing and re-evaluating the evidence on record in order to settle questions of fact raised in the Petition at bar. The fact that the trial judge who rendered the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 11336, dated 24 August 1995, was not the same judge who heard and tried the case, does not, by itself, render the said Decision erroneous. The Decision in Civil Case No. 11336 was rendered more than 10 years from the institution of the said case. In the course of its trial, the case was presided over by four (4) different RTC judges.[26] It was Judge Victorio, the fourth judge assigned to the case, who wrote the RTC Decision, dated 24 August 1995. In his Decision,[27] Judge Victorio made the following findings – After carefully evaluating the mass of evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is not inclined to believe the plaintiff’s assertion that the promissory notes as well as the deeds of assignments of her FNCB Finance money market placements were simulated. The evidence is overwhelming that the plaintiff received the proceeds of the loans evidenced by the various promissory notes she had signed. What is more, there was not an iota of proof save the plaintiff’s bare testimony that she had indeed applied for loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines. More importantly, the two deeds of assignment were notarized, hence they partake the nature of a public document. It makes more than preponderant proof to overturn the effect of a notarial attestation. Copies of the deeds of assignments were actually filed with the Records Management and Archives Office. Finally, there were sufficient evidence wherein the plaintiff had admitted the existence of her loans with the defendant Bank in the total amount of P1,920,000.00 exclusive of interests and penalty charges (Exhibits “28”, “31”, “32”, and “33”). In fine, this Court hereby finds that the defendants had established the genuineness and due execution of the various promissory notes heretofore identified as well as the two

deeds of assignments of the plaintiff’s money market placements with defendant FNCB Finance, on the strength of which the said money market placements were applied to partially pay the plaintiff’s past due obligation with the defendant Bank. Thus, the total sum of P1,053,995.80 of the plaintiff’s past due obligation was partially offset by the said money market placement leaving a balance of P1,069,847.40 as of 5 September 1979 (Exhibit “34”).

Disagreeing in the foregoing findings, the Court of Appeals stressed, in its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, “that the ponente of the herein assailed Decision is not the Presiding Judge who heard and tried the case.”[28] This brings us to the question of whether the fact alone that the RTC Decision was rendered by a judge other than the judge who actually heard and tried the case is sufficient justification for the appellate court to disregard or set aside the findings in the Decision of the court a quo? This Court rules in the negative. What deserves stressing is that, in this jurisdiction, there exists a disputable presumption that the RTC Decision was rendered by the judge in the regular performance of his official duties. While the said presumption is only disputable, it is satisfactory unless contradicted or overcame by other evidence. [29] Encompassed in this presumption of regularity is the presumption that the RTC judge, in resolving the case and drafting his Decision, reviewed, evaluated, and weighed all the evidence on record. That the said RTC judge is not the same judge who heard the case and received the evidence is of little consequence when the records and transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) are complete and available for consideration by the former. In People v. Gazmen,[30] this Court already elucidated its position on such an issue – Accused-appellant makes an issue of the fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the judge who heard and tried the case and concludes therefrom that the findings of the former are erroneous. Accused-appellant’s argument does not merit a lengthy discussion. It is well-settled that the decision of a judge who did not try the case is not by that reason alone erroneous. It is true that the judge who ultimately decided the case had not heard the controversy at all, the trial having been conducted by then Judge Emilio L. Polig, who was indefinitely suspended by this Court. Nonetheless, the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial were complete and were presumably examined and studied by Judge Baguilat before he rendered his decision. It is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case to decide it on the basis of the record. The fact that he did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the transcript of their testimonies does not for that reason alone render the judgment erroneous. (People vs. Jaymalin, 214 SCRA 685, 692 [1992]) Although it is true that the judge who heard the witnesses testify is in a better position to observe the witnesses on the stand and determine by their demeanor whether they are telling the truth or mouthing falsehood, it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid decision since he can rely on the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the trial as basis of his decision. Accused-appellant’s contention that the trial judge did not have the opportunity to

observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses since he was not the same judge who conducted the hearing is also untenable. While it is true that the trial judge who conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the truth and falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses, it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision since the latter can also rely on the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial as the basis of his decision. (People vs. De Paz, 212 SCRA 56, 63 [1992]) At any rate, the test to determine the value of the testimony of the witness is whether or not such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind (People vs. Morre, 217 SCRA 219 [1993]). Further, the credibility of witnesses can also be assessed on the basis of the substance of their testimony and the surrounding circumstances (People v. Gonzales, 210 SCRA 44 [1992]). A critical evaluation of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses reveals that their testimony accords with the aforementioned tests, and carries with it the ring of truth end perforce, must be given full weight and credit.

Irrefragably, by reason alone that the judge who penned the RTC Decision was not the same judge who heard the case and received the evidence therein would not render the findings in the said Decision erroneous and unreliable. While the conduct and demeanor of witnesses may sway a trial court judge in deciding a case, it is not, and should not be, his only consideration. Even more vital for the trial court judge’s decision are the contents and substance of the witnesses’ testimonies, as borne out by the TSNs, as well as the object and documentary evidence submitted and made part of the records of the case.

This Court proceeds to making its own findings of fact. Since the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, has become final and executory as to the respondent, due to her failure to interpose an appeal therefrom within the reglementary period, she is already bound by the factual findings in the said Decision. Likewise, respondent’s failure to file, within the reglementary period, a Motion for Reconsideration or an appeal of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in the same case, dated 20 November 2002, which modified its earlier Decision by deleting paragraph 3(v) of its dispositive portion, ordering petitioners to return to respondent the proceeds of her money market placement with AIDC, shall already bar her from questioning such modification before this Court. Thus, what is for review before this Court is the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002,

as modified by the Resolution of the same court, dated 20 November 2002. Respondent alleged that she had several deposits and money market placements with petitioners. These deposits and money market placements, as determined by the Court of Appeals in its Decision, dated 26 March 2002, and as modified by its Resolution, dated 20 November 2002, are as follows – Deposit/Placement Dollar deposit with Citibank-Geneva $ Money market placement with Citibank, evidenced by P Promissory Note (PN) No. 23356 (which cancels and supersedes PN No. 22526), earning 14.5% interest per annum (p.a.) Money market placement with Citibank, evidenced by PN No. 23357 (which cancels and supersedes PN No. 22528), earning 14.5% interest p.a. P Money market placement with FNCB Finance, evidenced P by PN No. 5757 (which cancels and supersedes PN No. 4952), earning 17% interest p.a. Money market placement with FNCB Finance, evidenced P by PN No. 5758 (which cancels and supersedes PN No. 2962), earning 17% interest p.a.

Amount 149,632.99 318,897.34

203,150.00 500,000.00

500,000.00

This Court is tasked to determine whether petitioners are indeed liable to return the foregoing amounts, together with the appropriate interests and penalties, to respondent. It shall trace respondent’s transactions with petitioners, from her money market placements with petitioner Citibank and petitioner FNCB Finance, to her savings and current accounts with petitioner Citibank, and to her dollar accounts with CitibankGeneva. Money market placements with petitioner Citibank The history of respondent’s money market placements with petitioner Citibank began on 6 December 1976, when she made a placement of P500,000.00 as principal amount, which was supposed to earn an interest of 16% p.a. and for which PN No. 20773 was issued. Respondent did not yet claim the proceeds of her placement and, instead, rolledover or re-invested the principal and proceeds several times in the succeeding years for which new PNs were issued by petitioner Citibank to replace the ones which matured. Petitioner Citibank accounted for respondent’s original placement and the subsequent roll-overs thereof, as follows – Date (mm/dd/yyy y) 12/06/1976

PN No.

Cancels PN No.

20773

None

Maturity Date (mm/dd/yyy y) 01/13/1977

Amount (P)

500,000.00

Interest (p.a.)

16%

01/14/1977 02/09/1977 03/17/1977

21686 22526 22528 23356 23357

20773 21686 21686 22526 22528

02/08/1977 03/16/1977 03/16/1977 04/20/1977 04/20/1977

508,444.44 313,952.59 200,000.00 318,897.34 203,150.00

15% 15-3/4% 15-3/4% 14-1/2% 14-1/2%

Petitioner Citibank alleged that it had already paid to respondent the principal amounts and proceeds of PNs No. 23356 and 23357, upon their maturity. Petitioner Citibank further averred that respondent used the P500,000.00 from the payment of PNs No. 23356 and 23357, plus P600,000.00 sourced from her other funds, to open two time deposit (TD) accounts with petitioner Citibank, namely, TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784. Petitioner Citibank did not deny the existence nor questioned the authenticity of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 it issued in favor of respondent for her money market placements. In fact, it admitted the genuineness and due execution of the said PNs, but qualified that they were no longer outstanding.[31] In Hibberd v. Rohde and McMillian,[32] this Court delineated the consequences of such an admission – By the admission of the genuineness and due execution of an instrument, as provided in this section, is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him. Hence, such defenses as that the signature is a forgery (Puritan Mfg. Co. vs. Toti & Gradi, 14 N. M., 425; Cox vs. Northwestern Stage Co., 1 Idaho, 376; Woollenvs. Whitacre, 73 Ind., 198; Smith vs. Ehnert, 47 Wis., 479; Faelnar vs. Escaño, 11 Phil. Rep., 92); or that it was unauthorized, as in the case of an agent signing for his principal, or one signing in behalf of a partnership (Country Bank vs. Greenberg, 127 Cal., 26; Henshaw vs.Root, 60 Inc., 220; Naftzker vs. Lantz, 137 Mich., 441) or of a corporation (Merchant vs. International Banking Corporation, 6 Phil Rep., 314; Wanita vs. Rollins, 75 Miss., 253; Barnes vs. Spencer & Barnes Co., 162 Mich., 509); or that, in the case of the latter, that the corporation was authorized under its charter to sign the instrument (Merchant vs. International Banking Corporation, supra); or that the party charged signed the instrument in some other capacity than that alleged in the pleading setting it out (Payne vs. National Bank, 16 Kan., 147); or that it was never delivered (Hunt vs. Weir, 29 Ill., 83; Elbring vs. Mullen, 4 Idaho, 199; Thorp vs. Keokuk Coal Co., 48 N.Y., 253; Fire Association of Philadelphia vs. Ruby, 60 Neb., 216) are cut off by the admission of its genuineness and due execution. The effect of the admission is such that in the case of a promissory note a prima facie case is made for the plaintiff which dispenses with the necessity of evidence on his part and entitles him to a judgment on the pleadings unless a special defense of new matter, such as payment, is interposed by the defendant (Papa vs. Martinez, 12 Phil. Rep., 613; Chinese Chamber of Commerce vs. Pua To Ching, 14 Phil. Rep., 222; Banco EspañolFilipino vs. McKay & Zoeller, 27 Phil. Rep., 183). x x x

Since the genuineness and due execution of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are uncontested, respondent was able to establish prima faciethat petitioner Citibank is liable to her for

the amounts stated therein. The assertion of petitioner Citibank of payment of the said PNs is an affirmative allegation of a new matter, the burden of proof as to such resting on petitioner Citibank. Respondent having proved the existence of the obligation, the burden of proof was upon petitioner Citibank to show that it had been discharged. [33] It has already been established by this Court that – As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment. When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence – as distinct from the general burden of proof – shifts to the creditor, who is then under the duty of producing some evidence of non-payment.[34]

Reviewing the evidence on record, this Court finds that petitioner Citibank failed to satisfactorily prove that PNs No. 23356 and 23357 had already been paid, and that the amount so paid was actually used to open one of respondent’s TD accounts with petitioner Citibank. Petitioner Citibank presented the testimonies of two witnesses to support its contention of payment: (1) That of Mr. Herminio Pujeda, [35] the officer-in-charge of loans and placements at the time when the questioned transactions took place; and (2) that of Mr. Francisco Tan,[36] the former Assistant Vice-President of Citibank, who directly dealt with respondent with regard to her deposits and loans. The relevant portion[37] of Mr. Pujeda’s testimony as to PNs No. 23356 and 23357 (referred to therein as Exhibits No. “47” and “48,” respectively) is reproduced below – Atty. Mabasa: Okey [sic]. Now Mr. Witness, you were asked to testify in this case and this case is [sic] consist [sic] of several documents involving transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. Now, were you able to make your own memorandum regarding all these transactions? A Yes, based on my recollection of these facts, I did come up of [sic] the outline of the chronological sequence of events. Court: Are you trying to say that you have personal knowledge or participation to these transactions? A Yes, your Honor, I was the officer-in charge of the unit that was processing these transactions. Some of the documents bear my signature. Court: And this resume or summary that you have prepared is based on purely your recollection or documents? A Based on documents, your Honor. Court: Are these documents still available now? A Yes, your honor.

Court: Better present the documents. Atty. Mabasa: Yes, your Honor, that is why your Honor. Atty. Mabasa: Q Now, basing on the notes that you prepared, Mr. Witness, and according to you basing also on your personal recollection about all the transactions involved between Modesta Sabeniano and defendant City Bank [sic] in this case. Now, would you tell us what happened to the money market placements of Modesta Sabeniano that you have earlier identified in Exhs. “47” and “48”? A The transactions which I said earlier were terminated and booked to time deposits. Q And you are saying time deposits with what bank? A With First National Citibank. Q Is it the same bank as Citibank, N.A.? A Yes, sir. Q And how much was the amount booked as time deposit with defendant Citibank? A In the amount of P500,000.00. Q And outside this P500,000.00 which you said was booked out of the proceeds of Exhs. “47” and “48”, were there other time deposits opened by Mrs. Modesta Sabeniano at that time. A Yes, she also opened another time deposit for P600,000.00. Q So all in all Mr. Witness, sometime in April of 1978 Mrs. Modesta Sabeneano [sic] had time deposit placements with Citibank in the amount of P500,000.00 which is the proceeds of Exh. “47” and “48” and another P600,000.00, is it not? A Yes, sir. Q And would you know where did the other P600,000 placed by Mrs. Sabeneano [sic] in a time deposit with Citibank, N.A. came [sic] from? A She funded it directly. Q What are you saying Mr. Witness is that the P600,000 is a [sic] fresh money coming from Mrs. Modesta Sabeneano [sic]? A That is right.

In his deposition in Hong Kong, Mr. Tan recounted what happened to PNs No. 23356 and 23357 (referred to therein as Exhibits “E” and “F,” respectively), as follows – Atty. Mabasa : Now from the Exhibits that you have identified Mr. Tan from Exhibits “A” to “F”, which are Exhibits of the plaintiff. Now, do I understand from you that the original amount is Five Hundred Thousand and thereafter renewed in the succeeding exhibits? Mr. Tan : Yes, Sir. Atty. Mabasa : Alright, after these Exhibits “E” and “F” matured, what happened thereafter? Mr. Tan : Split into two time deposits. Atty. Mabasa : Exhibits “E” and “F”?

Before anything else, it should be noted that when Mr. Pujeda’s testimony before the RTC was made on 12 March 1990 and Mr. Tan’s deposition in Hong Kong was

conducted on 3 September 1990, more than a decade had passed from the time the transactions they were testifying on took place. This Court had previously recognized the frailty and unreliability of human memory with regards to figures after the lapse of five years.[38] Taking into consideration the substantial length of time between the transactions and the witnesses’ testimonies, as well as the undeniable fact that bank officers deal with multiple clients and process numerous transactions during their tenure, this Court is reluctant to give much weight to the testimonies of Mr. Pujeda and Mr. Tan regarding the payment of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 and the use by respondent of the proceeds thereof for opening TD accounts. This Court finds it implausible that they should remember, after all these years, this particular transaction with respondent involving her PNs No. 23356 and 23357 and TD accounts. Both witnesses did not give any reason as to why, from among all the clients they had dealt with and all the transactions they had processed as officers of petitioner Citibank, they specially remembered respondent and her PNs No. 23356 and 23357. Their testimonies likewise lacked details on the circumstances surrounding the payment of the two PNs and the opening of the time deposit accounts by respondent, such as the date of payment of the two PNs, mode of payment, and the manner and context by which respondent relayed her instructions to the officers of petitioner Citibank to use the proceeds of her two PNs in opening the TD accounts. Moreover, while there are documentary evidences to support and trace respondent’s money market placements with petitioner Citibank, from the original PN No. 20773, rolled-over several times to, finally, PNs No. 23356 and 23357, there is an evident absence of any documentary evidence on the payment of these last two PNs and the use of the proceeds thereof by respondent for opening TD accounts. The paper trail seems to have ended with the copies of PNs No. 23356 and 23357. Although both Mr. Pujeda and Mr. Tan said that they based their testimonies, not just on their memories but also on the documents on file, the supposed documents on which they based those portions of their testimony on the payment of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 and the opening of the TD accounts from the proceeds thereof, were never presented before the courts nor made part of the records of the case. Respondent’s money market placements were of substantial amounts – consisting of the principal amount of P500,000.00, plus the interest it should have earned during the years of placement – and it is difficult for this Court to believe that petitioner Citibank would not have had documented the payment thereof. When Mr. Pujeda testified before the RTC on 6 February 1990, [39] petitioners’ counsel attempted to present in evidence a document that would supposedly support the claim of petitioner Citibank that the proceeds of PNs No. 23356 and 23357 were used by respondent to open one of her two TD accounts in the amount of P500,000.00. Respondent’s counsel objected to the presentation of the document since it was a mere “xerox" copy, and was blurred and hardly readable. Petitioners’ counsel then asked for a continuance of the hearing so that they can have time to

produce a better document, which was granted by the court. However, during the next hearing and continuance of Mr. Pujeda’s testimony on 12 March 1990, petitioners’ counsel no longer referred to the said document. As respondent had established a prima facie case that petitioner Citibank is obligated to her for the amounts stated in PNs No. 23356 and 23357, and as petitioner Citibank failed to present sufficient proof of payment of the said PNs and the use by the respondent of the proceeds thereof to open her TD accounts, this Court finds that PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are still outstanding and petitioner Citibank is still liable to respondent for the amounts stated therein. The significance of this Court’s declaration that PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are still outstanding becomes apparent in the light of petitioners’ next contentions – that respondent used the proceeds of PNs No. 23356 and 23357, together with additional money, to open TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784 with petitioner Citibank; and, subsequently, respondent pre-terminated these TD accounts and transferred the proceeds thereof, amounting to P1,100,000.00, to petitioner FNCB Finance for money market placements. While respondent’s money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance may be traced back with definiteness to TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784, there is only flimsy and unsubstantiated connection between the said TD accounts and the supposed proceeds paid from PNs No. 23356 and 23357. With PNs No. 23356 and 23357 still unpaid, then they represent an obligation of petitioner Citibank separate and distinct from the obligation of petitioner FNCB Finance arising from respondent’s money market placements with the latter. Money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance According to petitioners, respondent’s TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784, in the total amount of P1,100,000.00, were supposed to mature on 15 March 1978. However, respondent, through a letter dated 28 April 1977,[40] pre-terminated the said TD accounts and transferred all the proceeds thereof to petitioner FNCB Finance for money market placement. Pursuant to her instructions, TD Accounts No. 17783 and 17784 were pre-terminated and petitioner Citibank (then still named First National City Bank) issued Manager’s Checks (MC) No. 199253[41] and 199251[42] for the amounts of P500,000.00 and P600,00.00, respectively. Both MCs were payable to Citifinance (which, according to Mr. Pujeda,[43] was one with and the same as petitioner FNCB Finance), with the additional notation that “A/C MODESTA R. SABENIANO.” Typewritten on MC No. 199253 is the phrase “Ref. Proceeds of TD 17783,” and on MC No. 199251 is a similar phrase, “Ref. Proceeds of TD 17784.” These phrases purportedly established that the MCs were paid from the proceeds of respondent’s pre-terminated TD accounts with petitioner Citibank. Upon receipt of the MCs, petitioner FNCB Finance deposited the same to its account with Feati Bank and Trust Co., as evidenced by the rubber stamp mark of the latter found at the back of both MCs. In exchange, petitioner FNCB Finance booked the amounts

received as money market placements, and accordingly issued PNs No. 4952 and 4962, for the amounts of P500,000.00 andP600,000.00, respectively, payable to respondent’s savings account with petitioner Citibank, S/A No. 25-13703-4, upon their maturity on 1 June 1977. Once again, respondent rolled-over several times the principal amounts of her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance, as follows – Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 04/29/1977 06/02/1977 08/31/1977

PN No.

Cancels PN Maturity Date No. (mm/dd/yyyy)

4952 4962 5757 5758 8167 8169

None None 4952 4962 5757 5752

06/01/1977 06/01/1977 08/31/1977 08/31/1977 08/25/1978 08/25/1978

Amount (P) 500,000.00 600,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00

Interest (p.a.) 17% 17% 17% 17% 14% 14%

As presented by the petitioner FNCB Finance, respondent rolled-over only the principal amounts of her money market placements as she chose to receive the interest income therefrom. Petitioner FNCB Finance also pointed out that when PN No. 4962, with principal amount of P600,000.00, matured on 1 June 1977, respondent received a partial payment of the principal which, together with the interest, amounted to P102,633.33; [44] thus, only the amount of P500,000.00 from PN No. 4962 was rolled-over to PN No. 5758. Based on the foregoing records, the principal amounts of PNs No. 5757 and 5758, upon their maturity, were rolled over to PNs No. 8167 and 8169, respectively. PN No. 8167[45] expressly canceled and superseded PN No. 5757, while PN No. 8169 [46]also explicitly canceled and superseded PN No. 5758. Thus, it is patently erroneous for the Court of Appeals to still award to respondent the principal amounts and interests covered by PNs No. 5757 and 5758 when these were already canceled and superseded. It is now incumbent upon this Court to determine what subsequently happened to PNs No. 8167 and 8169. Petitioner FNCB Finance presented four checks as proof of payment of the principal amounts and interests of PNs No. 8167 and 8169 upon their maturity. All the checks were payable to respondent’s savings account with petitioner Citibank, with the following details – Date of Issuance Check No. (mm/dd/yyyy) 09/01/1978 76962 09/01/1978 76961 09/05/1978 77035 09/05/ 1978

77034

Amount Notation (P) 12,833.34 Interest payment on PN#08167 12,833.34 Interest payment on PN#08169 500,000.00 Full payment of principal on PN#08167 which is hereby cancelled 500,000.00 Full payment of principal on PN#08169 which is hereby cancelled

Then again, Checks No. 77035 and 77034 were later returned to petitioner FNCB

Finance together with a memo,[47] dated 6 September 1978, from Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank, to a Mr. Bobby Mendoza of petitioner FNCB Finance. According to the memo, the two checks, in the total amount of P1,000,000.00, were to be returned to respondent’s account with instructions to book the said amount in money market placements for one more year. Pursuant to the said memo, Checks No. 77035 and 77034 were invested by petitioner FNCB Finance, on behalf of respondent, in money market placements for which it issued PNs No. 20138 and 20139. The PNs each covered P500,000.00, to earn 11% interest per annum, and to mature on 3 September 1979. On 3 September 1979, petitioner FNCB Finance issued Check No. 100168, pay to the order of “Citibank N.A. A/C Modesta Sabeniano,” in the amount of P1,022,916.66, as full payment of the principal amounts and interests of both PNs No. 20138 and 20139 and, resultantly, canceling the said PNs.[48] Respondent actually admitted the issuance and existence of Check No. 100168, but with the qualification that the proceeds thereof were turned over to petitioner Citibank.[49] Respondent did not clarify the circumstances attending the supposed turn over, but on the basis of the allegations of petitioner Citibank itself, the proceeds of PNs No. 20138 and 20139, amounting to P1,022,916.66, was used by it to liquidate respondent’s outstanding loans. Therefore, the determination of whether or not respondent is still entitled to the return of the proceeds of PNs No. 20138 and 20139 shall be dependent on the resolution of the issues raised as to the existence of the loans and the authority of petitioner Citibank to use the proceeds of the said PNs, together with respondent’s other deposits and money market placements, to pay for the same. Savings and current accounts with petitioner Citibank Respondent presented and submitted before the RTC deposit slips and bank statements to prove deposits made to several of her accounts with petitioner Citibank, particularly, Accounts No. 00484202, 59091, and 472-751, which would have amounted to a total of P3,812,712.32, had there been no withdrawals or debits from the said accounts from the time the said deposits were made. Although the RTC and the Court of Appeals did not make any definitive findings as to the status of respondent’s savings and current accounts with petitioner Citibank, the Decisions of both the trial and appellate courts effectively recognized only theP31,079.14 coming from respondent’s savings account which was used to off-set her alleged outstanding loans with petitioner Citibank.[50] Since both the RTC and the Court of Appeals had consistently recognized only the P31,079.14 of respondent’s savings account with petitioner Citibank, and that respondent failed to move for reconsideration or to appeal this particular finding of fact by the trial and appellate courts, it is already binding upon this Court. Respondent is already precluded from claiming any greater amount in her savings and current accounts with petitioner Citibank. Thus, this Court shall limit itself to determining whether or not

respondent is entitled to the return of the amount of P31,079.14 should the off-set thereof by petitioner Citibank against her supposed loans be found invalid. Dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva Respondent made an effort of preparing and presenting before the RTC her own computations of her money market placements and dollar accounts with CitibankGeneva, purportedly amounting to a total of United States (US) $343,220.98, as of 23 June 1985.[51] In her Memorandum filed with the RTC, she claimed a much bigger amount of deposits and money market placements with Citibank-Geneva, totaling US$1,336,638.65.[52] However, respondent herself also submitted as part of her formal offer of evidence the computation of her money market placements and dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva as determined by the latter.[53] Citibank-Geneva accounted for respondent’s money market placements and dollar accounts as follows – MODESTA SABENIANO &/OR ================== Principal Fid. Placement Interest at 3,875% p.a. from 12.07. – 25.10.79 Commission (minimum)

US$ + US$ - US$

30’000.-339.06 95.--

US$

30’244.06

Total proceeds on 25.10.1979

US$ + US$ - US$

114’000.-1’358.50 41.17

Principal Fid. Placement Interest at 4,125% p.a. from 12.07. – 25.10.79 Commission

US$ 115’317.33

Total proceeds on 25.10.1979

US$ 145’561.39 + US$ 11’381.31

Total proceeds of both placements on 25.10.1979 total of both current accounts

US$ 156’942.70 - US$ 149’632.99

Total funds available Transfer to Citibank Manila on 26.10.1979 (counter value of Pesos 1’102’944.78) Balance in current accounts Transfer to Citibank Zuerich – ac no. 121359 on March 13, 1980 various charges including closing charges

US$ - US$

7’309.71 6’998.84

US$

310.87

According to the foregoing computation, by 25 October 1979, respondent had a total of US$156,942.70, from which, US$149,632.99 was transferred by CitibankGeneva to petitioner Citibank in Manila, and was used by the latter to off-set respondent’s outstanding loans. The balance of respondent’s accounts with CitibankGeneva, after the remittance to petitioner Citibank in Manila, amounted to US$7,309.71, which was subsequently expended by a transfer to another account with CitibankZuerich, in the amount of US$6,998.84, and by payment of various bank charges, including closing charges, in the amount of US$310.87. Rightly so, both the RTC and

the Court of Appeals gave more credence to the computation of Citibank-Geneva as to the status of respondent’s accounts with the said bank, rather than the one prepared by respondent herself, which was evidently self-serving. Once again, this Court shall limit itself to determining whether or not respondent is entitled to the return of the amount of US$149,632.99 should the off-set thereof by petitioner Citibank against her alleged outstanding loans be found invalid. Respondent cannot claim any greater amount since she did not perfect an appeal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, which found that she is entitled only to the return of the said amount, as far as her accounts with Citibank-Geneva is concerned. III Petitioner Citibank was able to establish by preponderance of evidence the existence of respondent’s loans. Petitioners’ version of events In sum, the following amounts were used by petitioner Citibank to liquidate respondent’s purported outstanding loans – Description Principal and interests of PNs No. 20138 and 20139 (money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance)

Amount P

1,022,916.66 31,079.14

Savings account with petitioner Citibank Dollar remittance from Citibank-Geneva (peso equivalent Of US$149,632.99) Total

1,102,944.78 P

2,156,940.58

According to petitioner Citibank, respondent incurred her loans under the circumstances narrated below. As early as 9 February 1978, respondent obtained her first loan from petitioner Citibank in the principal amount ofP200,000.00, for which she executed PN No. 31504. [54] Petitioner Citibank extended to her several other loans in the succeeding months. Some of these loans were paid, while others were rolled-over or renewed. Significant to the Petition at bar are the loans which respondent obtained from July 1978 to January 1979, appropriately covered by PNs (first set).[55] The aggregate principal amount of these loans was P1,920,000.00, which could be broken down as follows – PN No. 32935

Date of Issuance (mm/dd/yyyy) 07/20/1978

Date of Maturity (mm/dd/yyyy) 09/18/1978

33751 33798

10/13/1978 10/19/1978

12/12/1978 11/03/1978

Principal Amount P

400,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00

Date of Release MC No. (mm/dd/yyyy) 07/20/1978

220701

Unrecovered 10/19/1978 226285

34025 34079 34192 34402 34534 34609 34740 Total

11/15/1978 11/21/1978 12/04/1978 12/26/1978 01/09/1979 01/17/1979 01/30/1979

01/15/1979 01/19/1979 01/18/1979 02/23/1979 03/09/1979 03/19/1979 03/30/1979

150,000.00 250,000.00 100,000.00 300,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 220,000.00

11/16/1978 11/21/1978 12/05/1978 12/26/1978 01/09/1979 01/17/1979 01/30/1979

226439 226467 228057 228203 228270 228357 228400

P 1,920,000.00

When respondent was unable to pay the first set of PNs upon their maturity, these were rolled-over or renewed several times, necessitating the execution by respondent of new PNs in favor of petitioner Citibank. As of 5 April 1979, respondent had the following outstanding PNs (second set),[56] the principal amount of which remained at P1,920,000.00 – PN No.

Total

34510

Date of Issuance (mm/dd/yyyy) 01/01/1979

Date of Maturity (mm/dd/yyyy) 03/02/1979

34509 34534 34612 34741 35689 35694 35695 356946 35697

01/02/1979 01/09/1979 01/19/1979 01/26/1979 02/23/1979 03/19/1979 03/19/1979 03/20/1979 03/30/1979

03/02/1979 03/09/1979 03/16/1979 03/12/1979 05/29/1979 05/29/1979 05/29/1979 05/29/1979 05/29/1979

Principal Amount P

400,000.00 100,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 300,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 250,000.00 220,000.00 P

1,920,000.00

All the PNs stated that the purpose of the loans covered thereby is “To liquidate existing obligation,” except for PN No. 34534, which stated for its purpose “personal investment.” Respondent secured her foregoing loans with petitioner Citibank by executing Deeds of Assignment of her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance. On 2 March 1978, respondent executed in favor of petitioner Citibank a Deed of Assignment[57] of PN No. 8169, which was issued by petitioner FNCB Finance, to secure payment of the credit and banking facilities extended to her by petitioner Citibank, in the aggregate principal amount of P500,000.00. On 9 March 1978, respondent executed in favor of petitioner Citibank another Deed of Assignment, [58] this time, of PN No. 8167, also issued by petitioner FNCB Finance, to secure payment of the credit and banking facilities extended to her by petitioner Citibank, in the aggregate amount ofP500,000.00. When PNs No. 8167 and 8169, representing respondent’s money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance, matured and were rolled-over to PNs No. 20138 and 20139, respondent executed new Deeds of Assignment,[59] in

favor of petitioner Citibank, on 25 August 1978. According to the more recent Deeds, respondent assigned PNs No. 20138 and 20139, representing her rolled-over money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance, to petitioner Citibank as security for the banking and credit facilities it extended to her, in the aggregate principal amount of P500,000.00 per Deed. In addition to the Deeds of Assignment of her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance, respondent also executed a Declaration of Pledge, [60] in which she supposedly pledged “[a]ll present and future fiduciary placements held in my personal and/or joint name with Citibank, Switzerland,” to secure all claims the petitioner Citibank may have or, in the future, acquire against respondent. The petitioners’ copy of the Declaration of Pledge is undated, while that of the respondent, a copy certified by a Citibank-Geneva officer, bore the date 24 September 1979.[61] When respondent failed to pay the second set of PNs upon their maturity, an exchange of letters ensued between respondent and/or her representatives, on one hand, and the representatives of petitioners, on the other. The first letter[62] was dated 5 April 1979, addressed to respondent and signed by Mr. Tan, as the manager of petitioner Citibank, which stated, in part, that – Despite our repeated requests and follow-up, we regret you have not granted us with any response or payment. We, therefore, have no alternative but to call your loan of P1,920,000.00 plus interests and other charges due and demandable. If you still fail to settle this obligation by 4/27/79, we shall have no other alternative but to refer your account to our lawyers for legal action to protect the interest of the bank. Respondent sent a reply letter[63] dated 26 April 1979, printed on paper bearing

the letterhead of respondent’s company, MC Adore International Palace, the body of which reads – This is in reply to your letter dated April 5, 1979 inviting my attention to my loan which has become due. Pursuant to our representation with you over the telephone through Mr. F. A. Tan, you allow us to pay the interests due for the meantime. Please accept our Comtrust Check in the amount of P62,683.33. Please bear with us for a little while, at most ninety days. As you know, we have a pending loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines in the amount of P11M. This loan has already been recommended for approval and would be submitted to the Board of Governors. In fact, to further facilitate the early release of this loan, we have presented and furnished Gov. J. Tengco a xerox copy of your letter. You will be doing our corporation a very viable service, should you grant us our request for a little more time.

A week later or on 3 May 1979, a certain C. N. Pugeda, designated as “Executive Secretary,” sent a letter[64] to petitioner Citibank, on behalf of respondent. The letter was again printed on paper bearing the letterhead of MC Adore International Palace. The pertinent paragraphs of the said letter are reproduced below – Per instructions of Mrs. Modesta R. Sabeniano, we would like to request for a recomputation of the interest and penalty charges on her loan in the aggregate amount of P1,920,000.00 with maturity date of all promissory notes at June 30, 1979. As she

has personally discussed with you yesterday, this date will more or less assure you of early settlement. In this regard, please entrust to bearer, our Comtrust check for P62,683.33 to be replaced by another check with amount resulting from the new computation. Also, to facilitate the processing of the same, may we request for another set of promissory notes for the signature of Mrs. Sabeniano and to cancel the previous ones she has signed and forwarded to you. This was followed by a telegram,[65] dated 5 June 1979, and received by

petitioner Citibank the following day. The telegram was sent by a Dewey G. Soriano, Legal Counsel. The telegram acknowledged receipt of the telegram sent by petitioner Citibank regarding the “re-past due obligation” of McAdore International Palace. However, it reported that respondent, the President and Chairman of MC Adore International Palace, was presently abroad negotiating for a big loan. Thus, he was requesting for an extension of the due date of the obligation until respondent’s arrival on or before 31 July 1979. The next letter,[66] dated 21 June 1979, was signed by respondent herself and addressed to Mr. Bobby Mendoza, a Manager of petitioner FNCB Finance. Respondent wrote therein – Re: PN No. 20138 for P500,000.00 & PN No. 20139 for P500,000.00 totalling P1 Million, both PNs will mature on 9/3/1979. This is to authorize you to release the accrued quarterly interests payment from my captioned placements and forward directly to Citibank, Manila Attention: Mr. F. A. Tan, Manager, to apply to my interest payable on my outstanding loan with Citibank. Please note that the captioned two placements are continuously pledged/hypothecated to Citibank, Manila to support my personal outstanding loan. Therefore, please do not release the captioned placements upon maturity until you have received the instruction from Citibank, Manila.

On even date, respondent sent another letter[67] to Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank, stating that – Re:

S/A No. 25-225928 and C/A No. 484-946 This letter serves as an authority to debit whatever the outstanding balance from my captioned accounts and credit the amount to my loan outstanding account with you.

Unlike respondent’s earlier letters, both letters, dated 21 June 1979, are printed on plain paper, without the letterhead of her company, MC Adore International Palace. By 5 September 1979, respondent’s outstanding and past due obligations to petitioner Citibank totaled P2,123,843.20, representing the principal amounts plus interests. Relying on respondent’s Deeds of Assignment, petitioner Citibank applied the proceeds of respondent’s money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance, as well as her deposit account with petitioner Citibank, to partly liquidate respondent’s outstanding loan balance,[68] as follows –

Respondent’s outstanding obligation (principal and interest) Less: Proceeds from respondent’s money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance (principal and interest) Deposits in respondent’s bank accounts with petitioner Citibank Balance of respondent’s obligation

P

2,123,843.20 (1,022,916.66) (31,079.14)

P

1,069,847.40

Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank subsequently sent a letter, [69] dated 28 September 1979, notifying respondent of the status of her loans and the foregoing compensation which petitioner Citibank effected. In the letter, Mr. Tan informed respondent that she still had a remaining past-due obligation in the amount of P1,069,847.40, as of 5 September 1979, and should respondent fail to pay the amount by 15 October 1979, then petitioner Citibank shall proceed to off-set the unpaid amount with respondent’s other collateral, particularly, a money market placement in Citibank-Hongkong. On 5 October 1979, respondent wrote Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank, on paper bearing the letterhead of MC Adore International Palace, as regards the P1,920,000.00 loan account supposedly of MC Adore Finance & Investment, Inc., and requested for a statement of account covering the principal and interest of the loan as of 31 October 1979. She stated therein that the loan obligation shall be paid within 60 days from receipt of the statement of account. Almost three weeks later, or on 25 October 1979, a certain Atty. Moises Tolentino dropped by the office of petitioner Citibank, with a letter, dated 9 October 1979, and printed on paper with the letterhead of MC Adore International Palace, which authorized the bearer thereof to represent the respondent in settling the overdue account, this time, purportedly, of MC Adore International Palace Hotel. The letter was signed by respondent as the President and Chairman of the Board. Eventually, Atty. Antonio Agcaoili of Agcaoili & Associates, as counsel of petitioner Citibank, sent a letter to respondent, dated 31 October 1979, informing her that petitioner Citibank had effected an off-set using her account with Citibank-Geneva, in the amount of US$149,632.99, against her “outstanding, overdue, demandable and unpaid obligation” to petitioner Citibank. Atty. Agcaoili claimed therein that the compensation or off-set was made pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1278 through 1290 of the Civil Code. He further declared that respondent’s obligation to petitioner Citibank was now fully paid and liquidated. Unfortunately, on 7 October 1987, a fire gutted the 7th floor of petitioner Citibank’s building at Paseo de Roxas St., Makati, Metro Manila. Petitioners submitted a Certification[70] to this effect, dated 17 January 1991, issued by the Chief of the Arson Investigation Section, Fire District III, Makati Fire Station, Metropolitan Police Force. The 7th floor of petitioner Citibank’s building housed its Control Division, which was in charge of keeping the necessary documents for cases in which it was involved. After compiling the documentary evidence for the present case, Atty. Renato J. Fernandez, internal legal counsel of petitioner Citibank, forwarded them to the Control

Division. The original copies of the MCs, which supposedly represent the proceeds of the first set of PNs, as well as that of other documentary evidence related to the case, were among those burned in the said fire.[71] Respondent’s version of events Respondent disputed petitioners’ narration of the circumstances surrounding her loans with petitioner Citibank and the alleged authority she gave for the off-set or compensation of her money market placements and deposit accounts with petitioners against her loan obligation. Respondent denied outright executing the first set of PNs, except for one (PN No. 34534 in particular). Although she admitted that she obtained several loans from petitioner Citibank, these only amounted to P1,150,000.00, and she had already paid them. She secured from petitioner Citibank two loans of P500,000.00 each. She executed in favor of petitioner Citibank the corresponding PNs for the loans and the Deeds of Assignment of her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance as security.[72] To prove payment of these loans, respondent presented two provisional receipts of petitioner Citibank – No. 19471,[73] dated 11 August 1978, and No. 12723, [74] dated 10 November 1978 – both signed by Mr. Tan, and acknowledging receipt from respondent of several checks in the total amount of P500,744.00 and P500,000.00, respectively, for “liquidation of loan.” She borrowed another P150,000.00 from petitioner Citibank for personal investment, and for which she executed PN No. 34534, on 9 January 1979. Thus, she admitted to receiving the proceeds of this loan via MC No. 228270. She invested the loan amount in another money market placement with petitioner FNCB Finance. In turn, she used the very same money market placement with petitioner FNCB Finance as security for her P150,000.00 loan from petitioner Citibank. When she failed to pay the loan when it became due, petitioner Citibank allegedly forfeited her money market placement with petitioner FNCB Finance and, thus, the loan was already paid.[75] Respondent likewise questioned the MCs presented by petitioners, except for one (MC No. 228270 in particular), as proof that she received the proceeds of the loans covered by the first set of PNs. As recounted in the preceding paragraph, respondent admitted to obtaining a loan of P150,000.00, covered by PN No. 34534, and receiving MC No. 228270 representing the proceeds thereof, but claimed that she already paid the same. She denied ever receiving MCs No. 220701 (for the loan of P400,000.00, covered by PN No. 33935) and No. 226467 (for the loan of P250,000.00, covered by PN No. 34079), and pointed out that the checks did not bear her indorsements. She did not deny receiving all other checks but she interposed that she received these checks, not as proceeds of loans, but as payment of the principal amounts and/or interests from her money market placements with petitioner Citibank. She also raised doubts as to the notation on each of the checks that reads “RE: Proceeds of PN#[corresponding PN No.],” saying that such notation did not appear on the MCs when she originally received them and that the notation appears to have been written by a typewriter different from

that used in writing all other information on the checks (i.e., date, payee, and amount). [76] She even testified that MCs were not supposed to bear notations indicating the purpose for which they were issued. As to the second set of PNs, respondent acknowledged having signed them all. However, she asserted that she only executed these PNs as part of the simulated loans she and Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank concocted. Respondent explained that she had a pending loan application for a big amount with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), and when Mr. Tan found out about this, he suggested that they could make it appear that the respondent had outstanding loans with petitioner Citibank and the latter was already demanding payment thereof; this might persuade DBP to approve respondent’s loan application. Mr. Tan made the respondent sign the second set of PNs, so that he may have something to show the DBP investigator who might inquire with petitioner Citibank as to respondent’s loans with the latter. On her own copies of the said PNs, respondent wrote by hand the notation, “This isa (sic) simulated nonnegotiable note, signed copy given to Mr. Tan., (sic) per agreement to be shown to DBP representative. itwill (sic) be returned to me if the P11=M (sic) loan for MC Adore Palace Hotel is approved by DBP.”[77] Findings of this Court as to the existence of the loans After going through the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by both sides to this case, it is this Court’s assessment that respondent did indeed have outstanding loans with petitioner Citibank at the time it effected the off-set or compensation on 25 July 1979 (using respondent’s savings deposit with petitioner Citibank), 5 September 1979 (using the proceeds of respondent’s money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance) and 26 October 1979 (using respondent’s dollar accounts remitted from Citibank-Geneva). The totality of petitioners’ evidence as to the existence of the said loans preponderates over respondent’s. Preponderant evidence means that, as a whole, the evidence adduced by one side outweighs that of the adverse party.[78] Respondent’s outstanding obligation for P1,920,000.00 had been sufficiently documented by petitioner Citibank. The second set of PNs is a mere renewal of the prior loans originally covered by the first set of PNs, except for PN No. 34534. The first set of PNs is supported, in turn, by the existence of the MCs that represent the proceeds thereof received by the respondent. It bears to emphasize that the proceeds of the loans were paid to respondent in MCs, with the respondent specifically named as payee. MCs checks are drawn by the bank’s manager upon the bank itself and regarded to be as good as the money it represents.[79] Moreover, the MCs were crossed checks, with the words “Payee’s Account Only.” In general, a crossed check cannot be presented to the drawee bank for payment in

cash. Instead, the check can only be deposited with the payee’s bank which, in turn, must present it for payment against the drawee bank in the course of normal banking hours. The crossed check cannot be presented for payment, but it can only be deposited and the drawee bank may only pay to another bank in the payee’s or indorser’s account. [80] The effect of crossing a check was described by this Court in Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals[81] – [T]he crossing of a check with the phrase “Payee’s Account Only” is a warning that the check should be deposited in the account of the payee. Thus, it is the duty of the collecting bank PCI Bank to ascertain that the check be deposited in payee’s account only. It is bound to scrutinize the check and to know its depositors before it can make the clearing indorsement “all prior indorsements and/or lack of indorsement guaranteed.”

The crossed MCs presented by petitioner Bank were indeed deposited in several different bank accounts and cleared by the Clearing Office of the Central Bank of the Philippines, as evidenced by the stamp marks and notations on the said checks. The crossed MCs are already in the possession of petitioner Citibank, the drawee bank, which was ultimately responsible for the payment of the amount stated in the checks. Given that a check is more than just an instrument of credit used in commercial transactions for it also serves as a receipt or evidence for the drawee bank of the cancellation of the said check due to payment, [82]then, the possession by petitioner Citibank of the said MCs, duly stamped “Paid” gives rise to the presumption that the said MCs were already paid out to the intended payee, who was in this case, the respondent. This Court finds applicable herein the presumptions that private transactions have been fair and regular,[83] and that the ordinary course of business has been followed. [84] There is no question that the loan transaction between petitioner Citibank and the respondent is a private transaction. The transactions revolving around the crossed MCs – from their issuance by petitioner Citibank to respondent as payment of the proceeds of her loans; to its deposit in respondent’s accounts with several different banks; to the clearing of the MCs by an independent clearing house; and finally, to the payment of the MCs by petitioner Citibank as the drawee bank of the said checks – are all private transactions which shall be presumed to have been fair and regular to all the parties concerned. In addition, the banks involved in the foregoing transactions are also presumed to have followed the ordinary course of business in the acceptance of the crossed MCs for deposit in respondent’s accounts, submitting them for clearing, and their eventual payment and cancellation. The afore-stated presumptions are disputable, meaning, they are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. [85] Respondent, however, was unable to present sufficient and credible evidence to dispute these presumptions. It should be recalled that out of the nine MCs presented by petitioner Citibank, respondent admitted to receiving one as proceeds of a loan (MC No. 228270), denied

receiving two (MCs No. 220701 and 226467), and admitted to receiving all the rest, but not as proceeds of her loans, but as return on the principal amounts and interests from her money market placements. Respondent admitted receiving MC No. 228270 representing the proceeds of her loan covered by PN No. 34534. Although the principal amount of the loan is P150,000.00, respondent only received P146,312.50, because the interest and handling fee on the loan transaction were already deducted therefrom. [86] Stamps and notations at the back of MC No. 228270 reveal that it was deposited at the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), Cubao Branch, in Account No. 0123-0572-28. [87] The check also bore the signature of respondent at the back.[88] And, although respondent would later admit that she did sign PN No. 34534 and received MC No. 228270 as proceeds of the loan extended to her by petitioner Citibank, she contradicted herself when, in an earlier testimony, she claimed that PN No. 34534 was among the PNs she executed as simulated loans with petitioner Citibank.[89] Respondent denied ever receiving MCs No. 220701 and 226467. However, considering that the said checks were crossed for payee’s account only, and that they were actually deposited, cleared, and paid, then the presumption would be that the said checks were properly deposited to the account of respondent, who was clearly named the payee in the checks. Respondent’s bare allegations that she did not receive the two checks fail to convince this Court, for to sustain her, would be for this Court to conclude that an irregularity had occurred somewhere from the time of the issuance of the said checks, to their deposit, clearance, and payment, and which would have involved not only petitioner Citibank, but also BPI, which accepted the checks for deposit, and the Central Bank of the Philippines, which cleared the checks. It falls upon the respondent to overcome or dispute the presumption that the crossed checks were issued, accepted for deposit, cleared, and paid for by the banks involved following the ordinary course of their business. The mere fact that MCs No. 220701 and 226467 do not bear respondent’s signature at the back does not negate deposit thereof in her account. The liability for the lack of indorsement on the MCs no longer fall on petitioner Citibank, but on the bank who received the same for deposit, in this case, BPI Cubao Branch. Once again, it must be noted that the MCs were crossed, for payee’s account only, and the payee named in both checks was none other than respondent. The crossing of the MCs was already a warning to BPI to receive said checks for deposit only in respondent’s account. It was up to BPI to verify whether it was receiving the crossed MCs in accordance with the instructions on the face thereof. If, indeed, the MCs were deposited in accounts other than respondent’s, then the respondent would have a cause of action against BPI.[90] BPI further stamped its guarantee on the back of the checks to the effect that, “All prior endorsement and/or Lack of endorsement guaranteed.” Thus, BPI became the indorser of the MCs, and assumed all the warranties of an indorser,[91]specifically, that the checks were genuine and in all respects what they purported to be; that it had a good title to the checks; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and that the checks

were, at the time of their indorsement, valid and subsisting. [92] So even if the MCs deposited by BPI's client, whether it be by respondent herself or some other person, lacked the necessary indorsement, BPI, as the collecting bank, is bound by its warranties as an indorser and cannot set up the defense of lack of indorsement as against petitioner Citibank, the drawee bank.[93] Furthermore, respondent’s bare and unsubstantiated denial of receipt of the MCs in question and their deposit in her account is rendered suspect when MC No. 220701 was actually deposited in Account No. 0123-0572-28 of BPI Cubao Branch, the very same account in which MC No. 228270 (which respondent admitted to receiving as proceeds of her loan from petitioner Citibank), and MCs No. 228203, 228357, and 228400 (which respondent admitted to receiving as proceeds from her money market placements) were deposited. Likewise, MC No. 226467 was deposited in Account No. 0121-002-43 of BPI Cubao Branch, to which MCs No. 226285 and 226439 (which respondent admitted to receiving as proceeds from her money market placements) were deposited. It is an apparent contradiction for respondent to claim having received the proceeds of checks deposited in an account, and then deny receiving the proceeds of another check deposited in the very same account. Another inconsistency in respondent’s denial of receipt of MC No. 226467 and her deposit of the same in her account, is her presentation of Exhibit “HHH,” a provisional receipt which was supposed to prove that respondent turned over P500,000.00 to Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank, that the said amount was split into three money market placements, and that MC No. 226467 represented the return on her investment from one of these placements.[94] Because of her Exhibit “HHH,” respondent effectively admitted receipt of MC No. 226467, although for reasons other than as proceeds of a loan. Neither can this Court give credence to respondent’s contention that the notations on the MCs, stating that they were the proceeds of particular PNs, were not there when she received the checks and that the notations appeared to be written by a typewriter different from that used to write the other information on the checks. Once more, respondent’s allegations were uncorroborated by any other evidence. Her and her counsel’s observation that the notations on the MCs appear to be written by a typewriter different from that used to write the other information on the checks hardly convinces this Court considering that it constitutes a mere opinion on the appearance of the notation by a witness who does not possess the necessary expertise on the matter. In addition, the notations on the MCs were written using both capital and small letters, while the other information on the checks were written using capital letters only, such difference could easily confuse an untrained eye and lead to a hasty conclusion that they were written by different typewriters. Respondent’s testimony, that based on her experience transacting with banks, the MCs were not supposed to include notations on the purpose for which the checks were issued, also deserves scant consideration. While respondent may have extensive experience dealing with banks, it still does not qualify her as a competent witness on

banking procedures and practices. Her testimony on this matter is even belied by the fact that the other MCs issued by petitioner Citibank (when it was still named First National City Bank) and by petitioner FNCB Finance, the existence and validity of which were not disputed by respondent, also bear similar notations that state the reason for which they were issued. Respondent presented several more pieces of evidence to substantiate her claim that she received MCs No. 226285, 226439, 226467, 226057, 228357, and 228400, not as proceeds of her loans from petitioner Citibank, but as the return of the principal amounts and payment of interests from her money market placements with petitioners. Part of respondent’s exhibits were personal checks[95] drawn by respondent on her account with Feati Bank & Trust Co., which she allegedly invested in separate money market placements with both petitioners, the returns from which were paid to her via MCs No. 226285 and 228400. Yet, to this Court, the personal checks only managed to establish respondent’s issuance thereof, but there was nothing on the face of the checks that would reveal the purpose for which they were issued and that they were actually invested in money market placements as respondent claimed. Respondent further submitted handwritten notes that purportedly computed and presented the returns on her money market placements, corresponding to the amount stated in the MCs she received from petitioner Citibank. Exhibit “HHH-1”[96] was a handwritten note, which respondent attributed to Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank, showing the breakdown of her BPI Check forP500,000.00 into three different money market placements with petitioner Citibank. This Court, however, noticed several factors which render the note highly suspect. One, it was written on the reversed side of Provisional Receipt No. 12724 of petitioner Citibank which bore the initials of Mr. Tan acknowledging receipt of respondent’s BPI Check No. 120989 for P500,000.00; but the initials on the handwritten note appeared to be that of Mr. Bobby Mendoza of petitioner FNCB Finance.[97] Second, according to Provisional Receipt No. 12724, BPI Check No. 120989 for P500,000.00 was supposed to be invested in three money market placements with petitioner Citibank for the period of 60 days. Since all these money market placements were made through one check deposited on the same day, 10 November 1978, it made no sense that the handwritten note at the back of Provisional Receipt No. 12724 provided for different dates of maturity for each of the money market placements (i.e., 16 November 1978, 17 January 1979, and 21 November 1978), and such dates did not correspond to the 60 day placement period stated on the face of the provisional receipt. And third, the principal amounts of the money market placements as stated in the handwritten note –P145,000.00, P145,000.00 and P242,000.00 – totaled P532,000.00, and was obviously in excess of the P500,000.00 acknowledged on the face of Provisional Receipt No. 12724. Exhibits “III” and “III-1,” the front and bank pages of a handwritten note of Mr. Bobby Mendoza of petitioner FNCB Finance,[98] also did not deserve much evidentiary weight, and this Court cannot rely on the truth and accuracy of the computations presented therein. Mr. Mendoza was not presented as a witness during the trial before the RTC, so

that the document was not properly authenticated nor its contents sufficiently explained. No one was able to competently identify whether the initials as appearing on the note were actually Mr. Mendoza’s. Also, going by the information on the front page of the note, this Court observes that payment of respondent’s alleged money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance were made using Citytrust Checks; the MCs in question, including MC No. 228057, were issued by petitioner Citibank. Although Citytrust (formerly Feati Bank & Trust Co.), petitioner FNCB Finance, and petitioner Citibank may be affiliates of one another, they each remained separate and distinct corporations, each having its own financial system and records. Thus, this Court cannot simply assume that one corporation, such as petitioner Citibank or Citytrust, can issue a check to discharge an obligation of petitioner FNCB Finance. It should be recalled that when petitioner FNCB Finance paid for respondent’s money market placements, covered by its PNs No. 8167 and 8169, as well as PNs No. 20138 and 20139, petitioner FNCB Finance issued its own checks. As a last point on this matter, if respondent truly had money market placements with petitioners, then these would have been evidenced by PNs issued by either petitioner Citibank or petitioner FNCB Finance, acknowledging the principal amounts of the investments, and stating the applicable interest rates, as well as the dates of their of issuance and maturity. After respondent had so meticulously reconstructed her other money market placements with petitioners and consolidated the documentary evidence thereon, she came surprisingly short of offering similar details and substantiation for these particular money market placements. Since this Court is satisfied that respondent indeed received the proceeds of the first set of PNs, then it proceeds to analyze her evidence of payment thereof. In support of respondent’s assertion that she had already paid whatever loans she may have had with petitioner Citibank, she presented as evidence Provisional Receipts No. 19471, dated 11 August 1978, and No. 12723, dated 10 November 1978, both of petitioner Citibank and signed by Mr. Tan, for the amounts of P500,744.00 and P500,000.00, respectively. While these provisional receipts did state that Mr. Tan, on behalf of petitioner Citibank, received respondent’s checks as payment for her loans, they failed to specifically identify which loans were actually paid. Petitioner Citibank was able to present evidence that respondent had executed several PNs in the years 1978 and 1979 to cover the loans she secured from the said bank. Petitioner Citibank did admit that respondent was able to pay for some of these PNs, and what it identified as the first and second sets of PNs were only those which remained unpaid. It thus became incumbent upon respondent to prove that the checks received by Mr. Tan were actually applied to the PNs in either the first or second set; a fact that, unfortunately, cannot be determined from the provisional receipts submitted by respondent since they only generally stated that the checks received by Mr. Tan were payment for respondent’s loans. Mr. Tan, in his deposition, further explained that provisional receipts were issued when

payment to the bank was made using checks, since the checks would still be subject to clearing. The purpose for the provisional receipts was merely to acknowledge the delivery of the checks to the possession of the bank, but not yet of payment. [99] This bank practice finds legitimacy in the pronouncement of this Court that a check, whether an MC or an ordinary check, is not legal tender and, therefore, cannot constitute valid tender of payment. In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [100] this Court elucidated that: Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment (Sec. 189, Act 2031 on Negs. Insts.; Art. 1249, Civil Code; Bryan Landon Co. v. American Bank, 7 Phil. 255; Tan Sunco, v. Santos, 9 Phil. 44; 21 R.C.L. 60, 61). A check, whether a manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. Mere delivery of checks does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished and remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized (Art. 1249, Civil Code, par. 3).

In the case at bar, the issuance of an official receipt by petitioner Citibank would have been dependent on whether the checks delivered by respondent were actually cleared and paid for by the drawee banks. As for PN No. 34534, respondent asserted payment thereof at two separate instances by two different means. In her formal offer of exhibits, respondent submitted a deposit slip of petitioner Citibank, dated 11 August 1978, evidencing the deposit of BPI Check No. 5785 for P150,000.00.[101] In her Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits, dated 7 July 1989, respondent stated that the purpose for the presentation of the said deposit slip was to prove that she already paid her loan covered by PN No. 34534. [102] In her testimony before the RTC three years later, on 28 November 1991, she changed her story. This time she narrated that the loan covered by PN No. 34534 was secured by her money market placement with petitioner FNCB Finance, and when she failed to pay the said PN when it became due, the security was applied to the loan, therefore, the loan was considered paid. [103] Given the foregoing, respondent’s assertion of payment of PN No. 34534 is extremely dubious. According to petitioner Citibank, the PNs in the second set, except for PN No. 34534, were mere renewals of the unpaid PNs in the first set, which was why the PNs stated that they were for the purpose of liquidating existing obligations. PN No. 34534, however, which was part of the first set, was still valid and subsisting and so it was included in the second set without need for its renewal, and it still being the original PN for that particular loan, its stated purpose was for personal investment. [104] Respondent essentially admitted executing the second set of PNs, but they were only meant to cover simulated loans. Mr. Tan supposedly convinced her that her pending loan application with DBP would have a greater chance of being approved if they made it appear that respondent urgently needed the money because petitioner Citibank was already demanding payment for her simulated loans. Respondent’s defense of simulated loans to escape liability for the second set of

PNs is truly a novel one. It is regrettable, however, that she was unable to substantiate the same. Yet again, respondent’s version of events is totally based on her own uncorroborated testimony. The notations on the second set of PNs, that they were nonnegotiable simulated notes, were admittedly made by respondent herself and were, thus, self-serving. Equally self-serving was respondent’s letter, written on 7 October 1985, or more than six years after the execution of the second set of PNs, in which she demanded return of the simulated or fictitious PNs, together with the letters relating thereto, which Mr. Tan purportedly asked her to execute. Respondent further failed to present any proof of her alleged loan application with the DBP, and of any circumstance or correspondence wherein the simulated or fictitious PNs were indeed used for their supposed purpose. In contrast, petitioner Citibank, as supported by the testimonies of its officers and available documentation, consistently treated the said PNs as regular loans – accepted, approved, and paid in the ordinary course of its business. The PNs executed by the respondent in favor of petitioner Citibank to cover her loans were duly-filled out and signed, including the disclosure statement found at the back of the said PNs, in adherence to the Central Bank requirement to disclose the full finance charges to a loan granted to borrowers. Mr. Tan, then an account officer with the Marketing Department of petitioner Citibank, testified that he dealt directly with respondent; he facilitated the loans; and the PNs, at least in the second set, were signed by respondent in his presence.[105] Mr. Pujeda, the officer who was previously in charge of loans and placements, confirmed that the signatures on the PNs were verified against respondent’s specimen signature with the bank.[106] Ms. Cristina Dondoyano, who worked at petitioner Citibank as a loan processor, was responsible for booking respondent’s loans. Booking the loans means recording it in the General Ledger. She explained the procedure for booking loans, as follows: The account officer, in the Marketing Department, deals directly with the clients who wish to borrow money from petitioner Citibank. The Marketing Department will forward a loan booking checklist, together with the borrowing client’s PNs and other supporting documents, to the loan pre-processor, who will check whether the details in the loan booking checklist are the same as those in the PNs. The documents are then sent to Signature Control for verification of the client’s signature in the PNs, after which, they are returned to the loan pre-processor, to be forwarded finally to the loan processor. The loan processor shall book the loan in the General Ledger, indicating therein the client name, loan amount, interest rate, maturity date, and the corresponding PN number. Since she booked respondent’s loans personally, Ms. Dondoyano testified that she saw the original PNs. In 1986, Atty. Fernandez of petitioner Citibank requested her to prepare an accounting of respondent’s loans, which she did, and which was presented as Exhibit “120” for the petitioners. The figures from the said exhibit were culled from the bookings in the General Ledger, a fact which respondent’s counsel was even willing to stipulate.[107]

Ms. Teresita Glorioso was an Investigation and Reconcilement Clerk at the Control Department of petitioner Citibank. She was presented by petitioner Citibank to expound on the microfilming procedure at the bank, since most of the copies of the PNs were retrieved from microfilm. Microfilming of the documents are actually done by people at the Operations Department. At the end of the day or during the day, the original copies of all bank documents, not just those pertaining to loans, are microfilmed. She refuted the possibility that insertions could be made in the microfilm because the microfilm is inserted in a cassette; the cassette is placed in the microfilm machine for use; at the end of the day, the cassette is taken out of the microfilm machine and put in a safe vault; and the cassette is returned to the machine only the following day for use, until the spool is full. This is the microfilming procedure followed everyday. When the microfilm spool is already full, the microfilm is developed, then sent to the Control Department, which double checks the contents of the microfilms against the entries in the General Ledger. The Control Department also conducts a random comparison of the contents of the microfilms with the original documents; a random review of the contents is done on every role of microfilm.[108] Ms. Renee Rubio worked for petitioner Citibank for 20 years. She rose from the ranks, initially working as a secretary in the Personnel Group; then as a secretary to the Personnel Group Head; a Service Assistant with the Marketing Group, in 1972 to 1974, dealing directly with corporate and individual clients who, among other things, secured loans from petitioner Citibank; the Head of the Collection Group of the Foreign Department in 1974 to 1976; the Head of the Money Transfer Unit in 1976 to 1978; the Head of the Loans and Placements Unit up to the early 1980s; and, thereafter, she established operations training for petitioner Citibank in the Asia-Pacific Region responsible for the training of the officers of the bank. She testified on the standard loan application process at petitioner Citibank. According to Ms. Rubio, the account officer or marketing person submits a proposal to grant a loan to an individual or corporation. Petitioner Citibank has a worldwide policy that requires a credit committee, composed of a minimum of three people, which would approve the loan and amount thereof. There can be no instance when only one officer has the power to approve the loan application. When the loan is approved, the account officer in charge will obtain the corresponding PNs from the client. The PNs are sent to the signature verifier who would validate the signatures therein against those appearing in the signature cards previously submitted by the client to the bank. The Operations Unit will check and review the documents, including the PNs, if it is a clean loan, and securities and deposits, if it is collateralized. The loan is then recorded in the General Ledger. The Loans and Placements Department will not book the loans without the PNs. When the PNs are liquidated, whether they are paid or rolled-over, they are returned to the client. [109] Ms. Rubio further explained that she was familiar with respondent’s accounts since, while she was still the Head of the Loan and Placements Unit, she was asked by Mr. Tan to prepare a list of respondent’s outstanding obligations. [110] She thus calculated respondent’s outstanding loans, which was sent as an attachment to Mr. Tan’s

letter to respondent, dated 28 September 1979, and presented before the RTC as Exhibits “34-B” and “34-C.”[111] Lastly, the exchange of letters between petitioner Citibank and respondent, as well as the letters sent by other people working for respondent, had consistently recognized that respondent owed petitioner Citibank money. In consideration of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the preponderance of evidence supports the existence of the respondent’s loans, in the principal sum of P1,920,000.00, as of 5 September 1979. While it is well-settled that the term “preponderance of evidence” should not be wholly dependent on the number of witnesses, there are certain instances when the number of witnesses become the determining factor – The preponderance of evidence may be determined, under certain conditions, by the number of witnesses testifying to a particular fact or state of facts. For instance, one or two witnesses may testify to a given state of facts, and six or seven witnesses of equal candor, fairness, intelligence, and truthfulness, and equally well corroborated by all the remaining evidence, who have no greater interest in the result of the suit, testify against such state of facts. Then the preponderance of evidence is determined by the number of witnesses. (Wilcoxvs. Hines, 100 Tenn. 524, 66 Am. St. Rep., 761.)[112]

Best evidence rule This Court disagrees in the pronouncement made by the Court of Appeals summarily dismissing the documentary evidence submitted by petitioners based on its broad and indiscriminate application of the best evidence rule. In general, the best evidence rule requires that the highest available degree of proof must be produced. Accordingly, for documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best proved by the production of the document itself, [113] to the exclusion of any secondary or substitutionary evidence.[114] The best evidence rule has been made part of the revised Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 3, which reads – SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice; (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.

As the afore-quoted provision states, the best evidence rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document. The scope of the rule is more

extensively explained thus – But even with respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible (5 Moran, op. cit., pp. 76-66; 4 Martin, op. cit., p. 78). Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need for accounting for the original. Thus, when a document is presented to prove its existence or condition it is offered not as documentary, but as real, evidence. Parol evidence of the fact of execution of the documents is allowed (Hernaez, et al. vs. McGrath, etc., et al., 91 Phil 565). x x x [115] In Estrada v. Desierto,[116] this Court had occasion to rule that – It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on February 4-6, 2001. In doing so, the Court, did not, however, violate the best evidence rule. Wigmore, in his book on evidence, states that: “Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court’s discretion, whenever in the case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.24 “x x x x “In several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavailability has been abandoned, for certain documents in which ordinarily no real dispute arised. This measure is a sensible and progressive one and deserves universal adoption (post, sec. 1233). Its essential feature is that a copy may be used unconditionally, if the opponent has been given an opportunity to inspect it.” (Emphasis supplied.)

This Court did not violate the best evidence rule when it considered and weighed in evidence the photocopies and microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters submitted by the petitioners to establish the existence of respondent’s loans. The terms or contents of these documents were never the point of contention in the Petition at bar. It was respondent’s position that the PNs in the first set (with the exception of PN No. 34534) never existed, while the PNs in the second set (again, excluding PN No. 34534) were merely executed to cover simulated loan transactions. As for the MCs representing the proceeds of the loans, the respondent either denied receipt of certain MCs or admitted receipt of the other MCs but for another purpose. Respondent further admitted the letters she wrote personally or through her representatives to Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank acknowledging the loans, except that she claimed that these letters were just meant to keep up the ruse of the simulated loans. Thus, respondent questioned the documents as to their existence or execution, or when the former is admitted, as to the purpose for which the documents were executed, matters which are, undoubtedly, external to the documents, and which had nothing to do with the contents thereof. Alternatively, even if it is granted that the best evidence rule should apply to the evidence presented by petitioners regarding the existence of respondent’s loans, it should be borne in mind that the rule admits of the following exceptions under Rule 130, Section 5 of the revised Rules of Court –

SEC. 5. When the original document is unavailable. – When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

The execution or existence of the original copies of the documents was established through the testimonies of witnesses, such as Mr. Tan, before whom most of the documents were personally executed by respondent. The original PNs also went through the whole loan booking system of petitioner Citibank – from the account officer in its Marketing Department, to the pre-processor, to the signature verifier, back to the pre-processor, then to the processor for booking.[117] The original PNs were seen by Ms. Dondoyano, the processor, who recorded them in the General Ledger. Mr. Pujeda personally saw the original MCs, proving respondent’s receipt of the proceeds of her loans from petitioner Citibank, when he helped Attys. Cleofe and Fernandez, the bank’s legal counsels, to reconstruct the records of respondent’s loans. The original MCs were presented to Atty. Cleofe who used the same during the preliminary investigation of the case, sometime in years 1986-1987. The original MCs were subsequently turned over to the Control and Investigation Division of petitioner Citibank.[118] It was only petitioner FNCB Finance who claimed that they lost the original copies of the PNs when it moved to a new office. Citibank did not make a similar contention; instead, it explained that the original copies of the PNs were returned to the borrower upon liquidation of the loan, either through payment or roll-over. Petitioner Citibank proffered the excuse that they were still looking for the documents in their storage or warehouse to explain the delay and difficulty in the retrieval thereof, but not their absence or loss. The original documents in this case, such as the MCs and letters, were destroyed and, thus, unavailable for presentation before the RTC only on 7 October 1987, when a fire broke out on the 7th floor of the office building of petitioner Citibank. There is no showing that the fire was intentionally set. The fire destroyed relevant documents, not just of the present case, but also of other cases, since the 7th floor housed the Control and Investigation Division, in charge of keeping the necessary documents for cases in which petitioner Citibank was involved. The foregoing would have been sufficient to allow the presentation of photocopies or microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters by the petitioners as secondary evidence to establish the existence of respondent’s loans, as an exception to the best evidence rule. The impact of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Dy case In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals made the following pronouncement – Besides, We find the declaration and conclusions of this Court in CA-G.R. CV No. 15934 entitled Sps. Dr. Ricardo L. Dy and Rosalind O. Dy vs. City Bank, N.A., et al, promulgated on 15 January 1990, as disturbing taking into consideration the similarities of the fraud, machinations, and deceits employed by the defendant-appellant Citibank and its Account Manager Francisco Tan.

Worthy of note is the fact that Our declarations and conclusions against Citibank and the person of Francisco Tan in CA-G.R. CV No. 15934 were affirmed in toto by the Highest Magistrate in a Minute Resolution dated 22 August 1990 entitled Citibank, N.A., vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 93350. As the factual milieu of the present appeal created reasonable doubts as to whether the nine (9) Promissory Notes were indeed executed with considerations, the doubts, coupled by the findings and conclusions of this Court in CA-G.R. CV No. 15934 and the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 93350. should be construed against herein defendantsappellants Citibank and FNCB Finance.

What this Court truly finds disturbing is the significance given by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision to the Decision [119] of its Third Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 15934 (or the Dy case), when there is an absolute lack of legal basis for doing such. Although petitioner Citibank and its officer, Mr. Tan, were also involved in the Dy case, that is about the only connection between the Dy case and the one at bar. Not only did the Dy case tackle transactions between parties other than the parties presently before this Court, but the transactions are absolutely independent and unrelated to those in the instant Petition. In the Dy case, Severino Chua Caedo managed to obtain loans from herein petitioner Citibank amounting to P7,000,000.00, secured to the extent of P5,000,000.00 by a Third Party Real Estate Mortgage of the properties of Caedo’s aunt, Rosalind Dy. It turned out that Rosalind Dy and her husband were unaware of the said loans and the mortgage of their properties. The transactions were carried out exclusively between Caedo and Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank. The RTC found Mr. Tan guilty of fraud for his participation in the questionable transactions, essentially because he allowed Caedo to take out the signature cards, when these should have been signed by the Dy spouses personally before him. Although the Dy spouses’ signatures in the PNs and Third Party Real Estate Mortgage were forged, they were approved by the signature verifier since the signature cards against which they were compared to were also forged. Neither the RTC nor the Court of Appeals, however, categorically declared Mr. Tan personally responsible for the forgeries, which, in the narration of the facts, were more likely committed by Caedo. In the Petition at bar, respondent dealt with Mr. Tan directly, there was no third party involved who could have perpetrated any fraud or forgery in her loan transactions. Although respondent attempted to raise suspicion as to the authenticity of her signatures on certain documents, these were nothing more than naked allegations with no corroborating evidence; worse, even her own allegations were replete with inconsistencies. She could not even establish in what manner or under what circumstances the fraud or forgery was committed, or how Mr. Tan could have been directly responsible for the same. While the Court of Appeals can take judicial notice of the Decision of its Third Division in the Dy case, it should not have given the said case much weight when it rendered the assailed Decision, since the former does not constitute a precedent. The

Court of Appeals, in the challenged Decision, did not apply any legal argument or principle established in the Dy case but, rather, adopted the findings therein of wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of herein petitioner Citibank and Mr. Tan. Any finding of wrongdoing or misconduct as against herein petitioners should be made based on the factual background and pieces of evidence submitted in this case, not those in another case. It is apparent that the Court of Appeals took judicial notice of the Dy case not as a legal precedent for the present case, but rather as evidence of similar acts committed by petitioner Citibank and Mr. Tan. A basic rule of evidence, however, states that, “Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.”[120] The rationale for the rule is explained thus – The rule is founded upon reason, public policy, justice and judicial convenience. The fact that a person has committed the same or similar acts at some prior time affords, as a general rule, no logical guaranty that he committed the act in question. This is so because, subjectively, a man’s mind and even his modes of life may change; and, objectively, the conditions under which he may find himself at a given time may likewise change and thus induce him to act in a different way. Besides, if evidence of similar acts are to be invariably admitted, they will give rise to a multiplicity of collateral issues and will subject the defendant to surprise as well as confuse the court and prolong the trial.[121]

The factual backgrounds of the two cases are so different and unrelated that the Dy case cannot be used to prove specific intent, knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage on the part of petitioner Citibank or its officer, Mr. Tan, to defraud respondent in the present case. IV The liquidation of respondent’s outstanding loans were valid in so far as petitioner Citibank used respondent’s savings account with the bank and her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance; but illegal and void in so far as petitioner Citibank used respondent’s dollar accounts with CitibankGeneva. Savings Account with petitioner Citibank Compensation is a recognized mode of extinguishing obligations. Relevant provisions of the Civil Code provides – Art. 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. Art. 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary; (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a

principal creditor of the other; (2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts be due; (4) That they be liquidated and demandable; (5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.

There is little controversy when it comes to the right of petitioner Citibank to compensate respondent’s outstanding loans with her deposit account. As already found by this Court, petitioner Citibank was the creditor of respondent for her outstanding loans. At the same time, respondent was the creditor of petitioner Citibank, as far as her deposit account was concerned, since bank deposits, whether fixed, savings, or current, should be considered as simple loan or mutuum by the depositor to the banking institution.[122] Both debts consist in sums of money. By June 1979, all of respondent’s PNs in the second set had matured and became demandable, while respondent’s savings account was demandable anytime. Neither was there any retention or controversy over the PNs and the deposit account commenced by a third person and communicated in due time to the debtor concerned. Compensation takes place by operation of law, [123] therefore, even in the absence of an expressed authority from respondent, petitioner Citibank had the right to effect, on 25 June 1979, the partial compensation or off-set of respondent’s outstanding loans with her deposit account, amounting to P31,079.14. Money market placements with FNCB Finance Things though are not as simple and as straightforward as regards to the money market placements and bank account used by petitioner Citibank to complete the compensation or off-set of respondent’s outstanding loans, which came from persons other than petitioner Citibank. Respondent’s money market placements were with petitioner FNCB Finance, and after several roll-overs, they were ultimately covered by PNs No. 20138 and 20139, which, by 3 September 1979, the date the check for the proceeds of the said PNs were issued, amounted to P1,022,916.66, inclusive of the principal amounts and interests. As to these money market placements, respondent was the creditor and petitioner FNCB Finance the debtor; while, as to the outstanding loans, petitioner Citibank was the creditor and respondent the debtor. Consequently, legal compensation, under Article 1278 of the Civil Code, would not apply since the first requirement for a valid compensation, that each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other, was not met. What petitioner Citibank actually did was to exercise its rights to the proceeds of respondent’s money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance by virtue of the Deeds of Assignment executed by respondent in its favor. The Court of Appeals did not consider these Deeds of Assignment because of petitioners’ failure to produce the original copies thereof in violation of the best evidence rule. This Court again finds itself in disagreement in the application of the best evidence

rule by the appellate court. To recall, the best evidence rule, in so far as documentary evidence is concerned, requires the presentation of the original copy of the document only when the context thereof is the subject of inquiry in the case. Respondent does not question the contents of the Deeds of Assignment. While she admitted the existence and execution of the Deeds of Assignment, dated 2 March 1978 and 9 March 1978, covering PNs No. 8169 and 8167 issued by petitioner FNCB Finance, she claimed, as defense, that the loans for which the said Deeds were executed as security, were already paid. She denied ever executing both Deeds of Assignment, dated 25 August 1978, covering PNs No. 20138 and 20139. These are again issues collateral to the contents of the documents involved, which could be proven by evidence other than the original copies of the said documents. Moreover, the Deeds of Assignment of the money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance were notarized documents, thus, admissible in evidence. Rule 132, Section 30 of the Rules of Court provides that – SEC. 30. Proof of notarial documents. – Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgement being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.

Significant herein is this Court’s elucidation in De Jesus v. Court of Appeals,[124] which reads – On the evidentiary value of these documents, it should be recalled that the notarization of a private document converts it into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity (Joson vs. Baltazar, 194 SCRA 114 [1991]). This is so because a public document duly executed and entered in the proper registry is presumed to be valid and genuine until the contrary is shown by clear and convincing proof (Asido vs. Guzman, 57 Phil. 652 [1918]; U.S. vs. Enriquez, 1 Phil 241 [1902]; Favor vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 308 [1991]). As such, the party challenging the recital of the document must prove his claim with clear and convincing evidence (Diaz vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 346 [1986]).

The rule on the evidentiary weight that must be accorded a notarized document is clear and unambiguous. The certificate of acknowledgement in the notarized Deeds of Assignment constituted prima facie evidence of the execution thereof. Thus, the burden of refuting this presumption fell on respondent. She could have presented evidence of any defect or irregularity in the execution of the said documents [125] or raised questions as to the verity of the notary public’s acknowledgment and certificate in the Deeds. [126] But again, respondent admitted executing the Deeds of Assignment, dated 2 March 1978 and 9 March 1978, although claiming that the loans for which they were executed as security were already paid. And, she assailed the Deeds of Assignment, dated 25 August 1978, with nothing more than her bare denial of execution thereof, hardly the clear and convincing evidence required to trounce the presumption of due execution of a notarized document. Petitioners not only presented the notarized Deeds of Assignment, but even secured certified literal copies thereof from the National Archives. [127] Mr. Renato Medua, an

archivist, working at the Records Management and Archives Office of the National Library, testified that the copies of the Deeds presented before the RTC were certified literal copies of those contained in the Notarial Registries of the notary publics concerned, which were already in the possession of the National Archives. He also explained that he could not bring to the RTC the Notarial Registries containing the original copies of the Deeds of Assignment, because the Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 97, dated 8 November 1968, prohibits the bringing of original documents to the courts to prevent the loss of irreplaceable and priceless documents.[128] Accordingly, this Court gives the Deeds of Assignment grave importance in establishing the authority given by the respondent to petitioner Citibank to use as security for her loans her money her market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance, represented by PNs No. 8167 and 8169, later to be rolled-over as PNs No. 20138 and 20139. These Deeds of Assignment constitute the law between the parties, and the obligations arising therefrom shall have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith.[129] Standard clauses in all of the Deeds provide that – The ASSIGNOR and the ASSIGNEE hereby further agree as follows: xxxx 2. In the event the OBLIGATIONS are not paid at maturity or upon demand, as the case may be, the ASSIGNEE is fully authorized and empowered to collect and receive the PLACEMENT (or so much thereof as may be necessary) and apply the same in payment of the OBLIGATIONS. Furthermore, the ASSIGNOR agrees that at any time, and from time to time, upon request by the ASSIGNEE, the ASSIGNOR will promptly execute and deliver any and all such further instruments and documents as may be necessary to effectuate this Assignment. xxxx 5. This Assignment shall be considered as sufficient authority to FNCB Finance to pay and deliver the PLACEMENT or so much thereof as may be necessary to liquidate the OBLIGATIONS, to the ASSIGNEE in accordance with terms and provisions hereof. [130]

Petitioner Citibank was only acting upon the authority granted to it under the foregoing Deeds when it finally used the proceeds of PNs No. 20138 and 20139, paid by petitioner FNCB Finance, to partly pay for respondent’s outstanding loans. Strictly speaking, it did not effect a legal compensation or off-set under Article 1278 of the Civil Code, but rather, it partly extinguished respondent’s obligations through the application of the security given by the respondent for her loans. Although the pertinent documents were entitled Deeds of Assignment, they were, in reality, more of a pledge by respondent to petitioner Citibank of her credit due from petitioner FNCB Finance by virtue of her money market placements with the latter. According to Article 2118 of the Civil Code – ART. 2118. If a credit has been pledged becomes due before it is redeemed, the pledgee may collect and receive the amount due. He shall apply the same to the payment of his claim, and deliver the surplus, should there be any, to the pledgor.

PNs No. 20138 and 20139 matured on 3 September 1979, without them being redeemed by respondent, so that petitioner Citibank collected from petitioner FNCB Finance the proceeds thereof, which included the principal amounts and interests earned

by the money market placements, amounting to P1,022,916.66, and applied the same against respondent’s outstanding loans, leaving no surplus to be delivered to respondent. Dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva Despite the legal compensation of respondent’s savings account and the total application of the proceeds of PNs No. 20138 and 20139 to respondent’s outstanding loans, there still remained a balance of P1,069,847.40. Petitioner Citibank then proceeded to applying respondent’s dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva against her remaining loan balance, pursuant to a Declaration of Pledge supposedly executed by respondent in its favor. Certain principles of private international law should be considered herein because the property pledged was in the possession of an entity in a foreign country, namely, Citibank-Geneva. In the absence of any allegation and evidence presented by petitioners of the specific rules and laws governing the constitution of a pledge in Geneva, Switzerland, they will be presumed to be the same as Philippine local or domestic laws; this is known as processual presumption.[131] Upon closer scrutiny of the Declaration of Pledge, this Court finds the same exceedingly suspicious and irregular. First of all, it escapes this Court why petitioner Citibank took care to have the Deeds of Assignment of the PNs notarized, yet left the Declaration of Pledge unnotarized. This Court would think that petitioner Citibank would take greater cautionary measures with the preparation and execution of the Declaration of Pledge because it involved respondent’s “all present and future fiduciary placements” with a Citibank branch in another country, specifically, in Geneva, Switzerland. While there is no express legal requirement that the Declaration of Pledge had to be notarized to be effective, even so, it could not enjoy the same prima faciepresumption of due execution that is extended to notarized documents, and petitioner Citibank must discharge the burden of proving due execution and authenticity of the Declaration of Pledge. Second, petitioner Citibank was unable to establish the date when the Declaration of Pledge was actually executed. The photocopy of the Declaration of Pledge submitted by petitioner Citibank before the RTC was undated.[132] It presented only a photocopy of the pledge because it already forwarded the original copy thereof to Citibank-Geneva when it requested for the remittance of respondent’s dollar accounts pursuant thereto. Respondent, on the other hand, was able to secure a copy of the Declaration of Pledge, certified by an officer of Citibank-Geneva, which bore the date 24 September 1979.[133] Respondent, however, presented her passport and plane tickets to prove that she was out of the country on the said date and could not have signed the pledge. Petitioner Citibank insisted that the pledge was signed before 24 September 1979, but could not provide an explanation as to how and why the said date was written on the pledge. Although Mr. Tan testified that the Declaration of Pledge was signed by respondent personally before him, he could not give the exact date when the said signing took place. It is important to note that the copy of the Declaration of Pledge submitted

by the respondent to the RTC was certified by an officer of Citibank-Geneva, which had possession of the original copy of the pledge. It is dated 24 September 1979, and this Court shall abide by the presumption that the written document is truly dated. [134] Since it is undeniable that respondent was out of the country on 24 September 1979, then she could not have executed the pledge on the said date. Third, the Declaration of Pledge was irregularly filled-out. The pledge was in a standard printed form. It was constituted in favor of Citibank, N.A., otherwise referred to therein as the Bank. It should be noted, however, that in the space which should have named the pledgor, the name of petitioner Citibank was typewritten, to wit – The pledge right herewith constituted shall secure all claims which the Bank now has or in the future acquires against Citibank, N.A., Manila (full name and address of the Debtor), regardless of the legal cause or the transaction (for example current account, securities transactions, collections, credits, payments, documentary credits and collections) which gives rise thereto, and including principal, all contractual and penalty interest, commissions, charges, and costs.

The pledge, therefore, made no sense, the pledgor and pledgee being the same entity. Was a mistake made by whoever filled-out the form? Yes, it could be a possibility. Nonetheless, considering the value of such a document, the mistake as to a significant detail in the pledge could only be committed with gross carelessness on the part of petitioner Citibank, and raised serious doubts as to the authenticity and due execution of the same. The Declaration of Pledge had passed through the hands of several bank officers in the country and abroad, yet, surprisingly and implausibly, no one noticed such a glaring mistake. Lastly, respondent denied that it was her signature on the Declaration of Pledge. She claimed that the signature was a forgery. When a document is assailed on the basis of forgery, the best evidence rule applies – Basic is the rule of evidence that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. This is especially true when the issue is that of forgery. As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged. Without the original document containing the alleged forged signature, one cannot make a definitive comparison which would establish forgery. A comparison based on a mere xerox copy or reproduction of the document under controversy cannot produce reliable results.[135]

Respondent made several attempts to have the original copy of the pledge produced before the RTC so as to have it examined by experts. Yet, despite several Orders by the RTC,[136] petitioner Citibank failed to comply with the production of the original Declaration of Pledge. It is admitted that Citibank-Geneva had possession of the original copy of the pledge. While petitioner Citibank in Manila and its branch in

Geneva may be separate and distinct entities, they are still incontestably related, and between petitioner Citibank and respondent, the former had more influence and resources to convince Citibank-Geneva to return, albeit temporarily, the original Declaration of Pledge. Petitioner Citibank did not present any evidence to convince this Court that it had exerted diligent efforts to secure the original copy of the pledge, nor did it proffer the reason why Citibank-Geneva obstinately refused to give it back, when such document would have been very vital to the case of petitioner Citibank. There is thus no justification to allow the presentation of a mere photocopy of the Declaration of Pledge in lieu of the original, and the photocopy of the pledge presented by petitioner Citibank has nil probative value.[137] In addition, even if this Court cannot make a categorical finding that respondent’s signature on the original copy of the pledge was forged, it is persuaded that petitioner Citibank willfully suppressed the presentation of the original document, and takes into consideration the presumption that the evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse to petitioner Citibank if produced.[138] Without the Declaration of Pledge, petitioner Citibank had no authority to demand the remittance of respondent’s dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva and to apply them to her outstanding loans. It cannot effect legal compensation under Article 1278 of the Civil Code since, petitioner Citibank itself admitted that Citibank-Geneva is a distinct and separate entity. As for the dollar accounts, respondent was the creditor and Citibank-Geneva is the debtor; and as for the outstanding loans, petitioner Citibank was the creditor and respondent was the debtor. The parties in these transactions were evidently not the principal creditor of each other. Therefore, this Court declares that the remittance of respondent’s dollar accounts from Citibank-Geneva and the application thereof to her outstanding loans with petitioner Citibank was illegal, and null and void. Resultantly, petitioner Citibank is obligated to return to respondent the amount of US$149,632,99 from her CitibankGeneva accounts, or its present equivalent value in Philippine currency; and, at the same time, respondent continues to be obligated to petitioner Citibank for the balance of her outstanding loans which, as of 5 September 1979, amounted to P1,069,847.40. V The parties shall be liable for interests on their monetary obligations to each other, as determined herein. In summary, petitioner Citibank is ordered by this Court to pay respondent the proceeds of her money market placements, represented by PNs No. 23356 and 23357, amounting to P318,897.34 and P203,150.00, respectively, earning an interest of 14.5% per annum as stipulated in the PNs,[139] beginning 17 March 1977, the date of the placements. Petitioner Citibank is also ordered to refund to respondent the amount of US$149,632.99, or its equivalent in Philippine currency, which had been remitted from her Citibank-Geneva accounts. These dollar accounts, consisting of two fiduciary placements and current accounts with Citibank-Geneva shall continue earning their

respective stipulated interests from 26 October 1979, the date of their remittance by Citibank-Geneva to petitioner Citibank in Manila and applied against respondent’s outstanding loans. As for respondent, she is ordered to pay petitioner Citibank the balance of her outstanding loans, which amounted toP1,069,847.40 as of 5 September 1979. These loans continue to earn interest, as stipulated in the corresponding PNs, from the time of their respective maturity dates, since the supposed payment thereof using respondent’s dollar accounts from Citibank-Geneva is deemed illegal, null and void, and, thus, ineffective. VI Petitioner Citibank shall be liable for damages to respondent. Petitioners protest the award by the Court of Appeals of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees in favor of respondent. They argued that the RTC did not award any damages, and respondent, in her appeal before the Court of Appeals, did not raise in issue the absence of such. While it is true that the general rule is that only errors which have been stated in the assignment of errors and properly argued in the brief shall be considered, this Court has also recognized exceptions to the general rule, wherein it authorized the review of matters, even those not assigned as errors in the appeal, if the consideration thereof is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case, and there is a close inter-relation between the omitted assignment of error and those actually assigned and discussed by the appellant.[140] Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in awarding the damages when it already made findings that would justify and support the said award. Although this Court appreciates the right of petitioner Citibank to effect legal compensation of respondent’s local deposits, as well as its right to the proceeds of PNs No. 20138 and 20139 by virtue of the notarized Deeds of Assignment, to partly extinguish respondent’s outstanding loans, it finds that petitioner Citibank did commit wrong when it failed to pay and properly account for the proceeds of respondent’s money market placements, evidenced by PNs No. 23356 and 23357, and when it sought the remittance of respondent’s dollar accounts from Citibank-Geneva by virtue of a highly-suspect Declaration of Pledge to be applied to the remaining balance of respondent’s outstanding loans. It bears to emphasize that banking is impressed with public interest and its fiduciary character requires high standards of integrity and performance.[141] A bank is under the obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care whether such accounts consist only of a few hundred pesos or of millions of pesos.[142] The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible.[143] Petitioner Citibank evidently failed to exercise the required degree of care and transparency in its transactions with respondent, thus, resulting in the wrongful deprivation of her property.

Respondent had been deprived of substantial amounts of her investments and deposits for more than two decades. During this span of years, respondent had found herself in desperate need of the amounts wrongfully withheld from her. In her testimony[144]before the RTC, respondent narrated – Q By the way Mrs. Witness will you kindly tell us again, you said before that you are a businesswoman, will you tell us again what are the businesses you are engaged into [sic]? A I am engaged in real estate. I am the owner of the Modesta Village 1 and 2 in San Mateo, Rizal. I am also the President and Chairman of the Board of Macador [sic] Co. and Business Inc. which operates the Macador [sic] International Palace Hotel. I am also the President of the Macador [sic] International Palace Hotel, and also the Treasures Home Industries, Inc. which I am the Chairman and president of the Board and also operating affiliated company in the name of Treasures Motor Sales engaged in car dealers [sic] like Delta Motors, we are the dealers of the whole Northern Luzon and I am the president of the Disto Company, Ltd., based in Hongkong licensed in Honkong [sic] and now operating in Los Angeles, California. Q What is the business of that Disto Company Ltd.? A Disto Company, Ltd., is engaged in real estate and construction. Q Aside from those businesses are you a member of any national or community organization for social and civil activities? A Yes sir. Q What are those? A I am the Vice-President of thes [sic] Subdivision Association of the Philippines in 1976, I am also an officer of the … Chamber of Real Estate Business Association; I am also an officer of the Chatholic [sic] Women’s League and I am also a member of the CMLI, I forgot the definition. Q How about any political affiliation or government position held if any? A I was also a candidate for Mayo last January 30, 1980. Q Where? A In Dagupan City, Pangasinan. Q What else? A I also ran as an Assemblywoman last May, 1984, Independent party in Regional I, Pangasinan. Q What happened to your businesses you mentioned as a result of your failure to recover you [sic] investments and bank deposits from the defendants? A They are not all operating, in short, I was hampered to push through the businesses that I have. A [sic] Of all the businesses and enterprises that you mentioned what are those that are paralyzed and what remain inactive? A Of all the company [sic] that I have, only the Disto Company that is now operating in California. Q How about your candidacy as Mayor of Dagupan, [sic] City, and later as Assemblywoman of Region I, what happened to this? A I won by voting but when election comes on [sic] the counting I lost and I protested this, it is still pending and because I don’t have financial resources I was not able to push through the case. I just have it pending in the Comelec. Q Now, do these things also affect your social and civic activities?

A Yes sir, definitely. Q How? A I was embarrassed because being a businesswoman I would like to inform the Honorable Court that I was awarded as the most outstanding businesswoman of the year in 1976 but when this money was not given back to me I was not able to comply with the commitments that I have promised to these associations that I am engaged into [sic], sir.

For the mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, moral shock and social humiliation suffered by the respondent, the award of moral damages is but proper. However, this Court reduces the amount thereof to P300,000.00, for the award of moral damages is meant to compensate for the actual injury suffered by the respondent, not to enrich her.[145] Having failed to exercise more care and prudence than a private individual in its dealings with respondent, petitioner Citibank should be liable for exemplary damages, in the amount of P250,000.00, in accordance with Article 2229[146] and 2234[147] of the Civil Code. With the award of exemplary damages, then respondent shall also be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.[148]Additionally, attorney's fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party.[149] In this case, an award of P200,000.00 attorney’s fees shall be satisfactory. In contrast, this Court finds no sufficient basis to award damages to petitioners. Respondent was compelled to institute the present case in the exercise of her rights and in the protection of her interests. In fact, although her Complaint before the RTC was not sustained in its entirety, it did raise meritorious points and on which this Court rules in her favor. Any injury resulting from the exercise of one’s rights is damnum absque injuria.[150] IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, as already modified by its Resolution, dated 20 November 2002, is herebyAFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, as follows – 1. PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are DECLARED subsisting and outstanding. Petitioner Citibank is ORDERED to return to respondent the principal amounts of the said PNs, amounting to Three Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Seven Pesos and Thirty-Four Centavos (P318,897.34) and Two Hundred Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P203,150.00), respectively, plus the stipulated interest of Fourteen and a half percent (14.5%) per annum, beginning 17 March 1977; 2. The remittance of One Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two US Dollars and Ninety-Nine Cents (US$149,632.99) from respondent’s CitibankGeneva accounts to petitioner Citibank in Manila, and the application of the same against respondent’s outstanding loans with the latter, is DECLARED illegal, null and

void. Petitioner Citibank is ORDERED to refund to respondent the said amount, or its equivalent in Philippine currency using the exchange rate at the time of payment, plus the stipulated interest for each of the fiduciary placements and current accounts involved, beginning 26 October 1979; 3. Petitioner Citibank is ORDERED to pay respondent moral damages in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00); exemplary damages in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00); and attorney’s fees in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00); and 4. Respondent is ORDERED to pay petitioner Citibank the balance of her outstanding loans, which, from the respective dates of their maturity to 5 September 1979, was computed to be in the sum of One Million Sixty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Seven Pesos and Forty Centavos (P1,069,847.40), inclusive of interest. These outstanding loans shall continue to earn interest, at the rates stipulated in the corresponding PNs, from 5 September 1979 until payment thereof. SO ORDERED. FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 156207

September 15, 2006

EQUITABLE PCI BANK (the Banking Entity into which Philippine Commercial International Bank was merged), petitioner, vs. ROWENA ONG, respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: On 29 November 1991, Warliza Sarande deposited in her account at Philippine Commercial International (PCI) Bank Magsaysay Avenue, Santa Ana District, Davao City Branch, under Account No. 8502-00347-6, a PCI Bank General Santos City Branch, TCBT1 Check No. 0249188 in the amount of P225,000.00. Upon inquiry by Serande at PCI Bank on 5 December 1991 on whether TCBT Check No. 0249188 had been cleared, she received an affirmative answer. Relying on this assurance, she issued two checks drawn against the proceeds of TCBT Check No. 0249188. One of these was PCI Bank Check No. 073661 dated 5 December 1991 for P132,000.00 which Sarande issued to respondent Rowena Ong Owing to a business transaction. On the same day, Ong presented to PCI Bank Magsaysay Avenue Branch said Check No. 073661, and instead of encashing it, requested PCI Bank to convert the proceeds thereof into a manager's check, which the PCI Bank obliged. Whereupon, Ong was issued PCI Bank Manager's Check No. 10983 dated 5 December 1991 for the sum of P132,000.00, the value of Check No. 073661. The next day, 6 December 1991, Ong deposited PCI Bank Manager's Check No. 10983 in her account with Equitable Banking Corporation Davao City Branch. On 9 December 1991, she received a check return-slip informing her that PCI Bank had stopped the payment of the said check on the ground of irregular issuance. Despite several demands made by her to PCI Bank for the payment of the amount in PCI Bank Manager's Check No. 10983, the same was met with refusal; thus, Ong was constrained to file a Complaint for sum of money, damages and attorney's fees against PCI Bank. 2 From PCI Bank's version, TCBT-General Santos City Check No. 0249188 was returned on 5 December 1991 at 5:00 pm on the ground that the account against which it was drawn was already closed. According to PCI Bank, it immediately gave notice to Sarande and Ong about the return of Check No. 0249188 and requested Ong to return PCI Bank Manager's Check No. 10983 inasmuch as the return of Check No. 0249188 on the ground that the account from which it was drawn had already been closed resulted in a failure or want of consideration for the issuance of PCI Bank Manager's Check No. 10983. 3

After the pre-trial conference, Ong filed a motion for summary judgment. 4 Though they were duly furnished with a copy of the motion for summary judgment, PCI Bank and its counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.5Neither did they file any written comment or opposition thereto. The trial court thereafter ordered Ong to formally offer her exhibits in writing, furnishing copies of the same to PCI Bank which was directed to file its comment or objection.6 Ong complied with the Order of the trial court, but PCI Bank failed to file any comment or objection within the period given to it despite receipt of the same order. 7 The trial court then granted the motion for summary judgment and in its Order dated 2 March 1995, it held: IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, ordering defendant Philippine Commercial International Bank to pay the plaintiff the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P132,000.00) equivalent to the amount of PCIB Manager's Check No. 10983. Set the reception of the plaintiff's evidence with respect to the damages claimed in the complaint. 8 PCI Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the trial court denied in its Order dated 11 April 1996.9 After the reception of Ong's evidence in support of her claim for damages, the trial court rendered its Decision10 dated 3 May 1999 wherein it ruled: IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOIN CONSIDERATION, and as plaintiff has preponderantly established by competent evidence her claims in the Complaint, judgment in hereby rendered for the plaintiff against the defendant-bank ordering the latter: 1. To pay the plaintiff the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) in the concept of moral damages; 2. To pay the plaintiff the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages; 3. To pay the plaintiff the sum of THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P3,500.00) representing actual expenses; 4. To pay the plaintiff the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as and for attorney's fee's; and 5. To pay the costs.11 From this decision, PCI Bank sought recourse before the Court of Appeals. In a Decision 12 dated 29 October 2002, the appellate court denied the appeal of PCI Bank and affirmed the orders and decision of the trial court. Unperturbed, PCI Bank then filed the present petition for review before this Court and raised the following issues: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT SUSTAINED THE LOWER COURT'S ORDER DATED 2 MARCH 1999 GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE GLARING FACT THAT THERE ARE GENUINE, MATERIAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES WHICH REQUIRE THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR WHEN IT SUSTAINED THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION DATED 3 MAY 1999 GRANTING THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR IN RESPONDENT ONG'S COMPLAINT INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT ONG WOULD BE "UNJUSTLY ENRICHED" AT THE EXPENSE OF PETITIONER BANK, IF PETITIONER BANK WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY AN UNFUNDED CHECK. 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERRORS WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE COURT A QUO'S DECISIION DATED 3 MAY 1999 AWARDING DAMAGES TO RESPONDENT ONG AND HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT ONG HAD PREPONDERANTLY ESTABLISHED BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE HER CLAIMS IN THE COMPLAINT INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE AWARD OF

DAMAGES. 4. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURT'S FACTUAL FINDING IN ITS DECISION DATED 3 MAY 1999 HOLDING RESPONDENT ONG A "HOLDER IN DUE COURSE" INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE REQUISITE OF "GOOD FAITH" AND FOR VALUE IS LACKING AND DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A PROPER TRIAL TO DETERMINE SUCH FACTUAL ISSUE. 5. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT UPHELD THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION DATED 3 MAY 1999 DENYING PETITIONER EPCI BANK'S COUNTERCLAIM INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS SHOWN THAT RESPONDENT ONG'S COMPLAINT LACKS MERIT.13 We affirm the Decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The provision on summary judgment is found in Section 1, Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Court: SECTION 1. Summary judgment for claimant. – A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof. Thus, it has been held that a summary judgment is proper where, upon a motion filed after the issues had been joined and on the basis of the pleadings and papers filed, the court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact to except as to the amount of damages. A genuine issue has been defined as an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is sham, fictitious, contrived and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. 14 A court may grant summary judgment to settle expeditiously a case if, on motion of either party, there appears from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that no important issues of fact are involved, except the amount of damages.15 Rule 35, Section 3, of the Rules of Court provides two requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; and (2) the party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.16 Certainly, when the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there's no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for.17 By admitting it committed an error, clearing the check of Sarande and issuing in favor of Ong not just any check but a manager's check for that matter, PCI Bank's liability is fixed. Under the circumstances, we find that summary judgment was proper and a hearing would serve no purpose. That summary judgment is appropriate was incisively expounded by the trial court when it made the following observation: [D]efendant-bank had certified plaintiff's PCIB Check No. 073661 and since certification is equivalent to acceptance, defendant-bank as drawee bank is bound on the instrument upon certification and it is immaterial to such liability in favor of the plaintiff who is a holder in due course whether the drawer (Warliza Sarande) had funds or not with the defendant-bank (Security vs. State Bank, 154 N.W. 282) or the drawer was indebted to the bank for more than the amount of the check (Nat. Bank vs. Schmelz, Nat. Bank, 116 S.E. 880) as the certifying bank as all the liabilities under Sec. 62 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which refers to liability of acceptor (Title Guarantee vs. Emadee Realty Corp., 240 N.Y. 36). It may be true that plaintiff's PCIB Check No. 073661 for P132,000.00 which was paid to her by Warliza Sarande was actually not funded but since plaintiff became a holder in due course, defendant-bank cannot interpose a defense of want or lack of consideration because that defense is equitable or personal and cannot prosper against a holder in due course pursuant to Section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Therefore, when the aforementioned check was endorsed and presented by the plaintiff and certified to and accepted by defendant-bank in the purchase of PCIB Manager's Check No. 1983 in the amount of P132,000.00, there was a valid consideration.18 The property of summary judgment was further explained by this Court when it pronounced that:

The theory of summary judgment is that although an answer may on its face appear to tender issues – requiring trial – yet if it is demonstrated by affidavits, depositions, or admissions that those issues are not genuine, but sham or fictitious, the Court is unjustified in dispensing with the trial and rendering summary judgment for plaintiff. The court is expected to act chiefly on the basis of the affidavits, depositions, admissions submitted by the movant, and those of the other party in opposition thereto. The hearing contemplated (with 10-day notice) is for the purpose of determining whether the issues are genuine or not, not to receive evidence on the issues set up in the pleadings. A hearing is not thus de riguer. The matter may be resolved, and usually is, on the basis of affidavits, depositions, admissions. This is not to say that a hearing may be regarded as a superfluity. It is not, and the Court has plenary discretion to determine the necessity therefore. 19 The second and fourth issues are inter-related and so they shall be resolved together. The second issue has reference to PCI Bank's claim of unjust enrichment on the part of Ong if it would be compelled to make good the manager's check it had issued. As asserted by PCI Bank under the fourth issue, Ong is not a holder in due course because the manager's check was drawn against a closed account; therefore, the same was issued without consideration. On the matter of unjust enrichment, the fundamental doctrine of unjust enrichment is the transfer of value without just cause or consideration. The elements of this doctrine are: enrichment on the part of the defendant; impoverishment on the part of the plaintiff; and lack of cause. The main objective is to prevent one to enrich himself at the expense of another. 20 It is based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit without paying for it. 21 It is well to stress that the check of Sarande had been cleared by the PCI Bank for which reason the former issued the check to Ong. A check which has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor of cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account. 22 Having cleared the check earlier, PCI Bank, therefore, became liable to Ong and it cannot allege want or failure of consideration between it and Sarande. Under settled jurisprudence, Ong is a stranger as regards the transaction between PCI Bank and Sarande. 23 PCI Bank next insists that since there was no consideration for the issuance of the manager's check, ergo, Ong is not a holder in due course. This claim is equally without basis. Pertinent provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law are hereunder quoted: SECTION 52. What constitutes a holder in due course. – A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upon its face; (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (c) That he took it in good faith and for value; (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it. The same law provides further: Sec. 24. Presumption of consideration. – Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party thereto for value. Sec. 26. What constitutes holder for value. – Where value has at any time been given for the instrument, the holder is deemed a holder for value in respect to all parties who become such prior to that time. Sec. 28. Effect of want of consideration. – Absence or failure of consideration is a matter of defense as against any person not a holder in due course; and partial failure of consideration is a defense pro tanto, whether the failure is an ascertained and liquidated amount or otherwise. Easily discernible is that what Ong obtained from PCI Bank was not just any ordinary check but a manager's check. A manager's check is an order of the bank to pay, drawn upon itself, committing in effect

its total resources, integrity and honor behind its issuance. By its peculiar character and general use in commerce, a manager's check is regarded substantially to be as good as the money it represents. 24 A manager's check stands on the same footing as a certified check. 25 The effect of certification is found in Section 187, Negotiable Instruments Law. Sec. 187. Certification of check; effect of. – Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the certification is equivalent to an acceptance. 26 The effect of issuing a manager's check was incontrovertibly elucidated when we declared that: A manager's check is one drawn by the bank's manager upon the bank itself. It is similar to a cashier's check both as to effect and use. A cashier's check is a check of the bank's cashier on his own or another check. In effect, it is a bill of exchange drawn by the cashier of a bank upon the bank itself, and accepted in advance by the act of its issuance. It is really the bank's own check and may be treated as a promissory note with the bank as a maker. The check becomes the primary obligation of the bank which issues it and constitutes its written promise to pay upon demand. The mere issuance of it is considered an acceptance thereof. x x x. 27 In the case of New Pacific Timber & Supply Co., Inc. v. Seneris28: [S]ince the said check had been certified by the drawee bank, by the certification, the funds represented by the check are transferred from the credit of the maker to that of the payee or holder, and for all intents and purposes, the latter becomes the depositor of the drawee bank, with rights and duties of one in such situation. Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the certification is equivalent to acceptance. Said certification "implies that the check is drawn upon sufficient funds in the hands of the drawee, that they have been set apart for its satisfaction, and that they shall be so applied whenever the check is presented for payment. It is an understanding that the check is good then, and shall continue good, and this agreement is as binding on the bank as its notes circulation, a certificate of deposit payable to the order of depositor, or any other obligation it can assume. The object of certifying a check, as regards both parties, is to enable the holder to use it as money." When the holder procures the check to be certified, "the check operates as an assignment of a part of the funds to the creditors." Hence, the exception to the rule enunciated under Section 63 of the Central Bank Act to the effect "that a check which has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor in cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account" shall apply in this case x x x. By accepting PCI Bank Check No. 073661 issued by Sarande to Ong and issuing in turn a manager's check in exchange thereof, PCI Bank assumed the liabilities of an acceptor under Section 62 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which states: Sec. 62. Liability of acceptor. – The acceptor by accepting the instruments engages that he will pay it according to the tenor of his acceptance; and admits – (a) The existence of the drawer, the genuineness of his signature, and his capacity and authority to draw the instrument; and (b) The existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse. With the above jurisprudential basis, the issues on Ong being not a holder in due course and failure or want of consideration for PCI Bank's issuance of the manager's check is out of sync. Section 2, of Republic Act No. 8791, The General Banking Law of 2000 decrees: SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State recognizes the vital role of banks in providing an environment conducive to the sustained development of the national economy and the fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance. In furtherance thereof, the State shall promote and maintain a stable and efficient banking and financial system that is globally competitive, dynamic and responsive to the demands of a developing economy. In Associated Bank v. Tan,29 it was reiterated: "x x x the degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family where

the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors is concerned." Indeed, the banking business is vested with the trust and confidence of the public; hence the "appropriate standard of diligence must be very high, if not the highest degree of diligence." Measured against these standards, the next question that needs to be addressed is: Did PCI Bank exercise the requisite degree of diligence required of it? From all indications, it did not. PCI Bank distinctly made the following uncontested admission: 1. On 29 November 1991, one Warliza Sarande deposited to her savings account with PCI Bank's Magsaysay Avenue Branch, TCBT-General Santos Branch Check No. 0249188 for P225,000.00. Said check, however, was inadvertently sent by PCI Bank through local clearing when it should have been sent through inter-regional clearing since the check was drawn at TCBT-General Santos City. 2. On 5 December 1991, Warliza Sarande inquired whether TCBT Check No. 0249188 had been cleared. Not having received any advice from the drawee bank within the regular clearing period for the return of locally cleared checks, and unaware then of the error of not having sent the check through inter-regional clearing, PCI Bank advised her that Check No. 024188 is treated as cleared. x x x.30 (Emphasis supplied.) From the foregoing, it is palpable and readily apparent that PCI Bank failed to exercise the highest degree of care31required of it under the law. In the case of Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,32 we declared: The banking system has become an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized society. Whether as mere passive entities for the safekeeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have attained an ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and, most of all, confidence. Having settled the other issues, we now resolve the question on the award of moral and exemplary damages by the trial court to the respondent. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.33 The requisites for an award of moral damages are well-defined, thus, firstly, evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the claimant; secondly, a culpable act or omission factually established; thirdly, proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant; and fourthly, that the case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 34 and Article 222035 of the Civil Code. All these elements are present in the instant case. 36 In the first place, by refusing to make good the manager's check it has issued, Ong suffered embarrassment and humiliation arising from the dishonor of the said check. 37 Secondly, the culpable act of PCI Bank in having cleared the check of Serande and issuing the manager's check to Ong is undeniable. Thirdly, the proximate cause of the loss is attributable to PCI Bank. Proximate cause is defined as that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. 38 In this case, the proximate cause of the loss is the act of PCI Bank in having cleared the check of Sarande and its failure to exercise that degree of diligence required of it under the law which resulted in the loss to Ong. On exemplary damages, Article 2229 of the Civil Code states: Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. The law allows the grant of exemplary damages to set an example for the public good. The banking system has become an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized society. Whether as mere passive entities for the safe-keeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have attained an ubiquitous presence among the

people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and most of all, confidence. For this reason, banks should guard against injury attributable to negligence or bad faith on its part. 39 Without a doubt, it has been repeatedly emphasized that since the banking business is impressed with public interest, of paramount importance thereto is the trust and confidence of the public in general. Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are even required of it.40 Having failed in this respect, the award of exemplary damages is warranted. Article 2216 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case. Based on the above provision, the determination of the amount to be awarded (except liquidated damages) is left to the sound discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case. 41 In the case before us, we find that the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00 is reasonable and justified. With the above disquisition, there is no necessity of further discussing the last issue on the PCI Bank's counterclaim based on the supposed lack of merit of Ong's complaint. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 October 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. 65000 affirming the Decision dated 3 may 1999, of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 14, in Civil Case No. 21458-92, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 129910

September 5, 2006

THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case Before the Court is a petition for review 1 assailing the 9 August 1994 Amended Decision 2 and the 16 July 1997 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 25209. The Antecedent Facts The case originated from an action for collection of sum of money filed on 16 March 1982 by the International Corporate Bank, Inc.4 ("petitioner") against the Philippine National Bank ("respondent"). The case was raffled to the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, Branch 6. The complaint was amended on 19 March 1982. The case was eventually re-raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52 ("trial court"). The Ministry of Education and Culture issued 15 checks 5 drawn against respondent which petitioner accepted for deposit on various dates. The checks are as follows: Check Number

Date

Payee

Amount

7-3694621-4

7-20-81

Trade Factors, Inc.

P 97,500.00

7-3694609-6

7-27-81

Romero D. Palmares

98,500.50

7-3666224-4

8-03-81

Trade Factors, Inc.

99,800.00

7-3528348-4

8-07-81

Trade Factors, Inc.

98,600.00

7-3666225-5

8-10-81

Antonio Lisan

98,900.00

7-3688945-6

8-10-81

Antonio Lisan

97,700.00

7-4535674-1

8-21-81

Golden City Trading

95,300.00

7-4535675-2

8-21-81

Red Arrow Trading

96,400.00

7-4535699-5

8-24-81

Antonio Lisan

94,200.00

7-4535700-6

8-24-81

Antonio Lisan

95,100.00

7-4697902-2

9-18-81

Ace Enterprises, Inc.

96,000.00

7-4697925-6

9-18-81

Golden City Trading

93,030.00

7-4697011-6

10-02-81

Wintrade Marketing

90,960.00

7-4697909-4

10-02-81

ABC Trading, Inc.

99,300.00

7-4697922-3

10-05-81

Golden Enterprises

96,630.00

The checks were deposited on the following dates for the following accounts: Check Number

Date Deposited

Account Deposited

7-3694621-4

7-23-81

CA 0060 02360 3

7-3694609-6

7-28-81

CA 0060 02360 3

7-3666224-4

8-4-81

CA 0060 02360 3

7-3528348-4

8-11-81

CA 0060 02360 3

7-3666225-5

8-11-81

SA 0061 32331 7

7-3688945-6

8-17-81

CA 0060 30982 5

7-4535674-1

8-26-81

CA 0060 02360 3

7-4535675-2

8-27-81

CA 0060 02360 3

7-4535699-5

8-31-81

CA 0060 30982 5

7-4535700-6

8-24-81

SA 0061 32331 7

7-4697902-2

9-23-81

CA 0060 02360 3

7-4697925-6

9-23-81

CA 0060 30982 5

7-4697011-6

10-7-81

CA 0060 02360 3

7-4697909-4

10-7-81

CA 0060 30982 56

After 24 hours from submission of the checks to respondent for clearing, petitioner paid the value of the checks and allowed the withdrawals of the deposits. However, on 14 October 1981, respondent returned all the checks to petitioner without clearing them on the ground that they were materially altered. Thus, petitioner instituted an action for collection of sums of money against respondent to recover the value of the checks. The Ruling of the Trial Court The trial court ruled that respondent is expected to use reasonable business practices in accepting and paying the checks presented to it. Thus, respondent cannot be faulted for the delay in clearing the checks considering the ingenuity in which the alterations were effected. The trial court observed that there was no attempt from petitioner to verify the status of the checks before petitioner paid the value of the checks or allowed withdrawal of the deposits. According to the trial court, petitioner, as collecting bank, could have inquired by telephone from respondent, as drawee bank, about the status of the checks before paying their value. Since the immediate cause of petitioner’s loss was the lack of caution of its personnel, the trial court held that petitioner is not entitled to recover the value of the checks from respondent. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing both the complaint and the counterclaim. Costs shall, however be assessed against the plaintiff. SO ORDERED.7 Petitioner appealed the trial court’s Decision before the Court of Appeals. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its 10 October 1991 Decision,8 the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s Decision. Applying Section 4(c) of Central Bank Circular No. 580, series of 1977, 9 the Court of Appeals held that checks that have been materially altered shall be returned within 24 hours after discovery of the alteration. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that even if the drawee bank returns a check with material alterations after discovery of the alteration, the return would not relieve the drawee bank from any liability for its failure to return the checks within the 24-hour clearing period. The Court of Appeals explained: Does this mean that, as long as the drawee bank returns a check with material alteration within 24 hour[s] after discovery of such alteration, such return would have the effect of relieving the bank of any liability whatsoever despite its failure to return the check within the 24- hour clearing house rule? We do not think so. Obviously, such bank cannot be held liable for its failure to return the check in question not later than the next regular clearing. However, this Court is of the opinion and so holds that it could still be held liable if it fails to exercise due diligence in verifying the alterations made. In other words, such bank would still be expected, nay required, to make the proper verification before the 24-hour regular clearing period lapses, or in cases where such lapses may be deemed inevitable, that the required verification should be made within a reasonable time. The implication of the rule that a check shall be returned within the 24-hour clearing period is that if

the collecting bank paid the check before the end of the aforesaid 24-hour clearing period, it would be responsible therefor such that if the said check is dishonored and returned within the 24-hour clearing period, the drawee bank cannot be held liable. Would such an implication apply in the case of materially altered checks returned within 24 hours after discovery? This Court finds nothing in the letter of the above-cited C.B. Circular that would justify a negative answer. Nonetheless, the drawee bank could still be held liable in certain instances. Even if the return of the check/s in question is done within 24 hours after discovery, if it can be shown that the drawee bank had been patently negligent in the performance of its verification function, this Court finds no reason why the said bank should be relieved of liability. Although banking practice has it that the presumption of clearance is conclusive when it comes to the application of the 24-hour clearing period, the same principle may not be applied to the 24-hour period vis-a-vis material alterations in the sense that the drawee bank which returns materially altered checks within 24 hours after discovery would be conclusively relieved of any liability thereon. This is because there could well be various intervening events or factors that could affect the rights and obligations of the parties in cases such as the instant one including patent negligence on the part of the drawee bank resulting in an unreasonable delay in detecting the alterations. While it is true that the pertinent proviso in C.B. Circular No. 580 allows the drawee bank to return the altered check within the period "provided by law for filing a legal action", this does not mean that this would entitle or allow the drawee bank to be grossly negligent and, inspite thereof, avail itself of the maximum period allowed by the above-cited Circular. The discovery must be made within a reasonable time taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. In other words, the aforementioned C.B. Circular does not provide the drawee bank the license to be grossly negligent on the one hand nor does it preclude the collecting bank from raising available defenses even if the check is properly returned within the 24-hour period after discovery of the material alteration.10 The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s opinion that petitioner could have verified the status of the checks by telephone call since such imposition is not required under Central Bank rules. The dispositive portion of the 10 October 1991 Decision reads: PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and the defendantappellee Philippine National Bank is declared liable for the value of the fifteen checks specified and enumerated in the decision of the trial court (page 3) in the amount of P1,447,920.00 SO ORDERED.11 Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the 10 October 1991 Decision. In its 9 August 1994 Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals reversed itself and affirmed the Decision of the trial court dismissing the complaint. In reversing itself, the Court of Appeals held that its 10 October 1991 Decision failed to appreciate that the rule on the return of altered checks within 24 hours from the discovery of the alteration had been duly passed by the Central Bank and accepted by the members of the banking system. Until the rule is repealed or amended, the rule has to be applied. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the Amended Decision. In its 16 July 1997 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit. Hence, the recourse to this Court. The Issues Petitioner raises the following issues in its Memorandum: 1. Whether the checks were materially altered; 2. Whether respondent was negligent in failing to recognize within a reasonable period the altered checks and in not returning the checks within the period; and 3. Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent was out of time thus making the 10 October 1991 Decision final and executory.12

The Ruling of This Court Filing of the Petition under both Rules 45 and 65 Respondent asserts that the petition should be dismissed outright since petitioner availed of a wrong mode of appeal. Respondent cites Ybañez v. Court of Appeals13 where the Court ruled that "a petition cannot be subsumed simultaneously under Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and neither may petitioners delegate upon the court the task of determining under which rule the petition should fall." The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. 14 However, this Court may set aside technicality for justifiable reasons. The petition before the Court is clearly meritorious. Further, the petition was filed on time both under Rules 45 and 65. 15 Hence, in accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, 16 we will treat the petition as having been filed under Rule 45. Alteration of Serial Number Not Material The alterations in the checks were made on their serial numbers. Sections 124 and 125 of Act No. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, provide: SEC. 124. Alteration of instrument; effect of. ― Where a negotiable instrument is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable thereon, it is avoided, except as against a party who has himself made, authorized, or assented to the alteration and subsequent indorsers. But when an instrument has been materially altered and is in the hands of a holder in due course, not a party to the alteration, he may enforce payment thereof according to its original tenor. SEC. 125. What constitutes a material alteration. ― Any alteration which changes: (a) The date; (b) The sum payable, either for principal or interest; (c) The time or place of payment; (d) The number or the relations of the parties; (e) The medium or currency in which payment is to be made; or which adds a place of payment where no place of payment is specified, or any other change or addition which alters the effect of the instrument in any respect, is a material alteration. The question on whether an alteration of the serial number of a check is a material alteration under the Negotiable Instruments Law is already a settled matter. In Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled that the alteration on the serial number of a check is not a material alteration. Thus: An alteration is said to be material if it alters the effect of the instrument. It means an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party or an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party. In other words, a material alteration is one which changes the items which are required to be stated under Section 1 of the Negotiable Instrument[s] Law. Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides: Section 1. ― Form of negotiable instruments. An instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following requirements: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.

In his book entitled "Pandect of Commercial Law and Jurisprudence," Justice Jose C. Vitug opines that "an innocent alteration (generally, changes on items other than those required to be stated under Sec. 1, N.I.L.) and spoliation (alterations done by a stranger) will not avoid the instrument, but the holder may enforce it only according to its original tenor. xxxx The case at the bench is unique in the sense that what was altered is the serial number of the check in question, an item which, it can readily be observed, is not an essential requisite for negotiability under Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. The aforementioned alteration did not change the relations between the parties. The name of the drawer and the drawee were not altered. The intended payee was the same. The sum of money due to the payee remained the same. x x x xxxx The check’s serial number is not the sole indication of its origin. As succinctly found by the Court of Appeals, the name of the government agency which issued the subject check was prominently printed therein. The check’s issuer was therefore sufficiently identified, rendering the referral to the serial number redundant and inconsequential. x x x xxxx Petitioner, thus cannot refuse to accept the check in question on the ground that the serial number was altered, the same being an immaterial or innocent one. 17 Likewise, in the present case the alterations of the serial numbers do not constitute material alterations on the checks. Incidentally, we agree with the petitioner’s observation that the check in the PNB case appears to belong to the same batch of checks as in the present case. The check in the PNB case was also issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture. It was also drawn against PNB, respondent in this case. The serial number of the check in the PNB case is 7-3666-223-3 and it was issued on 7 August 1981. Timeliness of Filing of Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration Respondent filed its motion for reconsideration of the 10 October 1991 Decision on 6 November 1991. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration states that it received a copy of the 10 October 1991 Decision on 22 October 1991.18 Thus, it appears that the motion for reconsideration was filed on time. However, the Registry Return Receipt shows that counsel for respondent or his agent received a copy of the 10 October 1991 Decision on 16 October 1991, 19 not on 22 October 1991 as respondent claimed. Hence, the Court of Appeals is correct when it noted that the motion for reconsideration was filed late. Despite its late filing, the Court of Appeals resolved to admit the motion for reconsideration "in the interest of substantial justice." 20 There are instances when rules of procedure are relaxed in the interest of justice. However, in this case, respondent did not proffer any explanation for the late filing of the motion for reconsideration. Instead, there was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Court of Appeals by claiming that the copy of the 10 October 1991 Decision was received on 22 October 1991 instead of on 16 October 1991. We find no justification for the posture taken by the Court of Appeals in admitting the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the late filing of the motion for reconsideration rendered the 10 October 1991 Decision final and executory. The 24-Hour Clearing Time The Court will not rule on the proper application of Central Bank Circular No. 580 in this case. Since there were no material alterations on the checks, respondent as drawee bank has no right to dishonor them and return them to petitioner, the collecting bank. 21 Thus, respondent is liable to petitioner for the value of the checks, with legal interest from the time of filing of the complaint on 16 March 1982 until full payment.22 Further, considering that respondent’s motion for reconsideration was filed late, the 10 October 1991 Decision, which held respondent liable for the value of the checks amounting to P1,447,920, had become final and executory. WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the 9 August 1994 Amended Decision and the 16 July 1997 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. We rule that respondent Philippine National Bank is liable to petitioner International

Corporate Bank, Inc. for the value of the checks amounting to P1,447,920, with legal interest from 16 March 1982 until full payment. Costs against respondent. SO ORDERED. SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 156294

November 29, 2006

MELVA THERESA ALVIAR vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

GONZALES, Petitioner,

DECISION GARCIA, J.: An action for a sum of money originating from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 61, thereat docketed as Civil Case No. 88-1502, was decided in favor of therein plaintiff, now respondent Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 48596, that court, in a decision1 dated August 30, 2002, affirmed the RTC minus the award of attorney’s fees. Upon the instance of herein petitioner Melva Theresa Alviar Gonzales, the case is now before this Court via this petition for review on certiorari, based on the following undisputed facts as unanimously found by the RTC and the CA, which the latter summarized as follows: Gonzales was an employee of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (or RCBC) as New Accounts Clerk in the Retail Banking Department at its Head Office. A foreign check in the amount of $7,500 was drawn by Dr. Don Zapanta of the Ade Medical Group with address at 569 Western Avenue, Los Angeles, California, against the drawee bank Wilshire Center Bank, N.A., of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., and payable to Gonzales’ mother, defendant Eva Alviar (or Alviar). Alviar then endorsed this check. Since RCBC gives special accommodations to its employees to receive the check’s value without awaiting the clearing period, Gonzales presented the foreign check to Olivia Gomez, the RCBC’s Head of Retail Banking. After examining this, Olivia Gomez requested Gonzales to endorse it which she did. Olivia Gomez then acquiesced to the early encashment of the check and signed the check but indicated thereon her authority of "up to P17,500.00 only". Afterwards, Olivia Gomez directed Gonzales to present the check to RCBC employee Carlos Ramos and procure his signature. After inspecting the check, Carlos Ramos also signed it with an "ok" annotation. After getting the said signatures Gonzales presented the check to Rolando Zornosa, Supervisor of the Remittance section of the Foreign Department of the RCBC Head Office, who after scrutinizing the entries and signatures therein authorized its encashment. Gonzales then received its peso equivalent of P155,270.85. RCBC then tried to collect the amount of the check with the drawee bank by the latter through its correspondent bank, the First Interstate Bank of California, on two occasions dishonored the check because of "END. IRREG" or irregular indorsement. Insisting, RCBC again sent the check to the drawee bank, but this time the check was returned due to "account closed". Unable to collect, RCBC demanded from Gonzales the payment of the peso equivalent of the check that she received. Gonzales settled the matter by agreeing that payment be made thru salary deduction. This temporary arrangement for salary deductions was communicated by Gonzales to RCBC through a letter dated November 27, 1987 xxx xxx

xxx

xxx

The deductions was implemented starting October 1987. On March 7, 1988 RCBC sent a demand letter to Alviar for the payment of her obligation but this fell on deaf ears as RCBC did not receive any response from Alviar. Taking further action to collect, RCBC then conveyed the matter to its counsel and on June 16, 1988, a letter was sent to Gonzales reminding her of her liability as an indorser of the subject check and that for her to avoid litigation she has to fulfill her commitment to settle her obligation as assured in her said letter. On July 1988 Gonzales resigned from RCBC. What had been deducted from her salary was only P12,822.20 covering ten months. It was against the foregoing factual backdrop that RCBC filed a complaint for a sum of money against Eva Alviar, Melva Theresa Alviar-Gonzales and the latter’s husband Gino Gonzales. The spouses Gonzales

filed an Answer with Counterclaim praying for the dismissal of the complaint as well as payment of P10,822.20 as actual damages,P20,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Defendant Eva Alviar, on the other hand, was declared in default for having filed her Answer out of time. After trial, the RTC, in its three-page decision,2 held two of the three defendants liable as follows: WHEREFORE, premises above considered and plaintiff having established its case against the defendants as above stated, judgment is hereby rendered for plaintiff and as against defendant EVA. P. ALVIAR as principal debtor and defendants MELVA THERESA ALVIAR GONZLAES as guarantor as follows: 1. To pay plaintiff the amount of P142,648.65 (P155,270.85 less the amount of P12,622.20, as salary deduction of [Gonzales]), representing the outstanding obligation of the defendants with interest of 12% per annum starting February 1987 until fully paid; 2. To pay the amount of P40,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees; and to 3. Pay the costs of this suit. SO ORDERED. On appeal, the CA, except for the award of attorney’s fees, affirmed the RTC judgment. Hence, this recourse by the petitioner on her submission that the CA erred XXX IN FINDING [PETITIONER], AN ACCOMMODATION PARTY TO A CHECK SUBSEQUENTLY ENDORSED PARTIALLY, LIABLE TO RCBC AS GUARANTOR; XXX IN FINDING THAT THE SIGNATURE OF GOMEZ, AN RCBC EMPLOYEE, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AS AN ENDORSEMENT BUT ONLY AN INTER-BANK APPROVAL OF SIGNATURE NECESSARY FOR THE ENCASHMENT OF THE CHECK; XXX IN NOT FINDING RCBC LIABLE ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF [THE PETITIONER]. The recourse is impressed with merit. The dollar-check3 in question in the amount of $7,500.00 drawn by Don Zapanta of Ade Medical Group (U.S.A.) against a Los Angeles, California bank, Wilshire Center Bank N.A., was dishonored because of "End. Irregular," i.e., an irregular endorsement. While the foreign drawee bank did not specifically state which among the four signatures found on the dorsal portion of the check made the check irregularly endorsed, it is absolutely undeniable that only the signature of Olivia Gomez, an RCBC employee, was a qualified endorsement because of the phrase "up toP17,500.00 only." There can be no other acceptable explanation for the dishonor of the foreign check than this signature of Olivia Gomez with the phrase "up to P17,500.00 only" accompanying it. This Court definitely agrees with the petitioner that the foreign drawee bank would not have dishonored the check had it not been for this signature of Gomez with the same phrase written by her. The foreign drawee bank, Wilshire Center Bank N.A., refused to pay the bearer of this dollar-check drawn by Don Zapanta because of the defect introduced by RCBC, through its employee, Olivia Gomez. It is, therefore, a useless piece of paper if returned in that state to its original payee, Eva Alviar. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that a subsequent party which caused the defect in the instrument cannot have any recourse against any of the prior endorsers in good faith. Eva Alviar’s and the petitioner’s liability to subsequent holders of the foreign check is governed by the Negotiable Instruments Law as follows: Sec. 66. Liability of general indorser. - Every indorser who indorses without qualification, warrants to all subsequent holders in due course; (a) The matters and things mentioned in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of the next preceding section; and (b) That the instrument is, at the time of his indorsement, valid and subsisting; And, in addition, he engages that, on due presentment, it shall be accepted or paid, or both, as the case

may be, according to its tenor, and that if it be dishonored and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it. The matters and things mentioned in subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) of Section 65 are the following: (a) That the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; (b) That he has a good title to it; (c) That all prior parties had capacity to contract; Under Section 66, the warranties for which Alviar and Gonzales are liable as general endorsers in favor of subsequent endorsers extend only to the state of the instrument at the time of their endorsements, specifically, that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; that they have good title thereto; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and that the instrument, at the time of their endorsements, is valid and subsisting. This provision, however, cannot be used by the party which introduced a defect on the instrument, such as respondent RCBC in this case, which qualifiedly endorsed the same, to hold prior endorsers liable on the instrument because it results in the absurd situation whereby a subsequent party may render an instrument useless and inutile and let innocent parties bear the loss while he himself gets away scot-free. It cannot be over-stressed that had it not been for the qualified endorsement ("up to P17,500.00 only") of Olivia Gomez, who is the employee of RCBC, there would have been no reason for the dishonor of the check, and full payment by drawee bank therefor would have taken place as a matter of course. Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which further states that the general endorser additionally engages that, on due presentment, the instrument shall be accepted or paid, or both, as the case may be, according to its tenor, and that if it be dishonored and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent endorser who may be compelled to pay it, must be read in the light of the rule in equity requiring that those who come to court should come with clean hands. The holder or subsequent endorser who tries to claim under the instrument which had been dishonored for "irregular endorsement" must not be the irregular endorser himself who gave cause for the dishonor. Otherwise, a clear injustice results when any subsequent party to the instrument may simply make the instrument defective and later claim from prior endorsers who have no knowledge or participation in causing or introducing said defect to the instrument, which thereby caused its dishonor. Courts in this jurisdiction are not only courts of law but also of equity, and therefore cannot unqualifiedly apply a provision of law so as to cause clear injustice which the framers of the law could not have intended to so deliberately cause. In Carceller v. Court of Appeals,4 this Court had occasion to stress: Courts of law, being also courts of equity, may not countenance such grossly unfair results without doing violence to its solemn obligation to administer fair and equal justice for all. RCBC, which caused the dishonor of the check upon presentment to the drawee bank, through the qualified endorsement of its employee, Olivia Gomez, cannot hold prior endorsers, Alviar and Gonzales in this case, liable on the instrument. Moreover, it is a well-established principle in law that as between two parties, he who, by his acts, caused the loss shall bear the same.5 RCBC, in this instance, should therefore bear the loss. Relative to the petitioner’s counterclaim against RCBC for the amount of P12,822.20 which it admittedly deducted from petitioner’s salary, the Court must order the return thereof to the petitioner, with legal interest of 12% per annum, notwithstanding the petitioner’s apparent acquiescence to such an arrangement. It must be noted that petitioner is not any ordinary client or depositor with whom RCBC had this isolated transaction. Petitioner was a rank-and-file employee of RCBC, being a new accounts clerk thereat. It is easy to understand how a vulnerable Gonzales, who is financially dependent upon RCBC, would rather bite the bullet, so to speak, and expectedly opt for salary deduction rather than lose her job and her entire salary altogether. In this sense, we cannot take petitioner’s apparent acquiescence to the salary deduction as being an entirely free and voluntary act on her part. Additionally, under the obtaining facts and circumstances surrounding the present complaint for collection of sum of money by RCBC against its employee, which may be deemed tantamount to harassment, and the fact that RCBC itself was the one,

acting through its employee, Olivia Gomez, which gave reason for the dishonor of the dollar-check in question, RCBC may likewise be held liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees by way of damages, in the amount of P20,000.00 for each. WHEREFORE, the assailed CA Decision dated August 30, 2002 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Complaint in this case DISMISSED for lack of merit. Petitioner’s counterclaim is GRANTED, ordering the respondent RCBC to reimburse petitioner the amount P12,822.20, with legal interest computed from the time of salary deduction up to actual payment, and to pay petitioner the total amount of P60,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Costs against the respondent. SO ORDERED. FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 154469

December 6, 2006

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioners, vs. RENATO D. CABILZO, respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, filed by petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated 8 March 2002 and its Resolution dated 26 July 2002 affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 13 dated 4 September 1998. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated September 4, 1998 is AFFIRMED with modifications (sic) that the awards for exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are hereby deleted. Petitioner Metrobank is a banking institution duly organized and existing as such under Philippine laws. 2 Respondent Renato D. Cabilzo (Cabilzo) was one of Metrobank’s clients who maintained a current account with Metrobank Pasong Tamo Branch.3 On 12 November 1994, Cabilzo issued a Metrobank Check No. 985988, payable to "CASH" and postdated on 24 November 1994 in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). The check was drawn against Cabilzo’s Account with Metrobank Pasong Tamo Branch under Current Account No. 618044873-3 and was paid by Cabilzo to a certain Mr. Marquez, as his sales commission. 4 Subsequently, the check was presented to Westmont Bank for payment. Westmont Bank, in turn, indorsed the check to Metrobank for appropriate clearing. After the entries thereon were examined, including the availability of funds and the authenticity of the signature of the drawer, Metrobank cleared the check for encashment in accordance with the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC) Rules. On 16 November 1994, Cabilzo’s representative was at Metrobank Pasong Tamo Branch to make some transaction when he was asked by a bank personnel if Cabilzo had issued a check in the amount of P91,000.00 to which the former replied in the negative. On the afternoon of the same date, Cabilzo himself called Metrobank to reiterate that he did not issue a check in the amount of P91,000.00 and requested that the questioned check be returned to him for verification, to which Metrobank complied. 5 Upon receipt of the check, Cabilzo discovered that Metrobank Check No. 985988 which he issued on 12 November 1994 in the amount of P1,000.00 was altered to P91,000.00 and the date 24 November 1994 was changed to 14 November 1994.6 Hence, Cabilzo demanded that Metrobank re-credit the amount of P91,000.00 to his account. Metrobank,

however, refused reasoning that it has to refer the matter first to its Legal Division for appropriate action. Repeated verbal demands followed but Metrobank still failed to re-credit the amount of P91,000.00 to Cabilzo’s account.7 On 30 June 1995, Cabilzo, thru counsel, finally sent a letter-demand 8 to Metrobank for the payment of P90,000.00, after deducting the original value of the check in the amount of P1,000.00. Such written demand notwithstanding, Metrobank still failed or refused to comply with its obligation. Consequently, Cabilzo instituted a civil action for damages against Metrobank before the RTC of Manila, Branch 13. In his Complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 95-75651, Renato D. Cabilzo v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,Cabilzo prayed that in addition to his claim for reimbursement, actual and moral damages plus costs of the suit be awarded in his favor.9 For its part, Metrobank countered that upon the receipt of the said check through the PCHC on 14 November 1994, it examined the genuineness and the authenticity of the drawer’s signature appearing thereon and the technical entries on the check including the amount in figures and in words to determine if there were alterations, erasures, superimpositions or intercalations thereon, but none was noted. After verifying the authenticity and propriety of the aforesaid entries, including the indorsement of the collecting bank located at the dorsal side of the check which stated that, "all prior indorsements and lack of indorsement guaranteed," Metrobank cleared the check.10 Anent thereto, Metrobank claimed that as a collecting bank and the last indorser, Westmont Bank should be held liable for the value of the check. Westmont Bank indorsed the check as the an unqualified indorser, by virtue of which it assumed the liability of a general indorser, and thus, among others, warranted that the instrument is genuine and in all respect what it purports to be. In addition, Metrobank, in turn, claimed that Cabilzo was partly responsible in leaving spaces on the check, which, made the fraudulent insertion of the amount and figures thereon, possible. On account of his negligence in the preparation and issuance of the check, which according to Metrobank, was the proximate cause of the loss, Cabilzo cannot thereafter claim indemnity by virtue of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Thus, Metrobank demanded from Cabilzo, for payment in the amount of P100,000.00 which represents the cost of litigation and attorney’s fees, for allegedly bringing a frivolous and baseless suit. 11 On 19 April 1996, Metrobank filed a Third-Party Complaint 12 against Westmont Bank on account of its unqualified indorsement stamped at the dorsal side of the check which the former relied upon in clearing what turned out to be a materially altered check. Subsequently, a Motion to Dismiss 13 the Third-Party Complaint was then filed by Westmont bank because another case involving the same cause of action was pending before a different court. The said case arose from an action for reimbursement filed by Metrobank before the Arbitration Committee of the PCHC against Westmont Bank, and now the subject of a Petition for Review before the RTC of Manila, Branch 19. In an Order14 dated 4 February 1997, the trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss the Third-Party Complaint on the ground of litis pendentia. On 4 September 1998, the RTC rendered a Decision 15 in favor of Cabilzo and thereby ordered Metrobank to pay the sum of P90,000.00, the amount of the check. In stressing the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the bank and its clients and the negligence of the drawee bank in failing to detect an apparent alteration on the check, the trial court ordered for the payment of exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and cost of litigation. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering defendant Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company to pay plaintiff Renato Cabilzo the sum of P90,000 with legal interest of 6 percent per annum from November 16, 1994 until payment is made plus P20,000 attorney’s fees, exemplary damages of P50,000, and costs of the suit.16 Aggrieved, Metrobank appealed the adverse decision to the Court of Appeals reiterating its previous argument that as the last indorser, Westmont Bank shall bear the loss occasioned by the fraudulent alteration of the check. Elaborating, Metrobank maintained that by reason of its unqualified indorsement, Westmont Bank warranted that the check in question is genuine, valid and subsisting and that upon presentment the check shall be accepted according to its tenor.

Even more, Metrobank argued that in clearing the check, it was not remiss in the performance of its duty as the drawee bank, but rather, it exercised the highest degree of diligence in accordance with the generally accepted banking practice. It further insisted that the entries in the check were regular and authentic and alteration could not be determined even upon close examination. In a Decision17 dated 8 March 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Decision of the court a quo,similarly finding Metrobank liable for the amount of the check, without prejudice, however, to the outcome of the case between Metrobank and Westmont Bank which was pending before another tribunal. The decretal portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated September 4, 1998 is AFFIRMED with the modifications (sic) that the awards for exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are hereby deleted. 18 Similarly ill-fated was Metrobank’s Motion for Reconsideration which was also denied by the appellate court in its Resolution19 issued on 26 July 2002, for lack of merit. Metrobank now poses before this Court this sole issue: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING METROBANK, AS DRAWEE BANK, LIABLE FOR THE ALTERATIONS ON THE SUBJECT CHECK BEARING THE AUTHENTIC SIGNATURE OF THE DRAWER THEREOF. We resolve to deny the petition. An alteration is said to be material if it changes the effect of the instrument. It means that an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party or an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party.20 In other words, a material alteration is one which changes the items which are required to be stated under Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides: Section 1. Form of negotiable instruments. - An instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following requirements: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand or at a fixed determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty. Also pertinent is the following provision in the Negotiable Instrument Law which states: Section 125. What constitutes material alteration. – Any alteration which changes: (a) The date; (b) The sum payable, either for principal or interest; (c) The time or place of payment; (d) The number or the relation of the parties; (e) The medium or currency in which payment is to be made; Or which adds a place of payment where no place of payment is specified, or any other change or addition which alters the effect of the instrument in any respect is a material alteration. In the case at bar, the check was altered so that the amount was increased from P1,000.00 to P91,000.00 and the date was changed from 24 November 1994 to 14 November 1994. Apparently, since the entries altered were among those enumerated under Section 1 and 125, namely, the sum of money payable and the date of the check, the instant controversy therefore squarely falls within the purview of material

alteration. Now, having laid the premise that the present petition is a case of material alteration, it is now necessary for us to determine the effect of a materially altered instrument, as well as the rights and obligations of the parties thereunder. The following provision of the Negotiable Instrument Law will shed us some light in threshing out this issue: Section 124. Alteration of instrument; effect of. – Where a negotiable instrument is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable thereon, it is avoided, except as against a party who has himself made,authorized, and assented to the alteration and subsequent indorsers. But when the instrument has been materially altered and is in the hands of a holder in due course not a party to the alteration, he may enforce the payment thereof according to its original tenor. (Emphasis ours.) Indubitably, Cabilzo was not the one who made nor authorized the alteration. Neither did he assent to the alteration by his express or implied acts. There is no showing that he failed to exercise such reasonable degree of diligence required of a prudent man which could have otherwise prevented the loss. As correctly ruled by the appellate court, Cabilzo was never remiss in the preparation and issuance of the check, and there were no indicia of evidence that would prove otherwise. Indeed, Cabilzo placed asterisks before and after the amount in words and figures in order to forewarn the subsequent holders that nothing follows before and after the amount indicated other than the one specified between the asterisks. The degree of diligence required of a reasonable man in the exercise of his tasks and the performance of his duties has been faithfully complied with by Cabilzo. In fact, he was wary enough that he filled with asterisks the spaces between and after the amounts, not only those stated in words, but also those in numerical figures, in order to prevent any fraudulent insertion, but unfortunately, the check was still successfully altered, indorsed by the collecting bank, and cleared by the drawee bank, and encashed by the perpetrator of the fraud, to the damage and prejudice of Cabilzo. Verily, Metrobank cannot lightly impute that Cabilzo was negligent and is therefore prevented from asserting his rights under the doctrine of equitable estoppel when the facts on record are bare of evidence to support such conclusion. The doctrine of equitable estoppel states that when one of the two innocent persons, each guiltless of any intentional or moral wrong, must suffer a loss, it must be borne by the one whose erroneous conduct, either by omission or commission, was the cause of injury. 21 Metrobank’s reliance on this dictum, is misplaced. For one, Metrobank’s representation that it is an innocent party is flimsy and evidently, misleading. At the same time, Metrobank cannot asseverate that Cabilzo was negligent and this negligence was the proximate cause 22 of the loss in the absence of even a scintilla proof to buttress such claim. Negligence is not presumed but must be proven by the one who alleges it. 23 Undoubtedly, Cabilzo was an innocent party in this instant controversy. He was just an ordinary businessman who, in order to facilitate his business transactions, entrusted his money with a bank, not knowing that the latter would yield a substantial amount of his deposit to fraud, for which Cabilzo can never be faulted. We never fail to stress the remarkable significance of a banking institution to commercial transactions, in particular, and to the country’s economy in general. The banking system is an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized nation. Whether as mere passive entities for the safekeeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have become an ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and, most of all, confidence. 24 Thus, even the humble wage-earner does not hesitate to entrust his life's savings to the bank of his choice, knowing that they will be safe in its custody and will even earn some interest for him. The ordinary person, with equal faith, usually maintains a modest checking account for security and convenience in the settling of his monthly bills and the payment of ordinary expenses. As for a businessman like the respondent, the bank is a trusted and active associate that can help in the running of his affairs, not only in the form of loans when needed but more often in the conduct of their day-to-day transactions like the issuance or encashment of checks.25 In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such

account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs.26 The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The appropriate degree of diligence required of a bank must be a high degree of diligence, if not the utmost diligence.27 In the present case, it is obvious that Metrobank was remiss in that duty and violated that relationship. As observed by the Court of Appeals, there are material alterations on the check that are visible to the naked eye. Thus: x x x The number "1" in the date is clearly imposed on a white figure in the shape of the number "2". The appellant’s employees who examined the said check should have likewise been put on guard as to why at the end of the amount in words, i.e., after the word "ONLY", there are 4 asterisks, while at the beginning of the line or before said phrase, there is none, even as 4 asterisks have been placed before and after the word "CASH" in the space for payee. In addition, the 4 asterisks before the words "ONE THOUSAND PESOS ONLY" have noticeably been erased with typing correction paper, leaving white marks, over which the word "NINETY" was superimposed. The same can be said of the numeral "9" in the amount "91,000", which is superimposed over a whitish mark, obviously an erasure, in lieu of the asterisk which was deleted to insert the said figure. The appellant’s employees should have again noticed why only 2 asterisks were placed before the amount in figures, while 3 asterisks were placed after such amount. The word "NINETY" is also typed differently and with a lighter ink, when compared with the words "ONE THOUSAND PESOS ONLY." The letters of the word "NINETY" are likewise a little bigger when compared with the letters of the words "ONE THOUSAND PESOS ONLY".28 Surprisingly, however, Metrobank failed to detect the above alterations which could not escape the attention of even an ordinary person. This negligence was exacerbated by the fact that, as found by the trial court, the check in question was examined by the cash custodian whose functions do not include the examinations of checks indorsed for payment against drawer’s accounts. 29 Obviously, the employee allowed by Metrobank to examine the check was not verse and competent to handle such duty. These factual findings of the trial court is conclusive upon this court especially when such findings was affirmed the appellate court.30 Apropos thereto, we need to reiterate that by the very nature of their work the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and officials is far better than those of ordinary clerks and employees. Banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.31 In addition, the bank on which the check is drawn, known as the drawee bank, is under strict liability to pay to the order of the payee in accordance with the drawer’s instructions as reflected on the face and by the terms of the check. Payment made under materially altered instrument is not payment done in accordance with the instruction of the drawer. When the drawee bank pays a materially altered check, it violates the terms of the check, as well as its duty to charge its client’s account only for bona fide disbursements he had made. Since the drawee bank, in the instant case, did not pay according to the original tenor of the instrument, as directed by the drawer, then it has no right to claim reimbursement from the drawer, much less, the right to deduct the erroneous payment it made from the drawer’s account which it was expected to treat with utmost fidelity. Metrobank vigorously asserts that the entries in the check were carefully examined: The date of the instrument, the amount in words and figures, as well as the drawer’s signature, which after verification, were found to be proper and authentic and was thus cleared. We are not persuaded. Metrobank’s negligence consisted in the omission of that degree of diligence required of a bank owing to the fiduciary nature of its relationship with its client. Article 1173 of the Civil Code provides: The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by

the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. x x x. Beyond question, Metrobank failed to comply with the degree required by the nature of its business as provided by law and jurisprudence. If indeed it was not remiss in its obligation, then it would be inconceivable for it not to detect an evident alteration considering its vast knowledge and technical expertise in the intricacies of the banking business. This Court is not completely unaware of banks’ practices of employing devices and techniques in order to detect forgeries, insertions, intercalations, superimpositions and alterations in checks and other negotiable instruments so as to safeguard their authenticity and negotiability. Metrobank cannot now feign ignorance nor claim diligence; neither can it point its finger at the collecting bank, in order to evade liability. Metrobank argues that Westmont Bank, as the collecting bank and the last indorser, shall bear the loss. Without ruling on the matter between the drawee bank and the collecting bank, which is already under the jurisdiction of another tribunal, we find that Metrobank cannot rely on such indorsement, in clearing the questioned check. The corollary liability of such indorsement, if any, is separate and independent from the liability of Metrobank to Cabilzo. The reliance made by Metrobank on Westmont Bank’s indorsement is clearly inconsistent, if not totally offensive to the dictum that being impressed with public interest, banks should exercise the highest degree of diligence, if not utmost diligence in dealing with the accounts of its own clients. It owes the highest degree fidelity to its clients and should not therefore lightly rely on the judgment of other banks on occasions where its clients money were involve, no matter how small or substantial the amount at stake. Metrobank’s contention that it relied on the strength of collecting bank’s indorsement may be merely a lame excuse to evade liability, or may be indeed an actual banking practice. In either case, such act constitutes a deplorable banking practice and could not be allowed by this Court bearing in mind that the confidence of public in general is of paramount importance in banking business. What is even more deplorable is that, having been informed of the alteration, Metrobank did not immediately re-credit the amount that was erroneously debited from Cabilzo’s account but permitted a full blown litigation to push through, to the prejudice of its client. Anyway, Metrobank is not left with no recourse for it can still run after the one who made the alteration or with the collecting bank, which it had already done. It bears repeating that the records are bare of evidence to prove that Cabilzo was negligent. We find no justifiable reason therefore why Metrobank did not immediately reimburse his account. Such ineptness comes within the concept of wanton manner contemplated under the Civil Code which warrants the imposition of exemplary damages, "by way of example or correction for the public good," in the words of the law. It is expected that this ruling will serve as a stern warning in order to deter the repetition of similar acts of negligence, lest the confidence of the public in the banking system be further eroded. 32 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 8 March 2002 and the Resolution dated 26 July 2002 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with modification that exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 be awarded. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 164358

December 20, 2006

THERESA MACALALAG, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

This Petition for Review seeks to set aside the Court of Appeals' 10 October 2003 Decision 1 convicting petitioner Theresa Macalalag (Macalalag) of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and its 13 May 2004 Resolution denying her Motion for Reconsideration. The factual and procedural antecedents of this case are as follows: On two separate occasions, particularly on 30 July 1995 and 16 October 1995, petitioner Theresa Macalalag obtained loans from Grace Estrella (Estrella), each in the amount of P100,000.00, each bearing an interest of 10% per month. Macalalag consistently paid the interests starting 30 August 1995. Finding the interest rates so burdensome, Macalalag requested Estrella for a reduction of the same to which the latter agreed. On 16 April 1996 and 1 May 1996, Macalalag executed Acknowledgment/Affirmation Receipts promising to pay Estrella the face value of the loans in the total amount of P200,000.00 within two months from the date of its execution plus 6% interest per month for each loan. Under the two Acknowledgment/Affirmation Receipts, she further obligated herself to pay for the two (2) loans the total sum of P100,000.00 as liquidated damages and attorney's fees in the total sum of P40,000.00 as stipulated by the parties the moment she breaches the terms and conditions thereof. As security for the payment of the aforesaid loans, Macalalag issued two Philippine National Bank (PNB) Checks (Check No. C-889835 and No. 889836) on 30 June 1996, each in the amount of P100,000.00, in favor of Estrella. However, when Estrella presented said checks for payment with the drawee bank, the same were dishonored for the reason that the account against which the same was drawn was already closed. Estrella sent a notice of dishonor and demand to make good the said checks to Macalalag, but the latter failed to do so. Hence, Estrella filed two criminal complaints for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod City, docketed as Criminal Cases No. 76367 and No. 76368. When arraigned, Macalalag entered a plea of "not guilty." On trial, Macalalag admitted her indebtedness and the issuance of the two PNB checks. She, however, stated that she already made payments over and above the value of the said checks. According to her, she made a total payment of P355,837.98, including the payment ofP199,837.98 made during the pendency of the cases. Estrella admitted the payment of P199,837.98 but claimed that the same amount was applied to the payment of the interest. On 5 February 2001, the MTCC of Bacolod City rendered its Decision, disposing of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the accused Theresa Macalalag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Pursuant however to Eduardo Vaca vs. Court of Appeals case (G.R. No. 131714, November 16, 1998[,] 298 SCRA 656) and the Rosa Lim vs. People x x x case (G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000) where the Supreme Court deleted these penalty of imprisonment, the penalty therefore imposable is a fine of P100,000.00 for each of the two (2) checks and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or failure to pay said fine. As she is criminally liable, she is likewise ordered to pay as civil indemnity the total amount of P200,000.00 with interest at the legal rate from the time of the filing of the informations until the amount is fully paid; less whatever amount was thus far paid and validly deducted from the principal sum originally claimed.2 Petitioner Macalalag appealed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, which affirmed in toto the MTCC Decision. Petitioner Macalalag appealed anew with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC and the MTCC decisions with modification to the effect that, among other things, accused was convicted only of one (1) count of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, corresponding to the issuance of the second check. The decretal portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the February 9, 2001 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Bacolod City, Branch 3, as affirmed by the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 43, is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows: "WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the accused Theresa Macalalag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Pursuant however to Eduardo Vaca vs. Court of Appeals case (G.R. No. 131714, November 16, 1998[,] 298 SCRA 659)

and the Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines case (G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000) where the Supreme Court deleted the penalty of imprisonment, the penalty therefore imposable is a fine of P100,000.00 for the second check and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or failure to pay said fine. As she is criminally liable, she is likewise ordered to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00 with interest at the legal rate from the time of the filing of the information until the amount is fully paid; less P195,837.98, the amount credited to the accused after paying the first loan, to be applied to the second loan." 3 In acquitting petitioner Macalalag of one count of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling which held that Medel v. Court of Appeals 4 is not applicable as it applies only in civil cases where the validity of the interest rate is in issue, and cannot be applied in criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.5 In Medel, we held that, while the Usury Law is now legally inexistent, the stipulated rate of interest at 5.5% per month is iniquitous or unconscionable, which the court could equitably reduce. The Court of Appeals was correct in applying Medel to the case at bar. The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is deemed to include the corresponding civil action. 6 In fact, no reservation to file such civil action shall be allowed. 7 Verily then, whether the interest is unconscionable or not can be determined in the instant case. Furthermore, in all criminal prosecutions, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused and strictly against the State. Following this principle, the issue of whether the Medel case should be applied in favor of Macalalag should be resolved in her favor. The stipulated interest of 10% per month, and even the reduced rate of 6% per month, are higher than the interest rates declared unconscionable in Medel and in several other cases with allegations of unconscionable interests. Such cases were synthesized by then Associate Justice (now Chief Justice) Reynato Puno in Ruiz v. Court of Appeals8: The foregoing rates of interests and surcharges are in accord with Medel vs. Court of Appeals, Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, Bautista vs. Pilar Development Corporation, and the recent case of Spouses Solangon vs. Salazar. This Court invalidated a stipulated 5.5% per month or 66% per annum interest on a P500,000.00 loan in Medel and a 6% per month or 72% per annum interest on a P60,000.00 loan in Solangon for being excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. In both cases, we reduced the interest rate to 12% per annum. We held that while the Usury Law has been suspended by Central Bank Circular No. 905, s. 1982, effective on January 1, 1983, and parties to a loan agreement have been given wide latitude to agree on any interest rate, still stipulated interest rates are illegal if they are unconscionable. Nothing in the said circular grants lenders carte blanche authority to raise interest rates to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets. On the other hand, in Bautista vs. Pilar Development Corp., this Court upheld the validity of a 21% per annum interest on a P142,326.43 loan, and in Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, sustained the agreement of the parties to a 24% per annum interest on an P8,649,250.00 loan. It is on the basis of these cases that we reduce the 36% per annum interest to 12%. An interest of 12% per annum is deemed fair and reasonable. While it is true that this Court invalidated a much higher interest rate of 66% per annum in Medel and 72% in Solangon it has sustained the validity of a much lower interest rate of 21% in Bautista and 24% in Garcia. We still find the 36% per annum interest rate in the case at bar to be substantially greater than those upheld by this Court in the two (2) aforecited cases. Applying Medel, therefore, the Court of Appeals convicted petitioner Macalalag of one count of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and computed her civil liability as follows: Thus, applying the Medel doctrine, the interest rate imposed by Estrella on the loans of Macalalag should be reduced to 12% per annum only plus 1% a month penalty charge as liquidated damages on each loan. We now proceed to the determination of whether Macalalag had already paid her obligations to Estrella. There is no dispute that Macalalag obtained the first P100,000.00 loan from Estrella on July 30,

1995. The said amount multiplied by 1% interest per month until July 1, 1996, the time the check representing the said amount was dishonored (P100,000.00 x 1% x 11 + P100,000.00), would be P111,000.00. The second loan of P100,000.00 was obtained on October 16, 1995 and the check that was issued for the payment of the said loan was also dishonored on July 1, 1996. Using the above formula (P100,000.00 x 1% x 8.5 + P100,000.00), Macalalag's obligation would only be P108,500.00. Thus, when the checks were dishonored, Macalalag's total obligation to Estrella was P219,500.00. In the instant case, it has been established that Macalalag made a total payment of P355,837.98 (P199,837.98 plus P156,000.00) (See 275-276, Records). The P156,000.00 was paid starting August 30, 1995 until June 15, 1996 while the amount of P199,837.98 was paid to complainant sometime in 1997 considering that the acknowledgment receipt was dated January 5, 1998. In the Acknowledgment/Affirmation Receipts, Macalalag promised to pay Estrella the principal loans within two (2) months after the execution of said documents. Thus, the two (2) loans of P100,000.00 each, or a total of P200,000.00, were demandable only on June 16, 1996 and July 1, 1996, respectively. Hence, the total amount of P156,000.00 already paid by Macalalag to Estrella could very well be applied to the face value of the first loan which fell due on June 16, 1996, including the 1% interest rate per month on the two (2) loans or a total of 2% per month. Thus, Macalalag could no longer be held liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 insofar as the first check is concerned since the same was already paid prior to its presentment for payment. However, with respect to the second check, there is no doubt that Macalalag is liable under B.P. Blg. 22. Macalalag admitted having issued the said check and that said check, when presented for payment for payment with the drawee bank bounced for the reason "account closed". Despite notice of dishonor, Macalalag failed to make good the said check. All the elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, viz: a) the making, drawing or issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; b) the knowledge of the maker[,] drawer, or issuer that at the time of the issue he does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and, c) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment (Sycip, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 447), are, therefore, present. In view of the foregoing, the penalty imposed on Macalalag by the trial court should be modified. In accordance with the Vaca vs. Court of Appeals (294 SCRA 656) case, Macalalag should be meted the penalty of fine amounting to P100,000.00 only corresponding to the face value of the second check with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Likewise, Macalalag should pay the civil indemnity in the total amount of P100,000.00 with interest at the legal rate from the time of the filing of the Information until fully satisfied less the amount of P195,837.98 which amount should be credited to her. This amount represents the balance after full payment of the first loan computed as follows: P355,837.98

- total amount paid by petitioner to private complainant (P199,837.98 andP156,000.00)

LESS: P160,000.00

- to fully pay the first loan (P100,000.00 face value of the loan plus interests at P21,000.00 and P39,000.00)

P195,837.98

- amount to be credited to petitioner to be applied to pay the second

loan.9 We have repeatedly held that there is no violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 if the complainant was actually told by the drawer that he has no sufficient funds in a bank. 10 Where, as in the case at bar, the checks were issued as security for a loan, payment by the accused of the amount of the check prior to its presentation for payment would certainly serve the same purpose. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was not intended to shelter or favor nor encourage users of the banking system to enrich themselves through the manipulation and circumvention of the noble purpose and objectives of the law.11 Such manipulation is manifest when payees of checks issued as security for loans present such checks for payment even after the payment of such loans. Petitioner Macalalag, however, claims that she should not be convicted of even one count of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Petitioner Macalalag claims that: (1) the payment of the accounts before the checks became due and demandable and/or before the same are presented for payment would exempt the petitioner from Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; 12 (2) the redeemable value of the check is limited only to its face value and does not include interest;13 and (3) partial redemption of the check will exempt the accused from criminal liability for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.14 Petitioner Macalalag claims that, considering that she had already paid P156,000.00 at the time the subject checks were presented for payment, the amount of P100,000.00 should be applied for redemption of the first check and the remaining amount of P56,000.00 should be treated as partial redemption of the second check. Petitioner Macalalag posits that said partial redemption exempts her from criminal liability because it was made before the check was presented for payment. The petition must fail. Even if we agree with petitioner Macalalag that the interests on her loans should not be imputed to the face value of the checks she issued, petitioner Macalalag is still liable for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Petitioner Macalalag herself declares that before the institution of the two cases against her, she has made a total payment ofP156,000.00. Applying this amount to the first check (No. C-889835), what will be left is P56,000.00, an amount insufficient to cover her obligation with respect to the second check. As stated above, when Estrella presented the checks for payment, the same were dishonored on the ground that they were drawn against a closed account. Despite notice of dishonor, petitioner Macalalag failed to pay the full face value of the second check issued. Only a full payment of the face value of the second check at the time of its presentment or during the fiveday grace period15 could have exonerated her from criminal liability. A contrary interpretation would defeat the purpose of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, that of safeguarding the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account user,16 as the drawer could very well have himself exonerated by the mere expediency of paying a minimal fraction of the face value of the check. Neither could petitioner Macalalag's subsequent payment of P199,837.98 during the pendency of the cases against her before the MTCC result in freeing her from criminal liability because the same had already attached after the check was dishonored. Said subsequent payments can only affect her civil, not criminal, liability. A subsequent payment by the accused would not obliterate the criminal liability theretofore already incurred.17 It is well to note that the gravamen of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the issuance of a check, not the nonpayment of an obligation.18 The law has made the act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum.19 Consequently, the lack of criminal intent on the part of the accused is irrelevant, 20 and the accused will be convicted for violation thereof as long as the following elements are proven: 1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value; 2. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and 3. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank

to stop payment.21 All these elements have been conclusively proven in Court, the second element by the prima facie evidence established by Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, which provides: SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. – the making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 10 October 2003 and Resolution dated 13 May 2004, affirming the conviction of petitioner Theresa Macalalag of one count of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, are AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 136202

January 25, 2007

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANNABELLE A. SALAZAR, and JULIO R. TEMPLONUEVO, Respondents DECISION AZCUNA, J.: This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision 1 dated April 3, 1998, and the Resolution2 dated November 9, 1998, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 42241. The facts3 are as follows: A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services filed an action for a sum of money with damages against herein petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) on December 5, 1991 before Branch 156 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. The complaint was later amended by substituting the name of Annabelle A. Salazar as the real party in interest in place of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services. Private respondent Salazar prayed for the recovery of the amount of Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred Seven Pesos and Seventy Centavos (P267,707.70) debited by petitioner BPI from her account. She likewise prayed for damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioner BPI, in its answer, alleged that on August 31, 1991, Julio R. Templonuevo, third-party defendant and herein also a private respondent, demanded from the former payment of the amount of Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand, Six Hundred Ninety-Two Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P267,692.50) representing the aggregate value of three (3) checks, which were allegedly payable to him, but which were deposited with the petitioner bank to private respondent Salazar’s account (Account No. 0203-1187-67) without his knowledge and corresponding endorsement. Accepting that Templonuevo’s claim was a valid one, petitioner BPI froze Account No. 0201-0588-48 of A.A. Salazar and Construction and Engineering Services, instead of Account No. 0203-1187-67 where the checks were deposited, since this account was already closed by private respondent Salazar or had an insufficient balance. Private respondent Salazar was advised to settle the matter with Templonuevo but they did not arrive at any settlement. As it appeared that private respondent Salazar was not entitled to the funds represented by the checks which were deposited and accepted for deposit, petitioner BPI decided to debit the amount of P267,707.70 from her Account No. 0201-0588-48 and the sum of P267,692.50 was paid to Templonuevo by means of a cashier’s check. The difference between the value of the checks ( P267,692.50) and the

amount actually debited from her account (P267,707.70) represented bank charges in connection with the issuance of a cashier’s check to Templonuevo. In the answer to the third-party complaint, private respondent Templonuevo admitted the payment to him ofP267,692.50 and argued that said payment was to correct the malicious deposit made by private respondent Salazar to her private account, and that petitioner bank’s negligence and tolerance regarding the matter was violative of the primary and ordinary rules of banking. He likewise contended that the debiting or taking of the reimbursed amount from the account of private respondent Salazar by petitioner BPI was a matter exclusively between said parties and may be pursuant to banking rules and regulations, but did not in any way affect him. The debiting from another account of private respondent Salazar, considering that her other account was effectively closed, was not his concern. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff [private respondent Salazar] and against the defendant [petitioner BPI] and ordering the latter to pay as follows: 1. The amount of P267,707.70 with 12% interest thereon from September 16, 1991 until the said amount is fully paid; 2. The amount of P30,000.00 as and for actual damages; 3. The amount of P50,000.00 as and for moral damages; 4. The amount of P50,000.00 as and for exemplary damages; 5. The amount of P30,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees; and 6. Costs of suit. The counterclaim is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of factual basis. The third-party complaint [filed by petitioner] is hereby likewise ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit. Third-party defendant’s [i.e., private respondent Templonuevo’s] counterclaim is hereby likewise DISMISSED for lack of factual basis. SO ORDERED.4 On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC and held that respondent Salazar was entitled to the proceeds of the three (3) checks notwithstanding the lack of endorsement thereon by the payee. The CA concluded that Salazar and Templonuevo had previously agreed that the checks payable to JRT Construction and Trading5 actually belonged to Salazar and would be deposited to her account, with petitioner acquiescing to the arrangement.6 Petitioner therefore filed this petition on these grounds: I. The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in misinterpreting Section 49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law and Section 3 (r and s) of Rule 131 of the New Rules on Evidence. II. The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in NOT applying the provisions of Articles 22, 1278 and 1290 of the Civil Code in favor of BPI. III. The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in holding, based on a misapprehension of facts, that the account from which BPI debited the amount of P267,707.70 belonged to a corporation with a separate and distinct personality.

IV. The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in holding, based entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures, that there was an agreement between SALAZAR and TEMPLONUEVO that checks payable to TEMPLONUEVO may be deposited by SALAZAR to her personal account and that BPI was privy to this agreement. V. The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding, based entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures, that SALAZAR suffered great damage and prejudice and that her business standing was eroded. VI. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming instead of reversing the decision of the lower court against BPI and dismissing SALAZAR’s complaint. VII. The Honorable Court erred in affirming the decision of the lower court dismissing the third-party complaint of BPI.7 The issues center on the propriety of the deductions made by petitioner from private respondent Salazar’s account. Stated otherwise, does a collecting bank, over the objections of its depositor, have the authority to withdraw unilaterally from such depositor’s account the amount it had previously paid upon certain unendorsed order instruments deposited by the depositor to another account that she later closed? Petitioner argues thus: 1. There is no presumption in law that a check payable to order, when found in the possession of a person who is neither a payee nor the indorsee thereof, has been lawfully transferred for value. Hence, the CA should not have presumed that Salazar was a transferee for value within the contemplation of Section 49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law,8 as the latter applies only to a holder defined under Section 191of the same.9 2. Salazar failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that her possession of the three checks was lawful despite her allegations that these checks were deposited pursuant to a prior internal arrangement with Templonuevo and that petitioner was privy to the arrangement. 3. The CA should have applied the Civil Code provisions on legal compensation because in deducting the subject amount from Salazar’s account, petitioner was merely rectifying the undue payment it made upon the checks and exercising its prerogative to alter or modify an erroneous credit entry in the regular course of its business. 4. The debit of the amount from the account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services was proper even though the value of the checks had been originally credited to the personal account of Salazar because A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services, an unincorporated single proprietorship, had no separate and distinct personality from Salazar. 5. Assuming the deduction from Salazar’s account was improper, the CA should not have dismissed petitioner’s third-party complaint against Templonuevo because the latter would have the legal duty to return to petitioner the proceeds of the checks which he previously received from it. 6. There was no factual basis for the award of damages to Salazar. The petition is partly meritorious. First, the issue raised by petitioner requires an inquiry into the factual findings made by the CA. The CA’s

conclusion that the deductions from the bank account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services were improper stemmed from its finding that there was no ineffective payment to Salazar which would call for the exercise of petitioner’s right to set off against the former’s bank deposits. This finding, in turn, was drawn from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced during trial and upon the admissions and stipulations of fact made during the pre-trial, most significantly the following: (a) That Salazar previously had in her possession the following checks: (1) Solid Bank Check No. CB766556 dated January 30, 1990 in the amount of P57,712.50; (2) Solid Bank Check No. CB898978 dated July 31, 1990 in the amount of P55,180.00; and, (3) Equitable Banking Corporation Check No. 32380638 dated August 28, 1990 for the amount ofP154,800.00; (b) That these checks which had an aggregate amount of P267,692.50 were payable to the order of JRT Construction and Trading, the name and style under which Templonuevo does business; (c) That despite the lack of endorsement of the designated payee upon such checks, Salazar was able to deposit the checks in her personal savings account with petitioner and encash the same; (d) That petitioner accepted and paid the checks on three (3) separate occasions over a span of eight months in 1990; and (e) That Templonuevo only protested the purportedly unauthorized encashment of the checks after the lapse of one year from the date of the last check.10 Petitioner concedes that when it credited the value of the checks to the account of private respondent Salazar, it made a mistake because it failed to notice the lack of endorsement thereon by the designated payee. The CA, however, did not lend credence to this claim and concluded that petitioner’s actions were deliberate, in view of its admission that the "mistake" was committed three times on three separate occasions, indicating acquiescence to the internal arrangement between Salazar and Templonuevo. The CA explained thus: It was quite apparent that the three checks which appellee Salazar deposited were not indorsed. Three times she deposited them to her account and three times the amounts borne by these checks were credited to the same. And in those separate occasions, the bank did not return the checks to her so that she could have them indorsed. Neither did the bank question her as to why she was depositing the checks to her account considering that she was not the payee thereof, thus allowing us to come to the conclusion that defendant-appellant BPI was fully aware that the proceeds of the three checks belong to appellee. For if the bank was not privy to the agreement between Salazar and Templonuevo, it is most unlikely that appellant BPI (or any bank for that matter) would have accepted the checks for deposit on three separate times nary any question. Banks are most finicky over accepting checks for deposit without the corresponding indorsement by their payee. In fact, they hesitate to accept indorsed checks for deposit if the depositor is not one they know very well.11 The CA likewise sustained Salazar’s position that she received the checks from Templonuevo pursuant to an internal arrangement between them, ratiocinating as follows: If there was indeed no arrangement between Templonuevo and the plaintiff over the three questioned checks, it baffles us why it was only on August 31, 1991 or more than a year after the third and last check was deposited that he demanded for the refund of the total amount of P267,692.50. A prudent man knowing that payment is due him would have demanded payment by his debtor from the moment the same became due and demandable. More so if the sum involved runs in hundreds of thousand of pesos. By and large, every person, at the very moment he learns that he was deprived of a thing which rightfully belongs to him, would have created a big fuss. He would not have waited for a year within which to do so. It is most inconceivable that Templonuevo did not do this. 12 Generally, only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.13Factual findings of the CA are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when the CA affirms the factual findings of the trial court. 14 Such questions on whether certain items of evidence should be

accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are questions of fact. The same holds true for questions on whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by the adverse party may be said to be strong, clear and convincing, or whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight – all these are issues of fact which are not reviewable by the Court.15 This rule, however, is not absolute and admits of certain exceptions, namely: a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; c) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; f) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; g) when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; i) when the finding of fact of the CA is premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record; and j) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 16 In the present case, the records do not support the finding made by the CA and the trial court that a prior arrangement existed between Salazar and Templonuevo regarding the transfer of ownership of the checks. This fact is crucial as Salazar’s entitlement to the value of the instruments is based on the assumption that she is a transferee within the contemplation of Section 49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Section 49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law contemplates a situation whereby the payee or indorsee delivers a negotiable instrument for value without indorsing it, thus: Transfer without indorsement; effect of- Where the holder of an instrument payable to his order transfers it for value without indorsing it, the transfer vests in the transferee such title as the transferor had therein, and the transferee acquires in addition, the right to have the indorsement of the transferor. But for the purpose of determining whether the transferee is a holder in due course, the negotiation takes effect as of the time when the indorsement is actually made. 17 It bears stressing that the above transaction is an equitable assignment and the transferee acquires the instrument subject to defenses and equities available among prior parties. Thus, if the transferor had legal title, the transferee acquires such title and, in addition, the right to have the indorsement of the transferor and also the right, as holder of the legal title, to maintain legal action against the maker or acceptor or other party liable to the transferor. The underlying premise of this provision, however, is that a valid transfer of ownership of the negotiable instrument in question has taken place. Transferees in this situation do not enjoy the presumption of ownership in favor of holders since they are neither payees nor indorsees of such instruments. The weight of authority is that the mere possession of a negotiable instrument does not in itself conclusively establish either the right of the possessor to receive payment, or of the right of one who has made payment to be discharged from liability. Thus, something more than mere possession by persons who are not payees or indorsers of the instrument is necessary to authorize payment to them in the absence of any other facts from which the authority to receive payment may be inferred.18 The CA and the trial court surmised that the subject checks belonged to private respondent Salazar based on the pre-trial stipulation that Templonuevo incurred a one-year delay in demanding reimbursement for the proceeds of the same. To the Court’s mind, however, such period of delay is not of such unreasonable length as to estop Templonuevo from asserting ownership over the checks especially considering that it was readily apparent on the face of the instruments19 that these were crossed checks. In State Investment House v. IAC,20 the Court enumerated the effects of crossing a check, thus: (1) that the check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank; (2) that the check may be negotiated only once - to one who has an account with a bank; and (3) that the act of crossing the check serves as a warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a definite purpose so that such holder must inquire if the check has been received pursuant to that purpose.

Thus, even if the delay in the demand for reimbursement is taken in conjunction with Salazar’s possession of the checks, it cannot be said that the presumption of ownership in Templonuevo’s favor as the designated payee therein was sufficiently overcome. This is consistent with the principle that if instruments payable to named payees or to their order have not been indorsed in blank, only such payees or their indorsees can be holders and entitled to receive payment in their own right. 21 The presumption under Section 131(s) of the Rules of Court stating that a negotiable instrument was given for a sufficient consideration will not inure to the benefit of Salazar because the term "given" does not pertain merely to a transfer of physical possession of the instrument. The phrase "given or indorsed" in the context of a negotiable instrument refers to the manner in which such instrument may be negotiated. Negotiable instruments are negotiated by "transfer to one person or another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer it is negotiated by delivery. If payable to order it is negotiated by the indorsement completed by delivery." 22 The present case involves checks payable to order. Not being a payee or indorsee of the checks, private respondent Salazar could not be a holder thereof. It is an exception to the general rule for a payee of an order instrument to transfer the instrument without indorsement. Precisely because the situation is abnormal, it is but fair to the maker and to prior holders to require possessors to prove without the aid of an initial presumption in their favor, that they came into possession by virtue of a legitimate transaction with the last holder. 23 Salazar failed to discharge this burden, and the return of the check proceeds to Templonuevo was therefore warranted under the circumstances despite the fact that Templonuevo may not have clearly demonstrated that he never authorized Salazar to deposit the checks or to encash the same. Noteworthy also is the fact that petitioner stamped on the back of the checks the words: "All prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed," thereby making the assurance that it had ascertained the genuineness of all prior endorsements. Having assumed the liability of a general indorser, petitioner’s liability to the designated payee cannot be denied. Consequently, petitioner, as the collecting bank, had the right to debit Salazar’s account for the value of the checks it previously credited in her favor. It is of no moment that the account debited by petitioner was different from the original account to which the proceeds of the check were credited because both admittedly belonged to Salazar, the former being the account of the sole proprietorship which had no separate and distinct personality from her, and the latter being her personal account. The right of set-off was explained in Associated Bank v. Tan:24 A bank generally has a right of set-off over the deposits therein for the payment of any withdrawals on the part of a depositor. The right of a collecting bank to debit a client's account for the value of a dishonored check that has previously been credited has fairly been established by jurisprudence. To begin with, Article 1980 of the Civil Code provides that "[f]ixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan." Hence, the relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor. Thus, legal compensation under Article 1278 of the Civil Code may take place "when all the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 are present," as follows: (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts be due; (4) That they be liquidated and demandable; (5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. While, however, it is conceded that petitioner had the right of set-off over the amount it paid to Templonuevo against the deposit of Salazar, the issue of whether it acted judiciously is an entirely different matter.25 As businesses affected with public interest, and because of the nature of their functions, banks

are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. 26In this regard, petitioner was clearly remiss in its duty to private respondent Salazar as its depositor. To begin with, the irregularity appeared plainly on the face of the checks. Despite the obvious lack of indorsement thereon, petitioner permitted the encashment of these checks three times on three separate occasions. This negates petitioner’s claim that it merely made a mistake in crediting the value of the checks to Salazar’s account and instead bolsters the conclusion of the CA that petitioner recognized Salazar’s claim of ownership of checks and acted deliberately in paying the same, contrary to ordinary banking policy and practice. It must be emphasized that the law imposes a duty of diligence on the collecting bank to scrutinize checks deposited with it, for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. The collecting bank, being primarily engaged in banking, holds itself out to the public as the expert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a high standard of conduct. 27 The taking and collection of a check without the proper indorsement amount to a conversion of the check by the bank.28 More importantly, however, solely upon the prompting of Templonuevo, and with full knowledge of the brewing dispute between Salazar and Templonuevo, petitioner debited the account held in the name of the sole proprietorship of Salazar without even serving due notice upon her. This ran contrary to petitioner’s assurances to private respondent Salazar that the account would remain untouched, pending the resolution of the controversy between her and Templonuevo.29 In this connection, the CA cited the letter dated September 5, 1991 of Mr. Manuel Ablan, Senior Manager of petitioner bank’s Pasig/Ortigas branch, to private respondent Salazar informing her that her account had been frozen, thus: From the tenor of the letter of Manuel Ablan, it is safe to conclude that Account No. 0201-0588-48 will remain frozen or untouched until herein [Salazar] has settled matters with Templonuevo. But, in an unexpected move, in less than two weeks (eleven days to be precise) from the time that letter was written, [petitioner] bank issued a cashier’s check in the name of Julio R. Templonuevo of the J.R.T. Construction and Trading for the sum of P267,692.50 (Exhibit "8") and debited said amount from Ms. Arcilla’s account No. 0201-0588-48 which was supposed to be frozen or controlled. Such a move by BPI is, to Our minds, a clear case of negligence, if not a fraudulent, wanton and reckless disregard of the right of its depositor. The records further bear out the fact that respondent Salazar had issued several checks drawn against the account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services prior to any notice of deduction being served. The CA sustained private respondent Salazar’s claim of damages in this regard: The act of the bank in freezing and later debiting the amount of P267,692.50 from the account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services caused plaintiff-appellee great damage and prejudice particularly when she had already issued checks drawn against the said account. As can be expected, the said checks bounced. To prove this, plaintiff-appellee presented as exhibits photocopies of checks dated September 8, 1991, October 28, 1991, and November 14, 1991 (Exhibits "D", "E" and "F" respectively) 30 These checks, it must be emphasized, were subsequently dishonored, thereby causing private respondent Salazar undue embarrassment and inflicting damage to her standing in the business community. Under the circumstances, she was clearly not given the opportunity to protect her interest when petitioner unilaterally withdrew the above amount from her account without informing her that it had already done so. For the above reasons, the Court finds no reason to disturb the award of damages granted by the CA against petitioner. This whole incident would have been avoided had petitioner adhered to the standard of diligence expected of one engaged in the banking business. A depositor has the right to recover reasonable moral damages even if the bank’s negligence may not have been attended with malice and bad faith, if the former suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation. 31 Moral damages are not meant to enrich a complainant at the expense of defendant. It is only intended to alleviate the moral suffering she has undergone. The award of exemplary damages is justified, on the other hand, when the acts of the bank are attended by malice, bad faith or gross negligence. The award of reasonable attorney’s fees is proper where exemplary damages are awarded. It is proper where depositors are compelled to litigate to protect their interest.32 WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 3, 1998 and Resolution dated April 3, 1998 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 42241 are MODIFIED insofar as it ordered petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands to return the amount of Two

Hundred Sixty-seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Seven and 70/100 Pesos (P267,707.70) to respondent Annabelle A. Salazar, which portion isREVERSED and SET ASIDE. In all other respects, the same are AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. EN BANC G.R. No. L-22405 June 30, 1971 PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAURICIO A. SORIANO, ET AL., defendant-appellees. Marcial Esposo for plaintiff-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and Attorney Concepcion Torrijos-Agapinan for defendants-appellees. DIZON, J.: An appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the complaint filed by the Philippine Education Co., Inc. against Mauricio A. Soriano, Enrico Palomar and Rafael Contreras. On April 18, 1958 Enrique Montinola sought to purchase from the Manila Post Office ten (10) money orders of P200.00 each payable to E.P. Montinola withaddress at Lucena, Quezon. After the postal teller had made out money ordersnumbered 124685, 124687-124695, Montinola offered to pay for them with a private checks were not generally accepted in payment of money orders, the teller advised him to see the Chief of the Money Order Division, but instead of doing so, Montinola managed to leave building with his own check and the ten(10) money orders without the knowledge of the teller. On the same date, April 18, 1958, upon discovery of the disappearance of the unpaid money orders, an urgent message was sent to all postmasters, and the following day notice was likewise served upon all banks, instructing them not to pay anyone of the money orders aforesaid if presented for payment. The Bank of America received a copy of said notice three days later. On April 23, 1958 one of the above-mentioned money orders numbered 124688 was received by appellant as part of its sales receipts. The following day it deposited the same with the Bank of America, and one day thereafter the latter cleared it with the Bureau of Posts and received from the latter its face value of P200.00. On September 27, 1961, appellee Mauricio A. Soriano, Chief of the Money Order Division of the Manila Post Office, acting for and in behalf of his co-appellee, Postmaster Enrico Palomar, notified the Bank of America that money order No. 124688 attached to his letter had been found to have been irregularly issued and that, in view thereof, the amount it represented had been deducted from the bank's clearing account. For its part, on August 2 of the same year, the Bank of America debited appellant's account with the same amount and gave it advice thereof by means of a debit memo. On October 12, 1961 appellant requested the Postmaster General to reconsider the action taken by his office deducting the sum of P200.00 from the clearing account of the Bank of America, but his request was denied. So was appellant's subsequent request that the matter be referred to the Secretary of Justice for advice. Thereafter, appellant elevated the matter to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, but the latter sustained the actions taken by the postal officers. In connection with the events set forth above, Montinola was charged with theft in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 43866) but after trial he was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.

On January 8, 1962 appellant filed an action against appellees in the Municipal Court of Manila praying for judgment as follows: WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that after hearing defendants be ordered: (a) To countermand the notice given to the Bank of America on September 27, 1961, deducting from the said Bank's clearing account the sum of P200.00 represented by postal money order No. 124688, or in the alternative indemnify the plaintiff in the same amount with interest at 8-½% per annum from September 27, 1961, which is the rate of interest being paid by plaintiff on its overdraft account; (b) To pay to the plaintiff out of their own personal funds, jointly and severally, actual and moral damages in the amount of P1,000.00 or in such amount as will be proved and/or determined by this Honorable Court: exemplary damages in the amount of P1,000.00, attorney's fees of P1,000.00, and the costs of action. Plaintiff also prays for such other and further relief as may be deemed just and equitable. On November 17, 1962, after the parties had submitted the stipulation of facts reproduced at pages 12 to 15 of the Record on Appeal, the above-named court rendered judgment as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the defendants to countermand the notice given to the Bank of America on September 27, 1961, deducting from said Bank's clearing account the sum of P200.00 representing the amount of postal money order No. 124688, or in the alternative, to indemnify the plaintiff in the said sum of P200.00 with interest thereon at the rate of 8-½% per annum from September 27, 1961 until fully paid; without any pronouncement as to cost and attorney's fees. The case was appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila where, after the parties had resubmitted the same stipulation of facts, the appealed decision dismissing the complaint, with costs, was rendered. The first, second and fifth assignments of error discussed in appellant's brief are related to the other and will therefore be discussed jointly. They raise this main issue: that the postal money order in question is a negotiable instrument; that its nature as such is not in anyway affected by the letter dated October 26, 1948 signed by the Director of Posts and addressed to all banks with a clearing account with the Post Office, and that money orders, once issued, create a contractual relationship of debtor and creditor, respectively, between the government, on the one hand, and the remitters payees or endorses, on the other. It is not disputed that our postal statutes were patterned after statutes in force in the United States. For this reason, ours are generally construed in accordance with the construction given in the United States to their own postal statutes, in the absence of any special reason justifying a departure from this policy or practice. The weight of authority in the United States is that postal money orders are not negotiable instruments (Bolognesi vs. U.S. 189 Fed. 395; U.S. vs. Stock Drawers National Bank, 30 Fed. 912), the reason behind this rule being that, in establishing and operating a postal money order system, the government is not engaging in commercial transactions but merely exercises a governmental power for the public benefit. It is to be noted in this connection that some of the restrictions imposed upon money orders by postal laws and regulations are inconsistent with the character of negotiable instruments. For instance, such laws and regulations usually provide for not more than one endorsement; payment of money orders may be withheld under a variety of circumstances (49 C.J. 1153). Of particular application to the postal money order in question are the conditions laid down in the letter of the Director of Posts of October 26, 1948 (Exhibit 3) to the Bank of America for the redemption of postal money orders received by it from its depositors. Among others, the condition is imposed that "in cases of adverse claim, the money order or money orders involved will be returned to you (the bank) and the, corresponding amount will have to be refunded to the Postmaster, Manila, who reserves the right to deduct the value thereof from any amount due you if such step is deemed necessary." The conditions thus imposed in order to enable the bank to continue enjoying the facilities theretofore enjoyed by its depositors, were accepted by the Bank of America. The latter is therefore bound by them. That it is so is clearly referred from the fact that, upon receiving advice that the amount represented by the money order in question had been deducted from its clearing account with the Manila Post Office, it did not file any protest

against such action. Moreover, not being a party to the understanding existing between the postal officers, on the one hand, and the Bank of America, on the other, appellant has no right to assail the terms and conditions thereof on the ground that the letter setting forth the terms and conditions aforesaid is void because it was not issued by a Department Head in accordance with Sec. 79 (B) of the Revised Administrative Code. In reality, however, said legal provision does not apply to the letter in question because it does not provide for a department regulation but merely sets down certain conditions upon the privilege granted to the Bank of Amrica to accept and pay postal money orders presented for payment at the Manila Post Office. Such being the case, it is clear that the Director of Posts had ample authority to issue it pursuant to Sec. 1190 of the Revised Administrative Code. In view of the foregoing, We do not find it necessary to resolve the issues raised in the third and fourth assignments of error. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision being in accordance with law, the same is hereby affirmed with costs. SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents. Bito, Lozada, Ortega & Castillo for petitioners. Nepomuceno, Hofileña & Guingona for private. REGALADO, J.: This petition for review on certiorari impugns and seeks the reversal of the decision promulgated by respondent court on March 8, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No. 23615 1 affirming with modifications, the earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XLII, 2 which dismissed the complaint filed therein by herein petitioner against respondent bank. The undisputed background of this case, as found by the court a quo and adopted by respondent court, appears of record: 1. On various dates, defendant, a commercial banking institution, through its Sucat Branch issued 280 certificates of time deposit (CTDs) in favor of one Angel dela Cruz who deposited with herein defendant the aggregate amount of P1,120,000.00, as follows: (Joint Partial Stipulation of Facts and Statement of Issues, Original Records, p. 207; Defendant's Exhibits 1 to 280); CTD Dates Serial Nos. Quantity Amount 22 26 2 4 5 5 5 8 9 9

Feb. Feb. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar.

82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82

90101 74602 74701 90127 74797 89965 70147 90001 90023 89991

CTD to to to to to to to to to to

90120 74691 74740 90146 94800 89986 90150 90020 90050 90000

20 90 40 20 4 22 4 20 28 10

P80,000 360,000 160,000 80,000 16,000 88,000 16,000 80,000 112,000 40,000

9 Mar. ——— Total ===== ========

82

90251

to

90272

280

22

88,000 ———— P1,120,000

2. Angel dela Cruz delivered the said certificates of time (CTDs) to herein plaintiff in connection with his purchased of fuel products from the latter (Original Record, p. 208). 3. Sometime in March 1982, Angel dela Cruz informed Mr. Timoteo Tiangco, the Sucat Branch Manger, that he lost all the certificates of time deposit in dispute. Mr. Tiangco advised said depositor to execute and submit a notarized Affidavit of Loss, as required by defendant bank's procedure, if he desired replacement of said lost CTDs (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 48-50). 4. On March 18, 1982, Angel dela Cruz executed and delivered to defendant bank the required Affidavit of Loss (Defendant's Exhibit 281). On the basis of said affidavit of loss, 280 replacement CTDs were issued in favor of said depositor (Defendant's Exhibits 282561). 5. On March 25, 1982, Angel dela Cruz negotiated and obtained a loan from defendant bank in the amount of Eight Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P875,000.00). On the same date, said depositor executed a notarized Deed of Assignment of Time Deposit (Exhibit 562) which stated, among others, that he (de la Cruz) surrenders to defendant bank "full control of the indicated time deposits from and after date" of the assignment and further authorizes said bank to pre-terminate, set-off and "apply the said time deposits to the payment of whatever amount or amounts may be due" on the loan upon its maturity (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 60-62). 6. Sometime in November, 1982, Mr. Aranas, Credit Manager of plaintiff Caltex (Phils.) Inc., went to the defendant bank's Sucat branch and presented for verification the CTDs declared lost by Angel dela Cruz alleging that the same were delivered to herein plaintiff "as security for purchases made with Caltex Philippines, Inc." by said depositor (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 54-68). 7. On November 26, 1982, defendant received a letter (Defendant's Exhibit 563) from herein plaintiff formally informing it of its possession of the CTDs in question and of its decision to pre-terminate the same. 8. On December 8, 1982, plaintiff was requested by herein defendant to furnish the former "a copy of the document evidencing the guarantee agreement with Mr. Angel dela Cruz" as well as "the details of Mr. Angel dela Cruz" obligation against which plaintiff proposed to apply the time deposits (Defendant's Exhibit 564). 9. No copy of the requested documents was furnished herein defendant. 10. Accordingly, defendant bank rejected the plaintiff's demand and claim for payment of the value of the CTDs in a letter dated February 7, 1983 (Defendant's Exhibit 566). 11. In April 1983, the loan of Angel dela Cruz with the defendant bank matured and fell due and on August 5, 1983, the latter set-off and applied the time deposits in question to the payment of the matured loan (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 130-131). 12. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff filed the instant complaint, praying that defendant bank be ordered to pay it the aggregate value of the certificates of time deposit of P1,120,000.00 plus accrued interest and compounded interest therein at 16% per annum, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. After trial, the court a quo rendered its decision dismissing the instant complaint. 3 On appeal, as earlier stated, respondent court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint, hence this petition wherein petitioner faults respondent court in ruling (1) that the subject certificates of deposit are non-negotiable despite being clearly negotiable instruments; (2) that petitioner did not become a holder in

due course of the said certificates of deposit; and (3) in disregarding the pertinent provisions of the Code of Commerce relating to lost instruments payable to bearer. 4 The instant petition is bereft of merit. A sample text of the certificates of time deposit is reproduced below to provide a better understanding of the issues involved in this recourse. SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 6778 Ayala Ave., Makati No. 90101 Metro Manila, Philippines SUCAT OFFICEP 4,000.00 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT Rate 16% Date of Maturity FEB. 23, 1984 FEB 22, 1982, 19____ This is to Certify that B E A R E R has deposited in this Bank the sum of PESOS: FOUR THOUSAND ONLY, SECURITY BANK SUCAT OFFICE P4,000 & 00 CTS Pesos, Philippine Currency, repayable to said depositor 731 days. after date, upon presentation and surrender of this certificate, with interest at the rate of 16% per cent per annum. (Sgd. Illegible) (Sgd. Illegible)

—————————— ——————————— AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES 5 Respondent court ruled that the CTDs in question are non-negotiable instruments, nationalizing as follows: . . . While it may be true that the word "bearer" appears rather boldly in the CTDs issued, it is important to note that after the word "BEARER" stamped on the space provided supposedly for the name of the depositor, the words "has deposited" a certain amount follows. The document further provides that the amount deposited shall be "repayable to said depositor" on the period indicated. Therefore, the text of the instrument(s) themselves manifest with clarity that they are payable, not to whoever purports to be the "bearer" but only to the specified person indicated therein, the depositor. In effect, the appellee bank acknowledges its depositor Angel dela Cruz as the person who made the deposit and further engages itself to pay said depositor the amount indicated thereon at the stipulated date. 6 We disagree with these findings and conclusions, and hereby hold that the CTDs in question are negotiable instruments. Section 1 Act No. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, enumerates the requisites for an instrument to become negotiable, viz: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty. The CTDs in question undoubtedly meet the requirements of the law for negotiability. The parties' bone of contention is with regard to requisite (d) set forth above. It is noted that Mr. Timoteo P. Tiangco, Security Bank's Branch Manager way back in 1982, testified in open court that the depositor reffered to in the CTDs is no other than Mr. Angel de la Cruz. xxx xxx xxx

Atty. Calida: q In other words Mr. Witness, you are saying that per books of the bank, the depositor referred (sic) in these certificates states that it was Angel dela Cruz? witness: a Yes, your Honor, and we have the record to show that Angel dela Cruz was the one who cause (sic) the amount. Atty. Calida: q And no other person or entity or company, Mr. Witness? witness: a None, your Honor. 7 xxx xxx xxx

Atty. Calida: q Mr. Witness, who is the depositor identified in all of these certificates of time deposit insofar as the bank is concerned? witness: a Angel dela Cruz is the depositor. 8 xxx xxx xxx

On this score, the accepted rule is that the negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is determined from the writing, that is, from the face of the instrument itself. 9 In the construction of a bill or note, the intention of the parties is to control, if it can be legally ascertained. 10 While the writing may be read in the light of surrounding circumstances in order to more perfectly understand the intent and meaning of the parties, yet as they have constituted the writing to be the only outward and visible expression of their meaning, no other words are to be added to it or substituted in its stead. The duty of the court in such case is to ascertain, not what the parties may have secretly intended as contradistinguished from what their words express, but what is the meaning of the words they have used. What the parties meant must be determined by what they said. 11 Contrary to what respondent court held, the CTDs are negotiable instruments. The documents provide that the amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor. And who, according to the document, is the depositor? It is the "bearer." The documents do not say that the depositor is Angel de la Cruz and that the amounts deposited are repayable specifically to him. Rather, the amounts are to be repayable to the bearer of the documents or, for that matter, whosoever may be the bearer at the time of presentment. If it was really the intention of respondent bank to pay the amount to Angel de la Cruz only, it could have with facility so expressed that fact in clear and categorical terms in the documents, instead of having the word "BEARER" stamped on the space provided for the name of the depositor in each CTD. On the wordings of the documents, therefore, the amounts deposited are repayable to whoever may be the bearer thereof. Thus, petitioner's aforesaid witness merely declared that Angel de la Cruz is the depositor "insofar as the bank is concerned," but obviously other parties not privy to the transaction between them would not be in a position to know that the depositor is not the bearer stated in the CTDs. Hence, the situation would require any party dealing with the CTDs to go behind the plain import of what is written thereon to unravel the agreement of the parties thereto through facts aliunde. This need for resort to extrinsic evidence is what is sought to be avoided by the Negotiable Instruments Law and calls for the application of the elementary rule that the interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. 12 The next query is whether petitioner can rightfully recover on the CTDs. This time, the answer is in the negative. The records reveal that Angel de la Cruz, whom petitioner chose not to implead in this suit for reasons of its own, delivered the CTDs amounting to P1,120,000.00 to petitioner without informing respondent bank thereof at any time. Unfortunately for petitioner, although the CTDs are bearer instruments, a valid negotiation thereof for the true purpose and agreement between it and De la Cruz, as

ultimately ascertained, requires both delivery and indorsement. For, although petitioner seeks to deflect this fact, the CTDs were in reality delivered to it as a security for De la Cruz' purchases of its fuel products. Any doubt as to whether the CTDs were delivered as payment for the fuel products or as a security has been dissipated and resolved in favor of the latter by petitioner's own authorized and responsible representative himself. In a letter dated November 26, 1982 addressed to respondent Security Bank, J.Q. Aranas, Jr., Caltex Credit Manager, wrote: ". . . These certificates of deposit were negotiated to us by Mr. Angel dela Cruz to guarantee his purchases of fuel products" (Emphasis ours.) 13 This admission is conclusive upon petitioner, its protestations notwithstanding. Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. 14 A party may not go back on his own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. 15 In the law of evidence, whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it. 16 If it were true that the CTDs were delivered as payment and not as security, petitioner's credit manager could have easily said so, instead of using the words "to guarantee" in the letter aforequoted. Besides, when respondent bank, as defendant in the court below, moved for a bill of particularity therein 17 praying, among others, that petitioner, as plaintiff, be required to aver with sufficient definiteness or particularity (a) the due date or dates of payment of the alleged indebtedness of Angel de la Cruz to plaintiff and (b) whether or not it issued a receipt showing that the CTDs were delivered to it by De la Cruz as payment of the latter's alleged indebtedness to it, plaintiff corporation opposed the motion. 18 Had it produced the receipt prayed for, it could have proved, if such truly was the fact, that the CTDs were delivered as payment and not as security. Having opposed the motion, petitioner now labors under the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. 19 Under the foregoing circumstances, this disquisition in Intergrated Realty Corporation, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. 20 is apropos: . . . Adverting again to the Court's pronouncements in Lopez, supra, we quote therefrom: The character of the transaction between the parties is to be determined by their intention, regardless of what language was used or what the form of the transfer was. If it was intended to secure the payment of money, it must be construed as a pledge; but if there was some other intention, it is not a pledge. However, even though a transfer, if regarded by itself, appears to have been absolute, its object and character might still be qualified and explained by contemporaneous writing declaring it to have been a deposit of the property as collateral security. It has been said that a transfer of property by the debtor to a creditor, even if sufficient on its face to make an absolute conveyance, should be treated as a pledge if the debt continues in inexistence and is not discharged by the transfer, and that accordingly the use of the terms ordinarily importing conveyance of absolute ownership will not be given that effect in such a transaction if they are also commonly used in pledges and mortgages and therefore do not unqualifiedly indicate a transfer of absolute ownership, in the absence of clear and unambiguous language or other circumstances excluding an intent to pledge. Petitioner's insistence that the CTDs were negotiated to it begs the question. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, an instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof, 21 and a holder may be the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. 22 In the present case, however, there was no negotiation in the sense of a transfer of the legal title to the CTDs in favor of petitioner in which situation, for obvious reasons, mere delivery of the bearer CTDs would have sufficed. Here, the delivery thereof only as security for the purchases of Angel de la Cruz (and we even disregard the fact that the amount involved was not disclosed) could at the most constitute petitioner only as a holder for value by reason of his lien. Accordingly, a negotiation for such purpose cannot be effected by mere delivery of the instrument since, necessarily, the terms thereof and the subsequent disposition of such security, in the event of non-payment of the principal obligation, must be contractually provided for.

The pertinent law on this point is that where the holder has a lien on the instrument arising from contract, he is deemed a holder for value to the extent of his lien. 23 As such holder of collateral security, he would be a pledgee but the requirements therefor and the effects thereof, not being provided for by the Negotiable Instruments Law, shall be governed by the Civil Code provisions on pledge of incorporeal rights, 24 which inceptively provide: Art. 2095. Incorporeal rights, evidenced by negotiable instruments, . . . may also be pledged. The instrument proving the right pledged shall be delivered to the creditor, and if negotiable, must be indorsed. Art. 2096. A pledge shall not take effect against third persons if a description of the thing pledged and the date of the pledge do not appear in a public instrument. Aside from the fact that the CTDs were only delivered but not indorsed, the factual findings of respondent court quoted at the start of this opinion show that petitioner failed to produce any document evidencing any contract of pledge or guarantee agreement between it and Angel de la Cruz. 25 Consequently, the mere delivery of the CTDs did not legally vest in petitioner any right effective against and binding upon respondent bank. The requirement under Article 2096 aforementioned is not a mere rule of adjective law prescribing the mode whereby proof may be made of the date of a pledge contract, but a rule of substantive law prescribing a condition without which the execution of a pledge contract cannot affect third persons adversely. 26 On the other hand, the assignment of the CTDs made by Angel de la Cruz in favor of respondent bank was embodied in a public instrument. 27 With regard to this other mode of transfer, the Civil Code specifically declares: Art. 1625. An assignment of credit, right or action shall produce no effect as against third persons, unless it appears in a public instrument, or the instrument is recorded in the Registry of Property in case the assignment involves real property. Respondent bank duly complied with this statutory requirement. Contrarily, petitioner, whether as purchaser, assignee or lien holder of the CTDs, neither proved the amount of its credit or the extent of its lien nor the execution of any public instrument which could affect or bind private respondent. Necessarily, therefore, as between petitioner and respondent bank, the latter has definitely the better right over the CTDs in question. Finally, petitioner faults respondent court for refusing to delve into the question of whether or not private respondent observed the requirements of the law in the case of lost negotiable instruments and the issuance of replacement certificates therefor, on the ground that petitioner failed to raised that issue in the lower court. 28 On this matter, we uphold respondent court's finding that the aspect of alleged negligence of private respondent was not included in the stipulation of the parties and in the statement of issues submitted by them to the trial court. 29The issues agreed upon by them for resolution in this case are: 1. Whether or not the CTDs as worded are negotiable instruments. 2. Whether or not defendant could legally apply the amount covered by the CTDs against the depositor's loan by virtue of the assignment (Annex "C"). 3. Whether or not there was legal compensation or set off involving the amount covered by the CTDs and the depositor's outstanding account with defendant, if any. 4. Whether or not plaintiff could compel defendant to preterminate the CTDs before the maturity date provided therein. 5. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to the proceeds of the CTDs. 6. Whether or not the parties can recover damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses from each other. As respondent court correctly observed, with appropriate citation of some doctrinal authorities, the foregoing enumeration does not include the issue of negligence on the part of respondent bank. An issue raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower court is barred by estoppel. 30 Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed by the parties and, consequently,

issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 31

Pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a case are properly raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privileged or impeaching matters. The determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions on appeal. 32 To accept petitioner's suggestion that respondent bank's supposed negligence may be considered encompassed by the issues on its right to preterminate and receive the proceeds of the CTDs would be tantamount to saying that petitioner could raise on appeal any issue. We agree with private respondent that the broad ultimate issue of petitioner's entitlement to the proceeds of the questioned certificates can be premised on a multitude of other legal reasons and causes of action, of which respondent bank's supposed negligence is only one. Hence, petitioner's submission, if accepted, would render a pre-trial delimitation of issues a useless exercise. 33 Still, even assuming arguendo that said issue of negligence was raised in the court below, petitioner still cannot have the odds in its favor. A close scrutiny of the provisions of the Code of Commerce laying down the rules to be followed in case of lost instruments payable to bearer, which it invokes, will reveal that said provisions, even assuming their applicability to the CTDs in the case at bar, are merely permissive and not mandatory. The very first article cited by petitioner speaks for itself. Art 548. The dispossessed owner, no matter for what cause it may be, may apply to the judge or court of competent jurisdiction, asking that the principal, interest or dividends due or about to become due, be not paid a third person, as well as in order to prevent the ownership of the instrument that a duplicate be issued him. (Emphasis ours.) xxx xxx xxx The use of the word "may" in said provision shows that it is not mandatory but discretionary on the part of the "dispossessed owner" to apply to the judge or court of competent jurisdiction for the issuance of a duplicate of the lost instrument. Where the provision reads "may," this word shows that it is not mandatory but discretional. 34 The word "may" is usually permissive, not mandatory. 35 It is an auxiliary verb indicating liberty, opportunity, permission and possibility. 36 Moreover, as correctly analyzed by private respondent, 37 Articles 548 to 558 of the Code of Commerce, on which petitioner seeks to anchor respondent bank's supposed negligence, merely established, on the one hand, a right of recourse in favor of a dispossessed owner or holder of a bearer instrument so that he may obtain a duplicate of the same, and, on the other, an option in favor of the party liable thereon who, for some valid ground, may elect to refuse to issue a replacement of the instrument. Significantly, none of the provisions cited by petitioner categorically restricts or prohibits the issuance a duplicate or replacement instrument sans compliance with the procedure outlined therein, and none establishes a mandatory precedent requirement therefor. WHEREFORE, on the modified premises above set forth, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 88866 February 18, 1991 METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GOLDEN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., LUCIA CASTILLO, MAGNO CASTILLO and GLORIA CASTILLO, respondents. Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for petitioner. Bengzon, Zarraga, Narciso, Cudala, Pecson & Bengson for Magno and Lucia Castillo.

Agapito S. Fajardo and Jaime M. Cabiles for respondent Golden Savings & Loan Association, Inc. CRUZ, J.:p This case, for all its seeming complexity, turns on a simple question of negligence. The facts, pruned of all non-essentials, are easily told. The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. is a commercial bank with branches throughout the Philippines and even abroad. Golden Savings and Loan Association was, at the time these events happened, operating in Calapan, Mindoro, with the other private respondents as its principal officers. In January 1979, a certain Eduardo Gomez opened an account with Golden Savings and deposited over a period of two months 38 treasury warrants with a total value of P1,755,228.37. They were all drawn by the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority and purportedly signed by its General Manager and countersigned by its Auditor. Six of these were directly payable to Gomez while the others appeared to have been indorsed by their respective payees, followed by Gomez as second indorser. 1 On various dates between June 25 and July 16, 1979, all these warrants were subsequently indorsed by Gloria Castillo as Cashier of Golden Savings and deposited to its Savings Account No. 2498 in the Metrobank branch in Calapan, Mindoro. They were then sent for clearing by the branch office to the principal office of Metrobank, which forwarded them to the Bureau of Treasury for special clearing. 2 More than two weeks after the deposits, Gloria Castillo went to the Calapan branch several times to ask whether the warrants had been cleared. She was told to wait. Accordingly, Gomez was meanwhile not allowed to withdraw from his account. Later, however, "exasperated" over Gloria's repeated inquiries and also as an accommodation for a "valued client," the petitioner says it finally decided to allow Golden Savings to withdraw from the proceeds of the warrants. 3 The first withdrawal was made on July 9, 1979, in the amount of P508,000.00, the second on July 13, 1979, in the amount of P310,000.00, and the third on July 16, 1979, in the amount of P150,000.00. The total withdrawal was P968.000.00. 4 In turn, Golden Savings subsequently allowed Gomez to make withdrawals from his own account, eventually collecting the total amount of P1,167,500.00 from the proceeds of the apparently cleared warrants. The last withdrawal was made on July 16, 1979. On July 21, 1979, Metrobank informed Golden Savings that 32 of the warrants had been dishonored by the Bureau of Treasury on July 19, 1979, and demanded the refund by Golden Savings of the amount it had previously withdrawn, to make up the deficit in its account. The demand was rejected. Metrobank then sued Golden Savings in the Regional Trial Court of Mindoro. 5 After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of Golden Savings, which, however, filed a motion for reconsideration even as Metrobank filed its notice of appeal. On November 4, 1986, the lower court modified its decision thus: ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Dismissing the complaint with costs against the plaintiff; 2. Dissolving and lifting the writ of attachment of the properties of defendant Golden Savings and Loan Association, Inc. and defendant Spouses Magno Castillo and Lucia Castillo; 3. Directing the plaintiff to reverse its action of debiting Savings Account No. 2498 of the sum of P1,754,089.00 and to reinstate and credit to such account such amount existing before the debit was made including the amount of P812,033.37 in favor of defendant Golden Savings and Loan Association, Inc. and thereafter, to allow defendant Golden Savings and Loan Association, Inc. to withdraw the amount outstanding thereon before the debit; 4. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant Golden Savings and Loan Association, Inc. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of P200,000.00.

5. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant Spouses Magno Castillo and Lucia Castillo attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of P100,000.00. SO ORDERED. On appeal to the respondent court, 6 the decision was affirmed, prompting Metrobank to file this petition for review on the following grounds: 1. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in disregarding and failing to apply the clear contractual terms and conditions on the deposit slips allowing Metrobank to charge back any amount erroneously credited. (a) Metrobank's right to charge back is not limited to instances where the checks or treasury warrants are forged or unauthorized. (b) Until such time as Metrobank is actually paid, its obligation is that of a mere collecting agent which cannot be held liable for its failure to collect on the warrants. 2. Under the lower court's decision, affirmed by respondent Court of Appeals, Metrobank is made to pay for warrants already dishonored, thereby perpetuating the fraud committed by Eduardo Gomez. 3. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not finding that as between Metrobank and Golden Savings, the latter should bear the loss. 4. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the treasury warrants involved in this case are not negotiable instruments. The petition has no merit. From the above undisputed facts, it would appear to the Court that Metrobank was indeed negligent in giving Golden Savings the impression that the treasury warrants had been cleared and that, consequently, it was safe to allow Gomez to withdraw the proceeds thereof from his account with it. Without such assurance, Golden Savings would not have allowed the withdrawals; with such assurance, there was no reason not to allow the withdrawal. Indeed, Golden Savings might even have incurred liability for its refusal to return the money that to all appearances belonged to the depositor, who could therefore withdraw it any time and for any reason he saw fit. It was, in fact, to secure the clearance of the treasury warrants that Golden Savings deposited them to its account with Metrobank. Golden Savings had no clearing facilities of its own. It relied on Metrobank to determine the validity of the warrants through its own services. The proceeds of the warrants were withheld from Gomez until Metrobank allowed Golden Savings itself to withdraw them from its own deposit. 7 It was only when Metrobank gave the go-signal that Gomez was finally allowed by Golden Savings to withdraw them from his own account. The argument of Metrobank that Golden Savings should have exercised more care in checking the personal circumstances of Gomez before accepting his deposit does not hold water. It was Gomez who was entrusting the warrants, not Golden Savings that was extending him a loan; and moreover, the treasury warrants were subject to clearing, pending which the depositor could not withdraw its proceeds. There was no question of Gomez's identity or of the genuineness of his signature as checked by Golden Savings. In fact, the treasury warrants were dishonored allegedly because of the forgery of the signatures of the drawers, not of Gomez as payee or indorser. Under the circumstances, it is clear that Golden Savings acted with due care and diligence and cannot be faulted for the withdrawals it allowed Gomez to make. By contrast, Metrobank exhibited extraordinary carelessness. The amount involved was not trifling — more than one and a half million pesos (and this was 1979). There was no reason why it should not have waited until the treasury warrants had been cleared; it would not have lost a single centavo by waiting. Yet, despite the lack of such clearance — and notwithstanding that it had not received a single centavo from the proceeds of the treasury warrants, as it now repeatedly stresses — it allowed Golden Savings to withdraw — not once, not twice, but thrice — from the uncleared treasury warrants in the total amount of P968,000.00

Its reason? It was "exasperated" over the persistent inquiries of Gloria Castillo about the clearance and it also wanted to "accommodate" a valued client. It "presumed" that the warrants had been cleared simply because of "the lapse of one week." 8 For a bank with its long experience, this explanation is unbelievably naive. And now, to gloss over its carelessness, Metrobank would invoke the conditions printed on the dorsal side of the deposit slips through which the treasury warrants were deposited by Golden Savings with its Calapan branch. The conditions read as follows: Kindly note that in receiving items on deposit, the bank obligates itself only as the depositor's collecting agent, assuming no responsibility beyond care in selecting correspondents, and until such time as actual payment shall have come into possession of this bank, the right is reserved to charge back to the depositor's account any amount previously credited, whether or not such item is returned. This also applies to checks drawn on local banks and bankers and their branches as well as on this bank, which are unpaid due to insufficiency of funds, forgery, unauthorized overdraft or any other reason. (Emphasis supplied.) According to Metrobank, the said conditions clearly show that it was acting only as a collecting agent for Golden Savings and give it the right to "charge back to the depositor's account any amount previously credited, whether or not such item is returned. This also applies to checks ". . . which are unpaid due to insufficiency of funds, forgery, unauthorized overdraft of any other reason." It is claimed that the said conditions are in the nature of contractual stipulations and became binding on Golden Savings when Gloria Castillo, as its Cashier, signed the deposit slips. Doubt may be expressed about the binding force of the conditions, considering that they have apparently been imposed by the bank unilaterally, without the consent of the depositor. Indeed, it could be argued that the depositor, in signing the deposit slip, does so only to identify himself and not to agree to the conditions set forth in the given permit at the back of the deposit slip. We do not have to rule on this matter at this time. At any rate, the Court feels that even if the deposit slip were considered a contract, the petitioner could still not validly disclaim responsibility thereunder in the light of the circumstances of this case. In stressing that it was acting only as a collecting agent for Golden Savings, Metrobank seems to be suggesting that as a mere agent it cannot be liable to the principal. This is not exactly true. On the contrary, Article 1909 of the Civil Code clearly provides that — Art. 1909. — The agent is responsible not only for fraud, but also for negligence, which shall be judged 'with more or less rigor by the courts, according to whether the agency was or was not for a compensation. The negligence of Metrobank has been sufficiently established. To repeat for emphasis, it was the clearance given by it that assured Golden Savings it was already safe to allow Gomez to withdraw the proceeds of the treasury warrants he had deposited Metrobank misled Golden Savings. There may have been no express clearance, as Metrobank insists (although this is refuted by Golden Savings) but in any case that clearance could be implied from its allowing Golden Savings to withdraw from its account not only once or even twice but three times. The total withdrawal was in excess of its original balance before the treasury warrants were deposited, which only added to its belief that the treasury warrants had indeed been cleared. Metrobank's argument that it may recover the disputed amount if the warrants are not paid for any reason is not acceptable. Any reason does not mean no reason at all. Otherwise, there would have been no need at all for Golden Savings to deposit the treasury warrants with it for clearance. There would have been no need for it to wait until the warrants had been cleared before paying the proceeds thereof to Gomez. Such a condition, if interpreted in the way the petitioner suggests, is not binding for being arbitrary and unconscionable. And it becomes more so in the case at bar when it is considered that the supposed dishonor of the warrants was not communicated to Golden Savings before it made its own payment to Gomez. The belated notification aggravated the petitioner's earlier negligence in giving express or at least implied clearance to the treasury warrants and allowing payments therefrom to Golden Savings. But that is not all.

On top of this, the supposed reason for the dishonor, to wit, the forgery of the signatures of the general manager and the auditor of the drawer corporation, has not been established. 9 This was the finding of the lower courts which we see no reason to disturb. And as we said in MWSS v. Court of Appeals: 10 Forgery cannot be presumed (Siasat, et al. v. IAC, et al., 139 SCRA 238). It must be established by clear, positive and convincing evidence. This was not done in the present case. A no less important consideration is the circumstance that the treasury warrants in question are not negotiable instruments. Clearly stamped on their face is the word "non-negotiable." Moreover, and this is of equal significance, it is indicated that they are payable from a particular fund, to wit, Fund 501. The following sections of the Negotiable Instruments Law, especially the underscored parts, are pertinent: Sec. 1. — Form of negotiable instruments. — An instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following requirements: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 3. When promise is unconditional. — An unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this Act though coupled with — (a) An indication of a particular fund out of which reimbursement is to be made or a particular account to be debited with the amount; or (b) A statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument judgment. But an order or promise to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional. The indication of Fund 501 as the source of the payment to be made on the treasury warrants makes the order or promise to pay "not unconditional" and the warrants themselves non-negotiable. There should be no question that the exception on Section 3 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is applicable in the case at bar. This conclusion conforms to Abubakar vs. Auditor General 11 where the Court held: The petitioner argues that he is a holder in good faith and for value of a negotiable instrument and is entitled to the rights and privileges of a holder in due course, free from defenses. But this treasury warrant is not within the scope of the negotiable instrument law. For one thing, the document bearing on its face the words "payable from the appropriation for food administration, is actually an Order for payment out of "a particular fund," and is not unconditional and does not fulfill one of the essential requirements of a negotiable instrument (Sec. 3 last sentence and section [1(b)] of the Negotiable Instruments Law). Metrobank cannot contend that by indorsing the warrants in general, Golden Savings assumed that they were "genuine and in all respects what they purport to be," in accordance with Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. The simple reason is that this law is not applicable to the non-negotiable treasury warrants. The indorsement was made by Gloria Castillo not for the purpose of guaranteeing the genuineness of the warrants but merely to deposit them with Metrobank for clearing. It was in fact Metrobank that made the guarantee when it stamped on the back of the warrants: "All prior indorsement and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed, Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., Calapan Branch." The petitioner lays heavy stress on Jai Alai Corporation v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 12 but we feel this case is inapplicable to the present controversy. That case involved checks whereas this case involves treasury warrants. Golden Savings never represented that the warrants were negotiable but signed them only for the purpose of depositing them for clearance. Also, the fact of forgery was proved in that case but not in the case

before us. Finally, the Court found the Jai Alai Corporation negligent in accepting the checks without question from one Antonio Ramirez notwithstanding that the payee was the Inter-Island Gas Services, Inc. and it did not appear that he was authorized to indorse it. No similar negligence can be imputed to Golden Savings.

We find the challenged decision to be basically correct. However, we will have to amend it insofar as it directs the petitioner to credit Golden Savings with the full amount of the treasury checks deposited to its account. The total value of the 32 treasury warrants dishonored was P1,754,089.00, from which Gomez was allowed to withdraw P1,167,500.00 before Golden Savings was notified of the dishonor. The amount he has withdrawn must be charged not to Golden Savings but to Metrobank, which must bear the consequences of its own negligence. But the balance of P586,589.00 should be debited to Golden Savings, as obviously Gomez can no longer be permitted to withdraw this amount from his deposit because of the dishonor of the warrants. Gomez has in fact disappeared. To also credit the balance to Golden Savings would unduly enrich it at the expense of Metrobank, let alone the fact that it has already been informed of the dishonor of the treasury warrants. WHEREFORE, the challenged decision is AFFIRMED, with the modification that Paragraph 3 of the dispositive portion of the judgment of the lower court shall be reworded as follows: 3. Debiting Savings Account No. 2498 in the sum of P586,589.00 only and thereafter allowing defendant Golden Savings & Loan Association, Inc. to withdraw the amount outstanding thereon, if any, after the debit. SO ORDERED. THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 89252 May 24, 1993 RAUL SESBREÑO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS BANK, respondents. Salva, Villanueva & Associates for Delta Motors Corporation. Reyes, Salazar & Associates for Pilipinas Bank. FELICIANO, J.: On 9 February 1981, petitioner Raul Sesbreño made a money market placement in the amount of P300,000.00 with the Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation ("Philfinance"), Cebu Branch; the placement, with a term of thirty-two (32) days, would mature on 13 March 1981, Philfinance, also on 9 February 1981, issued the following documents to petitioner: (a) the Certificate of Confirmation of Sale, "without recourse," No. 20496 of one (1) Delta Motors Corporation Promissory Note ("DMC PN") No. 2731 for a term of 32 days at 17.0% per annum; (b) the Certificate of securities Delivery Receipt No. 16587 indicating the sale of DMC PN No. 2731 to petitioner, with the notation that the said security was in custodianship of Pilipinas Bank, as per Denominated Custodian Receipt ("DCR") No. 10805 dated 9 February 1981; and (c) post-dated checks payable on 13 March 1981 (i.e., the maturity date of petitioner's investment), with petitioner as payee, Philfinance as drawer, and Insular Bank of Asia and America as drawee, in the total amount of P304,533.33. On 13 March 1981, petitioner sought to encash the postdated checks issued by Philfinance. However, the checks were dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.

On 26 March 1981, Philfinance delivered to petitioner the DCR No. 10805 issued by private respondent Pilipinas Bank ("Pilipinas"). It reads as follows: PILIPINAS BANK Makati Stock Exchange Bldg., Ayala Avenue, Makati, Metro Manila February 9, 1981 ——————— VALUE DATE TO Raul Sesbreño April 6, 1981 ———————— MATURITY DATE NO. 10805 DENOMINATED CUSTODIAN RECEIPT This confirms that as a duly Custodian Bank, and upon instruction of PHILIPPINE UNDERWRITES FINANCE CORPORATION, we have in our custody the following securities to you [sic] the extent herein indicated. SERIAL MAT. FACE ISSUED REGISTERED AMOUNT NUMBER DATE VALUE BY HOLDER PAYEE 2731 4-6-81 2,300,833.34 DMC PHIL. 307,933.33 UNDERWRITERS FINANCE CORP. We further certify that these securities may be inspected by you or your duly authorized representative at any time during regular banking hours. Upon your written instructions we shall undertake physical delivery of the above securities fully assigned to you should this Denominated Custodianship Receipt remain outstanding in your favor thirty (30) days after its maturity. PILIPINAS BANK (By Elizabeth De Villa Illegible Signature) 1 On 2 April 1981, petitioner approached Ms. Elizabeth de Villa of private respondent Pilipinas, Makati Branch, and handed her a demand letter informing the bank that his placement with Philfinance in the amount reflected in the DCR No. 10805 had remained unpaid and outstanding, and that he in effect was asking for the physical delivery of the underlying promissory note. Petitioner then examined the original of the DMC PN No. 2731 and found: that the security had been issued on 10 April 1980; that it would mature on 6 April 1981; that it had a face value of P2,300,833.33, with the Philfinance as "payee" and private respondent Delta Motors Corporation ("Delta") as "maker;" and that on face of the promissory note was stamped "NON NEGOTIABLE." Pilipinas did not deliver the Note, nor any certificate of participation in respect thereof, to petitioner. Petitioner later made similar demand letters, dated 3 July 1981 and 3 August 1981, 2 again asking private respondent Pilipinas for physical delivery of the original of DMC PN No. 2731. Pilipinas allegedly referred all of petitioner's demand letters to Philfinance for written instructions, as has been supposedly agreed upon in "Securities Custodianship Agreement" between Pilipinas and Philfinance. Philfinance did not provide the appropriate instructions; Pilipinas never released DMC PN No. 2731, nor any other instrument in respect thereof, to petitioner. Petitioner also made a written demand on 14 July 1981 3 upon private respondent Delta for the partial satisfaction of DMC PN No. 2731, explaining that Philfinance, as payee thereof, had assigned to him said Note

to the extent of P307,933.33. Delta, however, denied any liability to petitioner on the promissory note, and explained in turn that it had previously agreed with Philfinance to offset its DMC PN No. 2731 (along with DMC PN No. 2730) against Philfinance PN No. 143-A issued in favor of Delta.

In the meantime, Philfinance, on 18 June 1981, was placed under the joint management of the Securities and exchange commission ("SEC") and the Central Bank. Pilipinas delivered to the SEC DMC PN No. 2731, which to date apparently remains in the custody of the SEC. 4 As petitioner had failed to collect his investment and interest thereon, he filed on 28 September 1982 an action for damages with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Cebu City, Branch 21, against private respondents Delta and Pilipinas. 5 The trial court, in a decision dated 5 August 1987, dismissed the complaint and counterclaims for lack of merit and for lack of cause of action, with costs against petitioner. Petitioner appealed to respondent Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 15195. In a Decision dated 21 March 1989, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and held: 6 Be that as it may, from the evidence on record, if there is anyone that appears liable for the travails of plaintiff-appellant, it is Philfinance. As correctly observed by the trial court: This act of Philfinance in accepting the investment of plaintiff and charging it against DMC PN No. 2731 when its entire face value was already obligated or earmarked for set-off or compensation is difficult to comprehend and may have been motivated with bad faith. Philfinance, therefore, is solely and legally obligated to return the investment of plaintiff, together with its earnings, and to answer all the damages plaintiff has suffered incident thereto. Unfortunately for plaintiff, Philfinance was not impleaded as one of the defendants in this case at bar; hence, this Court is without jurisdiction to pronounce judgement against it. (p. 11, Decision) WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in toto. Cost against plaintiff-appellant. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the above Decision, without success. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari. After consideration of the allegations contained and issues raised in the pleadings, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda. 7 Petitioner reiterates the assignment of errors he directed at the trial court decision, and contends that respondent court of Appeals gravely erred: (i) in concluding that he cannot recover from private respondent Delta his assigned portion of DMC PN No. 2731; (ii) in failing to hold private respondent Pilipinas solidarily liable on the DMC PN No. 2731 in view of the provisions stipulated in DCR No. 10805 issued in favor r of petitioner, and (iii) in refusing to pierce the veil of corporate entity between Philfinance, and private respondents Delta and Pilipinas, considering that the three (3) entities belong to the "Silverio Group of Companies" under the leadership of Mr. Ricardo Silverio, Sr. 8 There are at least two (2) sets of relationships which we need to address: firstly, the relationship of petitioner vis-a-visDelta; secondly, the relationship of petitioner in respect of Pilipinas. Actually, of course, there is a third relationship that is of critical importance: the relationship of petitioner and Philfinance. However, since Philfinance has not been impleaded in this case, neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction over the person of Philfinance. It is, consequently, not necessary for present purposes to deal with this third relationship, except to the extent it necessarily impinges upon or intersects the first and second relationships. I. We consider first the relationship between petitioner and Delta. The Court of appeals in effect held that petitioner acquired no rights vis-a-vis Delta in respect of the Delta promissory note (DMC PN No. 2731) which Philfinance sold "without recourse" to petitioner, to the extent of P304,533.33. The Court of Appeals said on this point:

Nor could plaintiff-appellant have acquired any right over DMC PN No. 2731 as the same is "non-negotiable" as stamped on its face (Exhibit "6"), negotiation being defined as the transfer of an instrument from one person to another so as to constitute the transferee the holder of the instrument (Sec. 30, Negotiable Instruments Law). A person not a holder cannot sue on the instrument in his own name and cannot demand or receive payment (Section 51, id.) 9 Petitioner admits that DMC PN No. 2731 was non-negotiable but contends that the Note had been validly transferred, in part to him by assignment and that as a result of such transfer, Delta as debtor-maker of the Note, was obligated to pay petitioner the portion of that Note assigned to him by the payee Philfinance. Delta, however, disputes petitioner's contention and argues: (1) that DMC PN No. 2731 was not intended to be negotiated or otherwise transferred by Philfinance as manifested by the word "non-negotiable" stamp across the face of the Note 10 and because maker Delta and payee Philfinance intended that this Note would be offset against the outstanding obligation of Philfinance represented by Philfinance PN No. 143-A issued to Delta as payee; (2) that the assignment of DMC PN No. 2731 by Philfinance was without Delta's consent, if not against its instructions; and (3) assuming (arguendo only) that the partial assignment in favor of petitioner was valid, petitioner took the Note subject to the defenses available to Delta, in particular, the offsetting of DMC PN No. 2731 against Philfinance PN No. 143-A. 11 We consider Delta's arguments seriatim. Firstly, it is important to bear in mind that the negotiation of a negotiable instrument must be distinguished from theassignment or transfer of an instrument whether that be negotiable or non-negotiable. Only an instrument qualifying as a negotiable instrument under the relevant statute may be negotiated either by indorsement thereof coupled with delivery, or by delivery alone where the negotiable instrument is in bearer form. A negotiable instrument may, however, instead of being negotiated, also be assigned or transferred. The legal consequences of negotiation as distinguished from assignment of a negotiable instrument are, of course, different. A non-negotiable instrument may, obviously, not be negotiated; but it may be assigned or transferred, absent an express prohibition against assignment or transfer written in the face of the instrument: The words "not negotiable," stamped on the face of the bill of lading, did not destroy its assignability, but the sole effect was to exempt the bill from the statutory provisions relative thereto, and a bill, though not negotiable, may be transferred by assignment; the assignee taking subject to the equities between the original parties. 12 (Emphasis added) DMC PN No. 2731, while marked "non-negotiable," was not at the same time stamped "non-transferable" or "non-assignable." It contained no stipulation which prohibited Philfinance from assigning or transferring, in whole or in part, that Note. Delta adduced the "Letter of Agreement" which it had entered into with Philfinance and which should be quoted in full: April 10, 1980 Philippine Underwriters Finance Corp. Benavidez St., Makati, Metro Manila. Attention: Mr. Alfredo O. Banaria SVP-Treasurer GENTLEMEN: This refers to our outstanding placement of P4,601,666.67 as evidenced by your Promissory Note No. 143-A, dated April 10, 1980, to mature on April 6, 1981.

As agreed upon, we enclose our non-negotiable Promissory Note No. 2730 and 2731 for P2,000,000.00 each, dated April 10, 1980, to be offsetted [sic] against your PN No. 143-A upon co-terminal maturity. Please deliver the proceeds of our PNs to our representative, Mr. Eric Castillo. Very Truly Yours, (Sgd.) Florencio B. Biagan Senior Vice President 13 We find nothing in his "Letter of Agreement" which can be reasonably construed as a prohibition upon Philfinance assigning or transferring all or part of DMC PN No. 2731, before the maturity thereof. It is scarcely necessary to add that, even had this "Letter of Agreement" set forth an explicit prohibition of transfer upon Philfinance, such a prohibition cannot be invoked against an assignee or transferee of the Note who parted with valuable consideration in good faith and without notice of such prohibition. It is not disputed that petitioner was such an assignee or transferee. Our conclusion on this point is reinforced by the fact that what Philfinance and Delta were doing by their exchange of their promissory notes was this: Delta invested, by making a money market placement with Philfinance, approximately P4,600,000.00 on 10 April 1980; but promptly, on the same day, borrowed back the bulk of that placement, i.e., P4,000,000.00, by issuing its two (2) promissory notes: DMC PN No. 2730 and DMC PN No. 2731, both also dated 10 April 1980. Thus, Philfinance was left with not P4,600,000.00 but only P600,000.00 in cash and the two (2) Delta promissory notes. Apropos Delta's complaint that the partial assignment by Philfinance of DMC PN No. 2731 had been effected without the consent of Delta, we note that such consent was not necessary for the validity and enforceability of the assignment in favor of petitioner. 14 Delta's argument that Philfinance's sale or assignment of part of its rights to DMC PN No. 2731 constituted conventional subrogation, which required its (Delta's) consent, is quite mistaken. Conventional subrogation, which in the first place is never lightly inferred, 15 must be clearly established by the unequivocal terms of the substituting obligation or by the evident incompatibility of the new and old obligations on every point. 16 Nothing of the sort is present in the instant case. It is in fact difficult to be impressed with Delta's complaint, since it released its DMC PN No. 2731 to Philfinance, an entity engaged in the business of buying and selling debt instruments and other securities, and more generally, in money market transactions. In Perez v. Court of Appeals, 17 the Court, speaking through Mme. Justice Herrera, made the following important statement: There is another aspect to this case. What is involved here is a money market transaction. As defined by Lawrence Smith "the money market is a market dealing in standardized shortterm credit instruments (involving large amounts) where lenders and borrowers do not deal directly with each other but through a middle manor a dealer in the open market." It involves "commercial papers" which are instruments "evidencing indebtness of any person or entity. . ., which are issued, endorsed, sold or transferred or in any manner conveyed to another person or entity, with or without recourse". The fundamental function of the money market device in its operation is to match and bring together in a most impersonal manner both the "fund users" and the "fund suppliers." The money market is an "impersonal market", free from personal considerations. "The market mechanism is intended to provide quick mobility of money and securities." The impersonal character of the money market device overlooks the individuals or entities concerned. The issuer of a commercial paper in the money market necessarily knows in advance that it would be expenditiously transacted and transferred to any investor/lender without need of notice to said issuer. In practice, no notification is given to the borrower or issuer of commercial paper of the sale or transfer to the investor. xxx xxx xxx There is need to individuate a money market transaction, a relatively novel institution in the Philippine commercial scene. It has been intended to facilitate the flow and acquisition of capital on an impersonal basis. And as specifically required by Presidential Decree No.

678, the investing public must be given adequate and effective protection in availing of the credit of a borrower in the commercial paper market. 18(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied) We turn to Delta's arguments concerning alleged compensation or offsetting between DMC PN No. 2731 and Philfinance PN No. 143-A. It is important to note that at the time Philfinance sold part of its rights under DMC PN No. 2731 to petitioner on 9 February 1981, no compensation had as yet taken place and indeed none could have taken place. The essential requirements of compensation are listed in the Civil Code as follows: Art. 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary: (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) That both debts consists in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts are due; (4) That they be liquidated and demandable; (5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. (Emphasis supplied) On 9 February 1981, neither DMC PN No. 2731 nor Philfinance PN No. 143-A was due. This was explicitly recognized by Delta in its 10 April 1980 "Letter of Agreement" with Philfinance, where Delta acknowledged that the relevant promissory notes were "to be offsetted (sic) against [Philfinance] PN No. 143-A upon coterminal maturity." As noted, the assignment to petitioner was made on 9 February 1981 or from forty-nine (49) days before the "co-terminal maturity" date, that is to say, before any compensation had taken place. Further, the assignment to petitioner would have prevented compensation had taken place between Philfinance and Delta, to the extent of P304,533.33, because upon execution of the assignment in favor of petitioner, Philfinance and Delta would have ceased to be creditors and debtors of each other in their own right to the extent of the amount assigned by Philfinance to petitioner. Thus, we conclude that the assignment effected by Philfinance in favor of petitioner was a valid one and that petitioner accordingly became owner of DMC PN No. 2731 to the extent of the portion thereof assigned to him. The record shows, however, that petitioner notified Delta of the fact of the assignment to him only on 14 July 1981, 19 that is, after the maturity not only of the money market placement made by petitioner but also of both DMC PN No. 2731 and Philfinance PN No. 143-A. In other words, petitioner notified Delta of his rights as assignee after compensation had taken place by operation of law because the offsetting instruments had both reached maturity. It is a firmly settled doctrine that the rights of an assignee are not any greater that the rights of the assignor, since the assignee is merely substituted in the place of the assignor 20and that the assignee acquires his rights subject to the equities — i.e., the defenses — which the debtor could have set up against the original assignor before notice of the assignment was given to the debtor. Article 1285 of the Civil Code provides that: Art. 1285. The debtor who has consented to the assignment of rights made by a creditor in favor of a third person, cannot set up against the assignee the compensation which would pertain to him against the assignor, unless the assignor was notified by the debtor at the time he gave his consent, that he reserved his right to the compensation. If the creditor communicated the cession to him but the debtor did not consent thereto, the latter may set up the compensation of debts previous to the cession, but not of subsequent ones. If the assignment is made without the knowledge of the debtor, he may set up the compensation of all credits prior to the same and also later ones until he had knowledge of the assignment. (Emphasis supplied) Article 1626 of the same code states that: "the debtor who, before having knowledge of the assignment, pays his creditor shall be released from the obligation." In Sison v. Yap-Tico, 21 the Court explained that:

[n]o man is bound to remain a debtor; he may pay to him with whom he contacted to pay; and if he pay before notice that his debt has been assigned, the law holds him exonerated, for the reason that it is the duty of the person who has acquired a title by transfer to demand payment of the debt, to give his debt or notice. 22 At the time that Delta was first put to notice of the assignment in petitioner's favor on 14 July 1981, DMC PN No. 2731 had already been discharged by compensation. Since the assignor Philfinance could not have then compelled payment anew by Delta of DMC PN No. 2731, petitioner, as assignee of Philfinance, is similarly disabled from collecting from Delta the portion of the Note assigned to him. It bears some emphasis that petitioner could have notified Delta of the assignment or sale was effected on 9 February 1981. He could have notified Delta as soon as his money market placement matured on 13 March 1981 without payment thereof being made by Philfinance; at that time, compensation had yet to set in and discharge DMC PN No. 2731. Again petitioner could have notified Delta on 26 March 1981 when petitioner received from Philfinance the Denominated Custodianship Receipt ("DCR") No. 10805 issued by private respondent Pilipinas in favor of petitioner. Petitioner could, in fine, have notified Delta at any time before the maturity date of DMC PN No. 2731. Because petitioner failed to do so, and because the record is bare of any indication that Philfinance had itself notified Delta of the assignment to petitioner, the Court is compelled to uphold the defense of compensation raised by private respondent Delta. Of course, Philfinance remains liable to petitioner under the terms of the assignment made by Philfinance to petitioner. II. We turn now to the relationship between petitioner and private respondent Pilipinas. Petitioner contends that Pilipinas became solidarily liable with Philfinance and Delta when Pilipinas issued DCR No. 10805 with the following words: Upon your written instruction, we [Pilipinas] shall undertake physical delivery of the above securities fully assigned to you —. 23 The Court is not persuaded. We find nothing in the DCR that establishes an obligation on the part of Pilipinas to pay petitioner the amount of P307,933.33 nor any assumption of liability in solidum with Philfinance and Delta under DMC PN No. 2731. We read the DCR as a confirmation on the part of Pilipinas that: (1) it has in its custody, as duly constituted custodian bank, DMC PN No. 2731 of a certain face value, to mature on 6 April 1981 and payable to the order of Philfinance; (2) Pilipinas was, from and after said date of the assignment by Philfinance to petitioner (9 February 1981),holding that Note on behalf and for the benefit of petitioner, at least to the extent it had been assigned to petitioner by payee Philfinance; 24 (3) petitioner may inspect the Note either "personally or by authorized representative", at any time during regular bank hours; and

(4) upon written instructions of petitioner, Pilipinas would physically deliver the DMC PN No. 2731 (or a participation therein to the extent of P307,933.33) "should this Denominated Custodianship receipt remain outstanding in [petitioner's] favor thirty (30) days after its maturity." Thus, we find nothing written in printers ink on the DCR which could reasonably be read as converting Pilipinas into an obligor under the terms of DMC PN No. 2731 assigned to petitioner, either upon maturity thereof or any other time. We note that both in his complaint and in his testimony before the trial court, petitioner referred merely to the obligation of private respondent Pilipinas to effect the physical delivery to him of DMC PN No. 2731. 25 Accordingly, petitioner's theory that Pilipinas had assumed a solidary obligation to pay the amount represented by a portion of the Note assigned to him by Philfinance, appears to be a new theory constructed only after the trial court had ruled against him. The solidary liability that petitioner seeks to impute Pilipinas cannot, however, be lightly inferred. Under article 1207 of the Civil Code, "there is a solidary liability only when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity," The record here exhibits no express assumption of solidary liability vis-a-vis petitioner, on the part of Pilipinas. Petitioner has not pointed to us to any law which imposed such liability upon Pilipinas nor has petitioner argued that the very nature of the custodianship assumed by private respondent Pilipinas necessarily implies solidary liability under the securities,

custody of which was taken by Pilipinas. Accordingly, we are unable to hold Pilipinas solidarily liable with Philfinance and private respondent Delta under DMC PN No. 2731.

We do not, however, mean to suggest that Pilipinas has no responsibility and liability in respect of petitioner under the terms of the DCR. To the contrary, we find, after prolonged analysis and deliberation, that private respondent Pilipinas had breached its undertaking under the DCR to petitioner Sesbreño. We believe and so hold that a contract of deposit was constituted by the act of Philfinance in designating Pilipinas as custodian or depositary bank. The depositor was initially Philfinance; the obligation of the depository was owed, however, to petitioner Sesbreño as beneficiary of the custodianship or depository agreement. We do not consider that this is a simple case of a stipulation pour autri. The custodianship or depositary agreement was established as an integral part of the money market transaction entered into by petitioner with Philfinance. Petitioner bought a portion of DMC PN No. 2731; Philfinance as assignorvendor deposited that Note with Pilipinas in order that the thing sold would be placed outside the control of the vendor. Indeed, the constituting of the depositary or custodianship agreement was equivalent to constructive delivery of the Note (to the extent it had been sold or assigned to petitioner) to petitioner. It will be seen that custodianship agreements are designed to facilitate transactions in the money market by providing a basis for confidence on the part of the investors or placers that the instruments bought by them are effectively taken out of the pocket, as it were, of the vendors and placed safely beyond their reach, that those instruments will be there available to the placers of funds should they have need of them. The depositary in a contract of deposit is obliged to return the security or the thing deposited upon demand of the depositor (or, in the presented case, of the beneficiary) of the contract, even though a term for such return may have been established in the said contract. 26 Accordingly, any stipulation in the contract of deposit or custodianship that runs counter to the fundamental purpose of that agreement or which was not brought to the notice of and accepted by the placer-beneficiary, cannot be enforced as against such beneficiaryplacer. We believe that the position taken above is supported by considerations of public policy. If there is any party that needs the equalizing protection of the law in money market transactions, it is the members of the general public whom place their savings in such market for the purpose of generating interest revenues. 27 The custodian bank, if it is not related either in terms of equity ownership or management control to the borrower of the funds, or the commercial paper dealer, is normally a preferred or traditional banker of such borrower or dealer (here, Philfinance). The custodian bank would have every incentive to protect the interest of its client the borrower or dealer as against the placer of funds. The providers of such funds must be safeguarded from the impact of stipulations privately made between the borrowers or dealers and the custodian banks, and disclosed to fund-providers only after trouble has erupted. In the case at bar, the custodian-depositary bank Pilipinas refused to deliver the security deposited with it when petitioner first demanded physical delivery thereof on 2 April 1981. We must again note, in this connection, that on 2 April 1981, DMC PN No. 2731 had not yet matured and therefore, compensation or offsetting against Philfinance PN No. 143-A hadnot yet taken place. Instead of complying with the demand of the petitioner, Pilipinas purported to require and await the instructions of Philfinance, in obvious contravention of its undertaking under the DCR to effect physical delivery of the Note upon receipt of "written instructions" from petitioner Sesbreño. The ostensible term written into the DCR (i.e., "should this [DCR] remain outstanding in your favor thirty [30] days after its maturity") was not a defense against petitioner's demand for physical surrender of the Note on at least three grounds: firstly, such term was never brought to the attention of petitioner Sesbreño at the time the money market placement with Philfinance was made; secondly, such term runs counter to the very purpose of the custodianship or depositary agreement as an integral part of a money market transaction; and thirdly, it is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 1988 of the Civil Code noted above. Indeed, in principle, petitioner became entitled to demand physical delivery of the Note held by Pilipinas as soon as petitioner's money market placement matured on 13 March 1981 without payment from Philfinance. We conclude, therefore, that private respondent Pilipinas must respond to petitioner for damages sustained by arising out of its breach of duty. By failing to deliver the Note to the petitioner as depositor-beneficiary of the thing deposited, Pilipinas effectively and unlawfully deprived petitioner of the Note deposited with it. Whether or not Pilipinas itself benefitted from such conversion or unlawful deprivation inflicted upon petitioner, is of no moment for present purposes.Prima facie, the damages suffered by petitioner consisted of P304,533.33, the portion of the DMC PN No. 2731 assigned to petitioner but lost by him by reason of

discharge of the Note by compensation, plus legal interest of six percent (6%)per annum containing from 14 March 1981. The conclusion we have reached is, of course, without prejudice to such right of reimbursement as Pilipinas may havevis-a-vis Philfinance. III. The third principal contention of petitioner — that Philfinance and private respondents Delta and Pilipinas should be treated as one corporate entity — need not detain us for long. In the first place, as already noted, jurisdiction over the person of Philfinance was never acquired either by the trial court nor by the respondent Court of Appeals. Petitioner similarly did not seek to implead Philfinance in the Petition before us. Secondly, it is not disputed that Philfinance and private respondents Delta and Pilipinas have been organized as separate corporate entities. Petitioner asks us to pierce their separate corporate entities, but has been able only to cite the presence of a common Director — Mr. Ricardo Silverio, Sr., sitting on the Board of Directors of all three (3) companies. Petitioner has neither alleged nor proved that one or another of the three (3) concededly related companies used the other two (2) as mere alter egos or that the corporate affairs of the other two (2) were administered and managed for the benefit of one. There is simply not enough evidence of record to justify disregarding the separate corporate personalities of delta and Pilipinas and to hold them liable for any assumed or undetermined liability of Philfinance to petitioner. 28 WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 15195 dated 21 march 1989 and 17 July 1989, respectively, are hereby MODIFIED and SET ASIDE, to the extent that such Decision and Resolution had dismissed petitioner's complaint against Pilipinas Bank. Private respondent Pilipinas bank is hereby ORDERED to indemnify petitioner for damages in the amount of P304,533.33, plus legal interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum counted from 2 April 1981. As so modified, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 113236

March 5, 2001

FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, respondents.

PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

QUISUMBING, J.: This petition assails the decision 1 dated December 29, 1993 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 29546, which affirmed the judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 113 in Civil Case No. PQ-7854-P, dismissing Firestone's complaint for damages. The facts of this case, adopted by the CA and based on findings by the trial court, are as follows: . . . [D]efendant is a banking corporation. It operates under a certificate of authority issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines, and among its activities, accepts savings and time deposits. Said defendant had as one of its client-depositors the Fojas-Arca Enterprises Company ("Fojas-Arca" for brevity). Fojas-Arca maintaining a special savings account with the defendant, the latter authorized and allowed withdrawals of funds therefrom through the medium of special withdrawal slips. These are supplied by the defendant to Fojas-Arca. In January 1978, plaintiff and Fojas-Arca entered into a "Franchised Dealership Agreement" (Exh. B) whereby Fojas-Arca has the privilege to purchase on credit and sell plaintiff's products. On January 14, 1978 up to May 15, 1978. Pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement, Fojas-Arca purchased on credit Firestone products from plaintiff with a total amount of P4,896,000.00. In payment of these purchases, Fojas-Arca delivered to plaintiff six (6) special withdrawal slips drawn

upon the defendant. In turn, these were deposited by the plaintiff with its current account with the Citibank. All of them were honored and paid by the defendant. This singular circumstance made plaintiff believe [sic] and relied [sic] on the fact that the succeeding special withdrawal slips drawn upon the defendant would be equally sufficiently funded. Relying on such confidence and belief and as a direct consequence thereof, plaintiff extended to Fojas-Arca other purchases on credit of its products. On the following dates Fojas-Arca purchased Firestone products on credit (Exh. M, I, J, K) and delivered to plaintiff the corresponding special withdrawal slips in payment thereof drawn upon the defendant, to wit: DATE

WITHDRAWAL SLIP NO.

AMOUNT

June 15, 1978

42127

P1,198,092.80

July 15, 1978

42128

940,190.00

Aug. 15, 1978

42129

880,000.00

Sep. 15, 1978

42130

981,500.00

These were likewise deposited by plaintiff in its current account with Citibank and in turn the Citibank forwarded it [sic] to the defendant for payment and collection, as it had done in respect of the previous special withdrawal slips. Out of these four (4) withdrawal slips only withdrawal slip No. 42130 in the amount of P981,500.00 was honored and paid by the defendant in October 1978. Because of the absence for a long period coupled with the fact that defendant honored and paid withdrawal slips No. 42128 dated July 15, 1978, in the amount of P981,500.00 plaintiff's belief was all the more strengthened that the other withdrawal slips were likewise sufficiently funded, and that it had received full value and payment of Fojas-Arca's credit purchased then outstanding at the time. On this basis, plaintiff was induced to continue extending to Fojas-Arca further purchase on credit of its products as per agreement (Exh. "B"). However, on December 14, 1978, plaintiff was informed by Citibank that special withdrawal slips No. 42127 dated June 15, 1978 for P1,198,092.80 and No. 42129 dated August 15, 1978 for P880,000.00 were dishonored and not paid for the reason 'NO ARRANGEMENT.' As a consequence, the Citibank debited plaintiff's account for the total sum of P2,078,092.80 representing the aggregate amount of the above-two special withdrawal slips. Under such situation, plaintiff averred that the pecuniary losses it suffered is caused by and directly attributable to defendant's gross negligence. On September 25, 1979, counsel of plaintiff served a written demand upon the defendant for the satisfaction of the damages suffered by it. And due to defendant's refusal to pay plaintiff's claim, plaintiff has been constrained to file this complaint, thereby compelling plaintiff to incur litigation expenses and attorney's fees which amount are recoverable from the defendant. Controverting the foregoing asseverations of plaintiff, defendant asserted, inter alia that the transactions mentioned by plaintiff are that of plaintiff and Fojas-Arca only, [in] which defendant is not involved; Vehemently, it was denied by defendant that the special withdrawal slips were honored and treated as if it were checks, the truth being that when the special withdrawal slips were received by defendant, it only verified whether or not the signatures therein were authentic, and whether or not the deposit level in the passbook concurred with the savings ledger, and whether or not the deposit is sufficient to cover the withdrawal; if plaintiff treated the special withdrawal slips paid by Fojas-Arca as checks then plaintiff has to blame itself for being grossly negligent in treating the withdrawal slips as check when it is clearly stated therein that the withdrawal slips are non-

negotiable; that defendant is not a privy to any of the transactions between Fojas-Arca and plaintiff for which reason defendant is not duty bound to notify nor give notice of anything to plaintiff. If at first defendant had given notice to plaintiff it is merely an extension of usual bank courtesy to a prospective client; that defendant is only dealing with its depositor Fojas-Arca and not the plaintiff. In summation, defendant categorically stated that plaintiff has no cause of action against it (pp. 1-3, Dec.; pp. 368-370, id).3 Petitioner's complaint4 for a sum of money and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 113, docketed as Civil Case No. 29546, was dismissed together with the counterclaim of defendant. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. It averred that respondent Luzon Development Bank was liable for damages under Article 2176 5 in relation to Articles 196 and 207 of the Civil Code. As noted by the CA, petitioner alleged the following tortious acts on the part of private respondent: 1) the acceptance and payment of the special withdrawal slips without the presentation of the depositor's passbook thereby giving the impression that the withdrawal slips are instruments payable upon presentment; 2) giving the special withdrawal slips the general appearance of checks; and 3) the failure of respondent bank to seasonably warn petitioner that it would not honor two of the four special withdrawal slips. On December 29, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed decision. It denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. According to the appellate court, respondent bank notified the depositor to present the passbook whenever it received a collection note from another bank, belying petitioner's claim that respondent bank was negligent in not requiring a passbook under the subject transaction. The appellate court also found that the special withdrawal slips in question were not purposely given the appearance of checks, contrary to petitioner's assertions, and thus should not have been mistaken for checks. Lastly, the appellate court ruled that the respondent bank was under no obligation to inform petitioner of the dishonor of the special withdrawal slips, for to do so would have been a violation of the law on the secrecy of bank deposits. Hence, the instant petition, alleging the following assignment of error: 25. The CA grievously erred in holding that the [Luzon Development] Bank was free from any fault or negligence regarding the dishonor, or in failing to give fair and timely advice of the dishonor, of the twointermediate LDB Slips and in failing to award damages to Firestone pursuant to Article 2176 of the New Civil Code.8 The issue for our consideration is whether or not respondent bank should be held liable for damages suffered by petitioner, due to its allegedly belated notice of non-payment of the subject withdrawal slips. The initial transaction in this case was between petitioner and Fojas-Arca, whereby the latter purchased tires from the former with special withdrawal slips drawn upon Fojas-Arca's special savings account with respondent bank. Petitioner in turn deposited these withdrawal slips with Citibank. The latter credited the same to petitioner's current account, then presented the slips for payment to respondent bank. It was at this point that the bone of contention arose. On December 14, 1978, Citibank informed petitioner that special withdrawal slips Nos. 42127 and 42129 dated June 15, 1978 and August 15, 1978, respectively, were refused payment by respondent bank due to insufficiency of Fojas-Arca's funds on deposit. That information came about six months from the time FojasArca purchased tires from petitioner using the subject withdrawal slips. Citibank then debited the amount of these withdrawal slips from petitioner's account, causing the alleged pecuniary damage subject of petitioner's cause of action. At the outset, we note that petitioner admits that the withdrawal slips in question were nonnegotiable.9 Hence, the rules governing the giving of immediate notice of dishonor of negotiable instruments do not apply in this case. 10Petitioner itself concedes this point.11 Thus, respondent bank was under no obligation to give immediate notice that it would not make payment on the subject withdrawal slips. Citibank should have known that withdrawal slips were not negotiable instruments. It could not expect these slips to be treated as checks by other entities. Payment or notice of dishonor from respondent bank could not be expected immediately, in contrast to the situation involving checks. In the case at bar, it appears that Citibank, with the knowledge that respondent Luzon Development Bank,

had honored and paid the previous withdrawal slips, automatically credited petitioner's current account with the amount of the subject withdrawal slips, then merely waited for the same to be honored and paid by respondent bank. It presumed that the withdrawal slips were "good." It bears stressing that Citibank could not have missed the non-negotiable nature of the withdrawal slips. The essence of negotiability which characterizes a negotiable paper as a credit instrument lies in its freedom to circulate freely as a substitute for money.12 The withdrawal slips in question lacked this character. A bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions of pesos. 13 The fact that the other withdrawal slips were honored and paid by respondent bank was no license for Citibank to presume that subsequent slips would be honored and paid immediately. By doing so, it failed in its fiduciary duty to treat the accounts of its clients with the highest degree of care.14 In the ordinary and usual course of banking operations, current account deposits are accepted by the bank on the basis of deposit slips prepared and signed by the depositor, or the latter's agent or representative, who indicates therein the current account number to which the deposit is to be credited, the name of the depositor or current account holder, the date of the deposit, and the amount of the deposit either in cash or in check.15 The withdrawal slips deposited with petitioner's current account with Citibank were not checks, as petitioner admits. Citibank was not bound to accept the withdrawal slips as a valid mode of deposit. But having erroneously accepted them as such, Citibank — and petitioner as account-holder — must bear the risks attendant to the acceptance of these instruments. Petitioner and Citibank could not now shift the risk and hold private respondent liable for their admitted mistake. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 29546 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2516

September 25, 1950

ANG TEK LIAN, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent. Laurel, Sabido, Almario and Laurel for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Manuel Tomacruz for respondent. BENGZON, J.: For having issued a rubber check, Ang Tek Lian was convicted of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict. It appears that, knowing he had no funds therefor, Ang Tek Lian drew on Saturday, November 16, 1946, the check Exhibits A upon the China Banking Corporation for the sum of P4,000, payable to the order of "cash". He delivered it to Lee Hua Hong in exchange for money which the latter handed in act. On November 18, 1946, the next business day, the check was presented by Lee Hua Hong to the drawee bank for payment, but it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, the balance of the deposit of Ang Tek Lian on both dates being P335 only. The Court of Appeals believed the version of Lee Huan Hong who testified that "on November 16, 1946, appellant went to his (complainant's) office, at 1217 Herran, Paco, Manila, and asked him to exchange Exhibit A — which he (appellant) then brought with him — with cash alleging that he needed badly the sum of P4,000 represented by the check, but could not withdraw it from the bank, it being then already closed; that in view of this request and relying upon appellant's assurance that he had sufficient funds in the blank to meet Exhibit A, and because they used to borrow money from each other, even before the war, and appellant owns a hotel and restaurant known as the North Bay Hotel, said complainant delivered to him, on the same date, the sum of P4,000 in cash; that despite repeated efforts to notify him that the check had

been dishonored by the bank, appellant could not be located any-where, until he was summoned in the City Fiscal's Office in view of the complaint for estafa filed in connection therewith; and that appellant has not paid as yet the amount of the check, or any part thereof." Inasmuch as the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final, the only question of law for decision is whether under the facts found, estafa had been accomplished. Article 315, paragraph (d), subsection 2 of the Revised Penal Code, punishes swindling committed "By post dating a check, or issuing such check in payment of an obligation the offender knowing that at the time he had no funds in the bank, or the funds deposited by him in the bank were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check, and without informing the payee of such circumstances". We believe that under this provision of law Ang Tek Lian was properly held liable. In this connection, it must be stated that, as explained in People vs. Fernandez (59 Phil., 615), estafa is committed by issuing either a postdated check or an ordinary check to accomplish the deceit. It is argued, however, that as the check had been made payable to "cash" and had not been endorsed by Ang Tek Lian, the defendant is not guilty of the offense charged. Based on the proposition that "by uniform practice of all banks in the Philippines a check so drawn is invariably dishonored," the following line of reasoning is advanced in support of the argument: . . . When, therefore, he (the offended party ) accepted the check (Exhibit A) from the appellant, he did so with full knowledge that it would be dishonored upon presentment. In that sense, the appellant could not be said to have acted fraudulently because the complainant, in so accepting the check as it was drawn, must be considered, by every rational consideration, to have done so fully aware of the risk he was running thereby." (Brief for the appellant, p. 11.) We are not aware of the uniformity of such practice. Instances have undoubtedly occurred wherein the Bank required the indorsement of the drawer before honoring a check payable to "cash." But cases there are too, where no such requirement had been made . It depends upon the circumstances of each transaction. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law (sec. 9 [d], a check drawn payable to the order of "cash" is a check payable to bearer, and the bank may pay it to the person presenting it for payment without the drawer's indorsement. A check payable to the order of cash is a bearer instrument. Bacal vs. National City Bank of New York (1933), 146 Misc., 732; 262 N. Y. S., 839; Cleary vs. De Beck Plate Glass Co. (1907), 54 Misc., 537; 104 N. Y. S., 831; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. vs. Pittsburgh Pipe & Supply Co. (Tex. Civ. App., 1939), 135 S. W. (2d), 818. See also H. Cook & Son vs. Moody (1916), 17 Ga. App., 465; 87 S. E., 713. Where a check is made payable to the order of "cash", the word cash "does not purport to be the name of any person", and hence the instrument is payable to bearer. The drawee bank need not obtain any indorsement of the check, but may pay it to the person presenting it without any indorsement. . . . (Zollmann, Banks and Banking, Permanent Edition, Vol. 6, p. 494.) Of course, if the bank is not sure of the bearer's identity or financial solvency, it has the right to demand identification and /or assurance against possible complications, — for instance, (a) forgery of drawer's signature, (b) loss of the check by the rightful owner, (c) raising of the amount payable, etc. The bank may therefore require, for its protection, that the indorsement of the drawer — or of some other person known to it — be obtained. But where the Bank is satisfied of the identity and /or the economic standing of the bearer who tenders the check for collection, it will pay the instrument without further question; and it would incur no liability to the drawer in thus acting. A check payable to bearer is authority for payment to holder. Where a check is in the ordinary form, and is payable to bearer, so that no indorsement is required, a bank, to which it is presented for payment, need not have the holder identified, and is not negligent in falling to do so. . . . (Michie on Banks and Banking, Permanent Edition, Vol. 5, p. 343.) . . . Consequently, a drawee bank to which a bearer check is presented for payment need not necessarily have the holder identified and ordinarily may not be charged with negligence in failing to

do so. See Opinions 6C:2 and 6C:3 If the bank has no reasonable cause for suspecting any irregularity, it will be protected in paying a bearer check, "no matter what facts unknown to it may have occurred prior to the presentment." 1 Morse, Banks and Banking, sec. 393. Although a bank is entitled to pay the amount of a bearer check without further inquiry, it is entirely reasonable for the bank to insist that holder give satisfactory proof of his identity. . . . (Paton's Digest, Vol. I, p. 1089.) Anyway, it is significant, and conclusive, that the form of the check Exhibit A was totally unconnected with its dishonor. The Court of Appeals declared that it was returned unsatisfied because the drawer had insufficient funds— not because the drawer's indorsement was lacking. Wherefore, there being no question as to the correctness of the penalty imposed on the appellant, the writ ofcertiorari is denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed, with costs. SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 85419 March 9, 1993 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL, plaintiff-petitioner, vs. SIMA WEI and/or LEE KIAN HUAT, MARY CHENG UY, SAMSON TUNG, ASIAN INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC CORPORATION and PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendants-respondents. Yngson & Associates for petitioner. Henry A. Reyes & Associates for Samso Tung & Asian Industrial Plastic Corporation. Eduardo G. Castelo for Sima Wei. Monsod, Tamargo & Associates for Producers Bank. Rafael S. Santayana for Mary Cheng Uy. CAMPOS, JR., J.: On July 6, 1986, the Development Bank of Rizal (petitioner Bank for brevity) filed a complaint for a sum of money against respondents Sima Wei and/or Lee Kian Huat, Mary Cheng Uy, Samson Tung, Asian Industrial Plastic Corporation (Plastic Corporation for short) and the Producers Bank of the Philippines, on two causes of action: (1) To enforce payment of the balance of P1,032,450.02 on a promissory note executed by respondent Sima Wei on June 9, 1983; and (2) To enforce payment of two checks executed by Sima Wei, payable to petitioner, and drawn against the China Banking Corporation, to pay the balance due on the promissory note. Except for Lee Kian Huat, defendants filed their separate Motions to Dismiss alleging a common ground that the complaint states no cause of action. The trial court granted the defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, * to which the petitioner Bank, represented by its Legal Liquidator, filed this Petition for Review by Certiorari, assigning the following as the alleged errors of the Court of Appeals: 1 (1) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS HEREIN. (2) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SECTION 13, RULE 3 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT ON ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO HEREIN DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

The antecedent facts of this case are as follows: In consideration for a loan extended by petitioner Bank to respondent Sima Wei, the latter executed and delivered to the former a promissory note, engaging to pay the petitioner Bank or order the amount of P1,820,000.00 on or before June 24, 1983 with interest at 32% per annum. Sima Wei made partial payments on the note, leaving a balance of P1,032,450.02. On November 18, 1983, Sima Wei issued two crossed checks payable to petitioner Bank drawn against China Banking Corporation, bearing respectively the serial numbers 384934, for the amount of P550,000.00 and 384935, for the amount of P500,000.00. The said checks were allegedly issued in full settlement of the drawer's account evidenced by the promissory note. These two checks were not delivered to the petitioner-payee or to any of its authorized representatives. For reasons not shown, these checks came into the possession of respondent Lee Kian Huat, who deposited the checks without the petitioner-payee's indorsement (forged or otherwise) to the account of respondent Plastic Corporation, at the Balintawak branch, Caloocan City, of the Producers Bank. Cheng Uy, Branch Manager of the Balintawak branch of Producers Bank, relying on the assurance of respondent Samson Tung, President of Plastic Corporation, that the transaction was legal and regular, instructed the cashier of Producers Bank to accept the checks for deposit and to credit them to the account of said Plastic Corporation, inspite of the fact that the checks were crossed and payable to petitioner Bank and bore no indorsement of the latter. Hence, petitioner filed the complaint as aforestated. The main issue before Us is whether petitioner Bank has a cause of action against any or all of the defendants, in the alternative or otherwise. A cause of action is defined as an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of another. The essential elements are: (1) legal right of the plaintiff; (2) correlative obligation of the defendant; and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 2 The normal parties to a check are the drawer, the payee and the drawee bank. Courts have long recognized the business custom of using printed checks where blanks are provided for the date of issuance, the name of the payee, the amount payable and the drawer's signature. All the drawer has to do when he wishes to issue a check is to properly fill up the blanks and sign it. However, the mere fact that he has done these does not give rise to any liability on his part, until and unless the check is delivered to the payee or his representative. A negotiable instrument, of which a check is, is not only a written evidence of a contract right but is also a species of property. Just as a deed to a piece of land must be delivered in order to convey title to the grantee, so must a negotiable instrument be delivered to the payee in order to evidence its existence as a binding contract. Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, which governs checks, provides in part: Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. . . . Thus, the payee of a negotiable instrument acquires no interest with respect thereto until its delivery to him. 3Delivery of an instrument means transfer of possession, actual or constructive, from one person to another. 4 Without the initial delivery of the instrument from the drawer to the payee, there can be no liability on the instrument. Moreover, such delivery must be intended to give effect to the instrument. The allegations of the petitioner in the original complaint show that the two (2) China Bank checks, numbered 384934 and 384935, were not delivered to the payee, the petitioner herein. Without the delivery of said checks to petitioner-payee, the former did not acquire any right or interest therein and cannot therefore assert any cause of action, founded on said checks, whether against the drawer Sima Wei or against the Producers Bank or any of the other respondents. In the original complaint, petitioner Bank, as plaintiff, sued respondent Sima Wei on the promissory note, and the alternative defendants, including Sima Wei, on the two checks. On appeal from the orders of dismissal of the Regional Trial Court, petitioner Bank alleged that its cause of action was not based on collecting the sum of money evidenced by the negotiable instruments stated but on quasi-delict — a claim for damages on the ground of fraudulent acts and evident bad faith of the alternative respondents. This was clearly an attempt by the petitioner Bank to change not only the theory of its case but the basis of his cause of action. It is well-settled that a party cannot change his theory on appeal, as this would in effect deprive the other party of his day in court. 5

Notwithstanding the above, it does not necessarily follow that the drawer Sima Wei is freed from liability to petitioner Bank under the loan evidenced by the promissory note agreed to by her. Her allegation that she has paid the balance of her loan with the two checks payable to petitioner Bank has no merit for, as We have earlier explained, these checks were never delivered to petitioner Bank. And even granting, without admitting, that there was delivery to petitioner Bank, the delivery of checks in payment of an obligation does not constitute payment unless they are cashed or their value is impaired through the fault of the creditor. 6 None of these exceptions were alleged by respondent Sima Wei. Therefore, unless respondent Sima Wei proves that she has been relieved from liability on the promissory note by some other cause, petitioner Bank has a right of action against her for the balance due thereon. However, insofar as the other respondents are concerned, petitioner Bank has no privity with them. Since petitioner Bank never received the checks on which it based its action against said respondents, it never owned them (the checks) nor did it acquire any interest therein. Thus, anything which the respondents may have done with respect to said checks could not have prejudiced petitioner Bank. It had no right or interest in the checks which could have been violated by said respondents. Petitioner Bank has therefore no cause of action against said respondents, in the alternative or otherwise. If at all, it is Sima Wei, the drawer, who would have a cause of action against her co-respondents, if the allegations in the complaint are found to be true. With respect to the second assignment of error raised by petitioner Bank regarding the applicability of Section 13, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, We find it unnecessary to discuss the same in view of Our finding that the petitioner Bank did not acquire any right or interest in the checks due to lack of delivery. It therefore has no cause of action against the respondents, in the alternative or otherwise. In the light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioner's complaint is AFFIRMED insofar as the second cause of action is concerned. On the first cause of action, the case is REMANDED to the trial court for a trial on the merits, consistent with this decision, in order to determine whether respondent Sima Wei is liable to the Development Bank of Rizal for any amount under the promissory note allegedly signed by her. SO ORDERED. G.R. Nos. L-25836-37 January 31, 1981

THE PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE M. ARUEGO, defendant-appellant. FERNANDEZ, J.: The defendant, Jose M. Aruego, appealed to the Court of Appeals from the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII, in Civil Case No. 42066 denying his motion to set aside the order declaring him in default, 1 and from the order of said court in the same case denying his motion to set aside the judgment rendered after he was declared in default. 2 These two appeals of the defendant were docketed as CA-G.R. NO. 27734-R and CA-G.R. NO. 27940-R, respectively. Upon motion of the defendant on July 25, 1960, 3 he was allowed by the Court of Appeals to file one consolidated record on appeal of CA-G.R. NO. 27734-R and CA-G.R. NO. 27940-R. 4 In a resolution promulgated on March 1, 1966, the Court of Appeals, First Division, certified the consolidated appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that only questions of law are involved. 5 On December 1, 1959, the Philippine Bank of Commerce instituted against Jose M. Aruego Civil Case No. 42066 for the recovery of the total sum of about P35,000.00 with daily interest thereon from November 17, 1959 until fully paid and commission equivalent to 3/8% for every thirty (30) days or fraction thereof plus attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount due and costs. 6 The complaint filed by the Philippine Bank of Commerce contains twenty-two (22) causes of action referring to twenty-two (22) transactions entered into by the said Bank and Aruego on different dates covering the period from August 28, 1950 to March 14,

1951. 7 The sum sought to be recovered represents the cost of the printing of "World Current Events," a periodical published by the defendant. To facilitate the payment of the printing the defendant obtained a credit accommodation from the plaintiff. Thus, for every printing of the "World Current Events," the printer, Encal Press and Photo Engraving, collected the cost of printing by drawing a draft against the plaintiff, said draft being sent later to the defendant for acceptance. As an added security for the payment of the amounts advanced to Encal Press and Photo-Engraving, the plaintiff bank also required defendant Aruego to execute a trust receipt in favor of said bank wherein said defendant undertook to hold in trust for plaintiff the periodicals and to sell the same with the promise to turn over to the plaintiff the proceeds of the sale of said publication to answer for the payment of all obligations arising from the draft. 8

Aruego received a copy of the complaint together with the summons on December 2, 1959. 9 On December 14, 1959 defendant filed an urgent motion for extension of time to plead, and set the hearing on December 16, 1959. 10 At the hearing, the court denied defendant's motion for extension. Whereupon, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 17, 1959 on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action because: a) When the various bills of exchange were presented to the defendant as drawee for acceptance, the amounts thereof had already been paid by the plaintiff to the drawer (Encal Press and Photo Engraving), without knowledge or consent of the defendant drawee. b) In the case of a bill of exchange, like those involved in the case at bar, the defendant drawee is an accommodating party only for the drawer (Encal Press and Photo-Engraving) and win be liable in the event that the accommodating party (drawer) fails to pay its obligation to the plaintiff. 11 The complaint was dismissed in an order dated December 22, 1959, copy of which was received by the defendant on December 24, 1959. 12 On January 13, 1960, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. 13 On March 7, 1960, acting upon the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff, the trial court set aside its order dismissing the complaint and set the case for hearing on March 15, 1960 at 8:00 in the morning. 14 A copy of the order setting aside the order of dismissal was received by the defendant on March 11, 1960 at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon according to the affidavit of the deputy sheriff of Manila, Mamerto de la Cruz. On the following day, March 12, 1960, the defendant filed a motion to postpone the trial of the case on the ground that there having been no answer as yet, the issues had not yet been joined. 15 On the same date, the defendant filed his answer to the complaint interposing the following defenses: That he signed the document upon which the plaintiff sues in his capacity as President of the Philippine Education Foundation; that his liability is only secondary; and that he believed that he was signing only as an accommodation party. 16 On March 15, 1960, the plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to declare the defendant in default on the ground that the defendant should have filed his answer on March 11, 1960. He contends that by filing his answer on March 12, 1960, defendant was one day late. 17 On March 19, 1960 the trial court declared the defendant in default. 18 The defendant learned of the order declaring him in default on March 21, 1960. On March 22, 1960 the defendant filed a motion to set aside the order of default alleging that although the order of the court dated March 7, 1960 was received on March 11, 1960 at 5:00 in the afternoon, it could not have been reasonably expected of the defendant to file his answer on the last day of the reglementary period, March 11, 1960, within office hours, especially because the order of the court dated March 7, 1960 was brought to the attention of counsel only in the early hours of March 12, 1960. The defendant also alleged that he has a good and substantial defense. Attached to the motion are the affidavits of deputy sheriff Mamerto de la Cruz that he served the order of the court dated March 7, 1960 on March 11, 1960, at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon and the affidavit of the defendant Aruego that he has a good and substantial defense. 19 The trial court denied the defendant's motion on March 25, 1960. 20 On May 6, 1960, the trial court rendered judgment sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P35,444.35 representing the total amount of his obligation to the said plaintiff under the twenty-two (22) causes of action alleged in the complaint as of November 15, 1957 and the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees. 21 On May 9, 1960 the defendant filed a notice of appeal from the order dated March 25, 1961 denying his motion to set aside the order declaring him in default, an appeal bond in the amount of P60.00, and his record on appeal. The plaintiff filed his opposition to the approval of defendant's record on appeal on May 13, 1960. The following day, May 14, 1960, the lower court dismissed defendant's appeal from the order dated March 25, 1960 denying his motion to set aside the order of default. 22 On May 19, 1960, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order dismissing his appeal. 23 The plaintiff, on

May 20, 1960, opposed the defendant's motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing appeal. 24 On May 21, 1960, the trial court reconsidered its previous order dismissing the appeal and approved the defendant's record on appeal. 25 On May 30, 1960, the defendant received a copy of a notice from the Clerk of Court dated May 26, 1960, informing the defendant that the record on appeal filed ed by the defendant was forwarded to the Clerk of Court of Appeals. 26

On June 1, 1960 Aruego filed a motion to set aside the judgment rendered after he was declared in default reiterating the same ground previously advanced by him in his motion for relief from the order of default. 27 Upon opposition of the plaintiff filed on June 3, 1960, 28 the trial court denied the defendant's motion to set aside the judgment by default in an order of June 11, 1960. 29 On June 20, 1960, the defendant filed his notice of appeal from the order of the court denying his motion to set aside the judgment by default, his appeal bond, and his record on appeal. The defendant's record on appeal was approved by the trial court on June 25, 1960. 30 Thus, the defendant had two appeals with the Court of Appeals: (1) Appeal from the order of the lower court denying his motion to set aside the order of default docketed as CA-G.R. NO. 27734-R; (2) Appeal from the order denying his motion to set aside the judgment by default docketed as CA-G.R. NO. 27940-R. In his brief, the defendant-appellant assigned the following errors: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS IN DEFAULT. II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ENTERTAINING THE MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT ALTHOUGH AT THE TIME THERE WAS ALREADY ON FILE AN ANSWER BY HIM WITHOUT FIRST DISPOSING OF SAID ANSWER IN AN APPROPRIATE ACTION. III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR RELIEF OF ORDER OF DEFAULT AND FROM JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT. 31 It has been held that to entitle a party to relief from a judgment taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, he must show to the court that he has a meritorious defense. 32 In other words, in order to set aside the order of default, the defendant must not only show that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence but also that he has a meritorious defense. The record discloses that Aruego received a copy of the complaint together with the summons on December 2, 1960; that on December 17, 1960, the last day for filing his answer, Aruego filed a motion to dismiss; that on December 22, 1960 the lower court dismissed the complaint; that on January 23, 1960, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and on March 7, 1960, acting upon the motion for reconsideration, the trial court issued an order setting aside the order of dismissal; that a copy of the order was received by the defendant on March 11, 1960 at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon as shown in the affidavit of the deputy sheriff; and that on the following day, March 12, 1960, the defendant filed his answer to the complaint. The failure then of the defendant to file his answer on the last day for pleading is excusable. The order setting aside the dismissal of the complaint was received at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. It was therefore impossible for him to have filed his answer on that same day because the courts then held office only up to 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Moreover, the defendant immediately filed his answer on the following day. However, while the defendant successfully proved that his failure to answer was due to excusable negligence, he has failed to show that he has a meritorious defense. The defendant does not have a good and substantial defense. Defendant Aruego's defenses consist of the following: a) The defendant signed the bills of exchange referred to in the plaintiff's complaint in a representative capacity, as the then President of the Philippine Education Foundation Company, publisher of "World Current Events and Decision Law Journal," printed by Encal Press and Photo-Engraving, drawer of the said bills of exchange in favor of the plaintiff bank;

b) The defendant signed these bills of exchange not as principal obligor, but as accommodation or additional party obligor, to add to the security of said plaintiff bank. The reason for this statement is that unlike real bills of exchange, where payment of the face value is advanced to the drawer only upon acceptance of the same by the drawee, in the case in question, payment for the supposed bills of exchange were made before acceptance; so that in effect, although these documents are labelled bills of exchange, legally they are not bills of exchange but mere instruments evidencing indebtedness of the drawee who received the face value thereof, with the defendant as only additional security of the same. 33 The first defense of the defendant is that he signed the supposed bills of exchange as an agent of the Philippine Education Foundation Company where he is president. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides that "Where the instrument contains or a person adds to his signature words indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal or in a representative capacity, he is not liable on the instrument if he was duly authorized; but the mere addition of words describing him as an agent or as filing a representative character, without disclosing his principal, does not exempt him from personal liability." An inspection of the drafts accepted by the defendant shows that nowhere has he disclosed that he was signing as a representative of the Philippine Education Foundation Company. 34 He merely signed as follows: "JOSE ARUEGO (Acceptor) (SGD) JOSE ARGUEGO For failure to disclose his principal, Aruego is personally liable for the drafts he accepted. The defendant also contends that he signed the drafts only as an accommodation party and as such, should be made liable only after a showing that the drawer is incapable of paying. This contention is also without merit. An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, indorser, without receiving value therefor and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of the taking of the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party. 35 In lending his name to the accommodated party, the accommodation party is in effect a surety for the latter. He lends his name to enable the accommodated party to obtain credit or to raise money. He receives no part of the consideration for the instrument but assumes liability to the other parties thereto because he wants to accommodate another. In the instant case, the defendant signed as a drawee/acceptor. Under the Negotiable Instrument Law, a drawee is primarily liable. Thus, if the defendant who is a lawyer, he should not have signed as an acceptor/drawee. In doing so, he became primarily and personally liable for the drafts. The defendant also contends that the drafts signed by him were not really bills of exchange but mere pieces of evidence of indebtedness because payments were made before acceptance. This is also without merit. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writting addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to order or to bearer. 36 As long as a commercial paper conforms with the definition of a bill of exchange, that paper is considered a bill of exchange. The nature of acceptance is important only in the determination of the kind of liabilities of the parties involved, but not in the determination of whether a commercial paper is a bill of exchange or not. It is evident then that the defendant's appeal can not prosper. To grant the defendant's prayer will result in a new trial which will serve no purpose and will just waste the time of the courts as well as of the parties because the defense is nil or ineffective. 37 WHEREFORE, the order appealed from in Civil Case No. 42066 of the Court of First Instance of Manila denying the petition for relief from the judgment rendered in said case is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 116320 November 29, 1999 ADALIA

FRANCISCO, petitioner,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HERBY COMMERCIAL & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND JAIME C. ONG,respondents. GONZAGA-REYES, J.: Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision 2 rendered by Branch 168 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig in Civil Case No. 35231 in favor of private respondents. The controversy before this Court finds its origins in a Land Development and Construction Contract which was entered into on June 23, 1977 by A. Francisco Realty & Development Corporation (AFRDC), of which petitioner Adalia Francisco (Francisco) is the president, and private respondent Herby Commercial & Construction Corporation (HCCC), represented by its President and General Manager private respondent Jaime C. Ong (Ong), pursuant to a housing project of AFRDC at San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, financed by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Under the contract, HCCC agreed to undertake the construction of 35 housing units and the development of 35 hectares of land. The payment of HCCC for its services was on a turn-key basis, that is, HCCC was to be paid on the basis of the completed houses and developed lands delivered to and accepted by AFRDC and the GSIS. To facilitate payment, AFRDC executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of HCCC to enable the latter to collect payments directly from the GSIS. Furthermore, the GSIS and AFRDC put up an Executive Committee Account with the Insular Bank of Asia & America (IBAA) in the amount of P4,000,000.00 from which checks would be issued and co-signed by petitioner Francisco and the GSIS Vice-President Armando Diaz (Diaz). On February 10, 1978, HCCC filed a complaint 3 with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against Francisco, AFRDC and the GSIS for the collection of the unpaid balance under the Land Development and Construction Contract in the amount of P515,493.89 for completed and delivered housing units and land development. However, the parties eventually arrived at an amicable settlement of their differences, which was embodied in a Memorandum Agreement executed by HCCC and AFRDC on July 21, 1978. Under the agreement, the parties stipulated that HCCC had turned over 83 housing units which have been accepted and paid for by the GSIS. The GSIS acknowledged that it still owed HCCC P520,177.50 representing incomplete construction of housing units, incomplete land development and 5% retention, which amount will be discharged when the defects and deficiencies are finally completed by HCCC. It was also provided that HCCC was indebted to AFRDC in the amount of P180,234.91 which the former agreed would be paid out of the proceeds from the 40 housing units still to be turned over by HCCC or from any amount due to HCCC from the GSIS. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the case upon the filing by the parties of a joint motion to dismiss. Sometime in 1979, after an examination of the records of the GSIS, Ong discovered that Diaz and Francisco had executed and signed seven checks 4, of various dates and amounts, drawn against the IBAA and payable to HCCC for completed and delivered work under the contract. Ong, however, claims that these checks were never delivered to HCCC. Upon inquiry with Diaz, Ong learned that the GSIS gave Francisco custody of the checks since she promised that she would deliver the same to HCCC. Instead, Francisco forged the signature of Ong, without his knowledge or consent, at the dorsal portion of the said checks to make it appear that HCCC had indorsed the checks; Francisco then indorsed the checks for a second time by signing her name at the back of the checks and deposited the checks in her IBAA savings account. IBAA credited Francisco's account with the amount of the checks and the latter withdrew the amount so credited. On June 7, 1979, Ong filed complaints with the office of the city fiscal of Quezon City, charging Francisco with estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. Francisco denied having forged Ong's signature on the checks, claiming that Ong himself indorsed the seven checks in behalf of HCCC and delivered the same to Francisco in payment of the loans extended by Francisco to HCCC. According to Francisco, she agreed to grant HCCC the loans in the total amount of P585,000.00 and covered by eighteen promissory notes in order to obviate the risk of the non-completion of the project. As a means of repayment, Ong allegedly issued a Certification authorizing Francisco to collect HCCC's receivables from the GSIS. Assistant City Fiscal Ramon M. Gerona gave credence to Francisco's claims and accordingly, dismissed the complaints, which dismissal was affirmed by the Minister of Justice in a resolution issued on June 5, 1981.

The present case was brought by private respondents on November 19, 1979 against Francisco and IBAA for the recovery of P370,475.00, representing the total value of the seven checks, and for damages, attorney's fees, expenses of litigation and costs. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of private respondents, the dispositive portion of which provides — WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants INSULAR BANK OF ASIA & AMERICA and ATTY. ADALIA FRANCISCO, to jointly and severally pay the plaintiffs the amount of P370.475.00 plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint until the full amount is paid; moral damages to plaintiff Jaime Ong in the sum of P50,000.00; exemplary damages of P50,000.00; litigation expenses of P5,000.00; and attorney's fees of P50,000.00. With respect to the cross-claim of the defendant IBAA against its co-defendant Atty. Adalia Francisco, the latter is ordered to reimburse the former for the sums that the Bank shall pay to the plaintiff on the forged checks including the interests paid thereon. Further, the defendants are ordered to pay the costs. Based upon the findings of handwriting experts from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the trial court held that Francisco had indeed forged the signature of Ong to make it appear that he had indorsed the checks. Also, the court ruled that there were no loans extended, reasoning that it was unbelievable that HCCC was experiencing financial difficulties so as to compel it to obtain the loans from AFRDC in view of the fact that the GSIS had issued checks in favor of HCCC at about the same time that the alleged advances were made. The trial court stated that it was plausible that Francisco concealed the fact of issuance of the checks from private respondents in order to make it appear as if she were accommodating private respondents, when in truth she was lending HCCC its own money. With regards to the Memorandum Agreement entered into between AFRDC and HCCC in Civil Case No. Q24628, the trial court held that the same did not make any mention of the forged checks since private respondents were as of yet unaware of their existence, that fact having been effectively concealed by Francisco, until private respondents acquired knowledge of Francisco's misdeeds in 1979. IBAA was held liable to private respondents for having honored the checks despite such obvious irregularities as the lack of initials to validate the alterations made on the check, the absence of the signature of a co-signatory in the corporate checks of HCCC and the deposit of the checks on a second indorsement in the savings account of Francisco. However, the trial court allowed IBAA recourse against Francisco, who was ordered to reimburse the IBAA for any sums it shall have to pay to private respondents. 5 Both Francisco and IBAA appealed the trial court's decision, but the Court of Appeals dismissed IBAA's appeal for its failure to file its brief within the 45-day extension granted by the appellate court. IBAA's motion for reconsideration and petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court were also similarly denied. On November 21, 1989, IBAA and HCCC entered into a Compromise Agreement which was approved by the trial court, wherein HCCC acknowledged receipt of the amount of P370,475.00 in full satisfaction of its claims against IBAA, without prejudice to the right of the latter to pursue its claims against Francisco. On June 29, 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, hence this petition for review on certiorarifiled by petitioner, assigning the following errors to the appealed decision — 1. The respondent Court of Appeals erred in concluding that private respondents did not owe Petitioner the sum covered by the Promissory Notes Exh. 2-2-A-2-P (FRANCISCO). Such conclusion was based mainly on conjectures, surmises and speculation contrary to the unrebutted pleadings and evidence presented by petitioner. 2. The respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that Petitioner falsified the signature of private respondent ONG on the checks in question without any authority therefor which is patently contradictory to the unrebutted pleading and evidence that petitioner was expressly authorized by

respondent HERBY thru ONG to collect all receivables of HERBY from GSIS to pay the loans extended to them. (Exhibit 3). 3. That respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the seven checks in question were not taken up in the liquidation and reconciliation of all outstanding account between AFRDC and HERBY as acknowledged by the parties in Memorandum Agreement (Exh. 5) is a pure conjecture, surmise and speculation contrary to the unrebutted evidence presented by petitioners. It is an inference made which is manifestly mistaken. 4. The respondent Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the lower court and dismissing the appeal. 6 The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not Francisco forged the signature of Ong on the seven checks. In this connection, we uphold the lower courts' finding that the subject matter of the present case, specifically the seven checks, drawn by GSIS and AFRDC, dated between October to November 1977, in the total amount of P370,475.00 and payable to HCCC, was not included in the Memorandum Agreement executed by HCCC and AFRDC in Civil Case No. Q-24628. As observed by the trial court, aside from there being absolutely no mention of the checks in the said agreement, the amounts represented by said checks could not have been included in the Memorandum Agreement executed in 1978 because private respondents only discovered Francisco's acts of forgery in 1979. The lower courts found that Francisco was able to easily conceal from private respondents even the fact of the issuance of the checks since she was a co-signatory thereof. 7 We also note that Francisco had custody of the checks, as proven by the check vouchers bearing her uncontested signature, 8 by which she, in effect, acknowledged having received the checks intended for HCCC. This contradicts Francisco's claims that the checks were issued to Ong who delivered them to Francisco already indorsed. 9 As regards the forgery, we concur with the lower courts', finding that Francisco forged the signature of Ong on the checks to make it appear as if Ong had indorsed said checks and that, after indorsing the checks for a second time by signing her name at the back of the checks, Francisco deposited said checks in her savings account with IBAA. The forgery was satisfactorily established in the trial court upon the strength of the findings of the NBI handwriting expert. 10 Other than petitioner's self-serving denials, there is nothing in the records to rebut the NBI's findings. Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of trial courts which are factual in nature, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, deserve to be respected and affirmed by the Supreme Court, provided it is supported by substantial evidence on record, 11 as it is in the case at bench. Petitioner claims that she was, in any event, authorized to sign Ong's name on the checks by virtue of the Certification executed by Ong in her favor giving her the authority to collect all the receivables of HCCC from the GSIS, including the questioned checks. 12 Petitioner's alternative defense must similarly fail. The Negotiable Instruments Law provides that where any person is under obligation to indorse in a representative capacity, he may indorse in such terms as to negative personal liability. 13 An agent, when so signing, should indicate that he is merely signing in behalf of the principal and must disclose the name of his principal; otherwise he shall be held personally liable. 14 Even assuming that Francisco was authorized by HCCC to sign Ong's name, still, Francisco did not indorse the instrument in accordance with law. Instead of signing Ong's name, Francisco should have signed her own name and expressly indicated that she was signing as an agent of HCCC. Thus, the Certification cannot be used by Francisco to validate her act of forgery. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. 15 Due to her forgery of Ong's signature which enabled her to deposit the checks in her own account, Francisco deprived HCCC of the money due it from the GSIS pursuant to the Land Development and Construction Contract. Thus, we affirm respondent court's award of compensatory damages in the amount of P370,475.00, but with a modification as to the interest rate which shall be six percent (6%) per annum, to be computed from the date of the filing of the complaint since the amount of damages was alleged in the complaint; 16 however, the rate of interest shall be twelve percent (12%) per annumfrom the time the judgment in this case becomes final and executory until its satisfaction and the basis for the computation of this twelve percent (12%) rate of interest shall be the amount of P370,475.00. This is in accordance with the doctrine enunciated in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 17 which was reiterated in Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 18 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 19 and in Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 20 which provides that —

1. When an obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. 2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. 3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be twelve percent (12%) per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. We also sustain the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00. Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Considering petitioner's fraudulent act, we hold that an award of P50,000.00 would be adequate, fair and reasonable. The grant of exemplary damages justifies the award of attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00, and the award of P5,000.00 for litigation expenses. 21 The appellate court's award of P50,000.00 in moral damages is warranted. Under Article 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be granted upon proof of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury. 22 Ong testitified that he suffered sleepless nights, embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety upon discovering that the checks due his company were forged by petitioner and that petitioner had filed baseless criminal complaints against him before the fiscal's office of Quezon City which disrupted HCCC's business operations. 23 WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the respondent court's decision promulgated on June 29, 1992, upholding the February 16, 1988 decision of the trial court in favor of private respondents, with the modification that the interest upon the actual damages awarded shall be at six percent (6%) per annum, which interest rate shall be computed from the time of the filing of the complaint on November 19, 1979. However, the interest rate shall be twelve percent (12%)per annum from the time the judgment in this case becomes final and executory and until such amount is fully paid. The basis for computation of the six percent and twelve percent rates of interest shall be the amount of P370,475.00. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

DOCKET NO./ CASE NO.: G.R. No. L-29432 DATE: August 6, 1975 PETITIONER: Jai- Alai Corporation of the Philippines RESPONDENT: Bank of the Philippine Islands

FACTS: From April 2, 1959 to May 18, 1959, Jai – Alai Corporation of the Philippines deposited 10 checks in its current account with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). The checks which were acquired by Antonio J. Ramirez, a sales agent of the Inter-Island Gas and regular better of Jai-Alai were all payable to Inter-Island. After the checks had been submitted to inter-bank clearing, Inter-Island discovered that all the endorsements made on the checks purportedly by its cashiers (Santiago Amplayo and Vicenta Mucor) were forgeries. Thus, it informed all the parties concerned. Upon the demands on BPI as the collecting bank, BPI debited the value of the checks against petitioner’s current account and forwarded to the latter the checks containing forged endorsements which the petitioner refused to accept. Thereafter, petitioner tried to issue a check for payment of shares of stocks but such was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. It filed a complaint against the bank. ISSUE:

Whether or not the BPI had the right to debit from petitioner’s current account the value of the checks with the forged endorsements?

HELD: YES. BPI acted within legal bounds when it debited the petitioner’s account. When the petitioner deposited the checks to its account, the relationship created was one of agency and not of creditor-debtor of BPI was to collect from the drawee – bank of the checks with the corresponding proceeds. BPI may have the proceeds already when it debited the account of petitioner. Nonetheless, there’s still no creditor – debtor relationship. The payments made by the drawee – bank to respondent were ineffective. Hence, the creditor – debtor relationship had not been validly established. FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-40796 July 31, 1975 REPUBLIC BANK, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAURICIA T. EBRADA, defendant-appellant. Sabino de Leon, Jr. for plaintiff-appellee. Julio Baldonado for defendant-appellant.

MARTIN, J.: Appeal on a question of law of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXIII in Civil Case No. 69288, entitled "Republic Bank vs. Mauricia T. Ebrada." On or about February 27, 1963 defendant Mauricia T. Ebrada, encashed Back Pay Check No. 508060 dated January 15, 1963 for P1,246.08 at the main office of the plaintiff Republic Bank at Escolta, Manila. The check was issued by the Bureau of Treasury. 1 Plaintiff Bank was later advised by the said bureau that the alleged indorsement on the reverse side of the aforesaid check by the payee, "Martin Lorenzo" was a forgery 2 since the latter had allegedly died as of July 14, 1952. 3 Plaintiff Bank was then requested by the Bureau of Treasury to refund the amount of P1,246.08. 4 To recover what it had refunded to the Bureau of Treasury, plaintiff Bank made verbal and formal demands upon defendant Ebrada to account for the sum of P1,246.08, but said defendant refused to do so. So plaintiff Bank sued defendant Ebrada before the City Court of Manila. On July 11, 1966, defendant Ebrada filed her answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and as affirmative defenses alleged that she was a holder in due course of the check in question, or at the very least, has acquired her rights from a holder in due course and therefore entitled to the proceeds thereof. She also alleged that the plaintiff Bank has no cause of action against her; that it is in estoppel, or so negligent as not to be entitled to recover anything from her. 5 About the same day, July 11, 1966 defendant Ebrada filed a Third-Party complaint against Adelaida Dominguez who, in turn, filed on September 14, 1966 a Fourth-Party complaint against Justina Tinio. On March 21, 1967, the City Court of Manila rendered judgment for the plaintiff Bank against defendant Ebrada; for Third-Party plaintiff against Third-Party defendant, Adelaida Dominguez, and for Fourth-Party plaintiff against Fourth-Party defendant, Justina Tinio. From the judgment of the City Court, defendant Ebrada took an appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila where the parties submitted a partial stipulation of facts as follows: COME NOW the undersigned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant, Third-Party defendant and Fourth-Party plaintiff and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submit the following: PARTIAL STIPULATION OF FACTS 1. That they admit their respective capacities to sue and be sued; 2. That on January 15, 1963 the Treasury of the Philippines issued its Check No. BP508060, payable to the order of one MARTIN LORENZO, in the sum of P1,246.08, and drawn on the Republic Bank, plaintiff herein, which check will be marked as Exhibit "A" for the plaintiff; 3. That the back side of aforementioned check bears the following signatures, in this order: 1) MARTIN LORENZO; 2) RAMON R. LORENZO; 3) DELIA DOMINGUEZ; and 4) MAURICIA T. EBRADA; 4. That the aforementioned check was delivered to the defendant MAURICIA T. EBRADA by the Third-Party defendant and Fourth-Party plaintiff ADELAIDA DOMINGUEZ, for the purpose of encashment; 5. That the signature of defendant MAURICIA T. EBRADA was affixed on said check on February 27, 1963 when she encashed it with the plaintiff Bank; 6. That immediately after defendant MAURICIA T. EBRADA received the cash proceeds of said check in the sum of P1,246.08 from the plaintiff Bank, she immediately turned over the said amount to the third-party defendant and fourth-party plaintiff ADELAIDA DOMINGUEZ, who in turn handed the said amount to the fourth-party defendant JUSTINA TINIO on the same date, as evidenced by the receipt signed by her which will be marked as Exhibit "1Dominguez"; and

7. That the parties hereto reserve the right to present evidence on any other fact not covered by the foregoing stipulations, Manila, Philippines, June 6, 1969. Based on the foregoing stipulation of facts and the documentary evidence presented, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment ordering the defendant Mauricia T. Ebrada to pay the plaintiff the amount of ONE THOUSAND TWO FORTY-SIX 08/100 (P1,246.08), with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint on June 16, 1966, until fully paid, plus the costs in both instances against Mauricia T. Ebrada. The right of Mauricia T. Ebrada to file whatever claim she may have against Adelaida Dominguez in connection with this case is hereby reserved. The right of the estate of Dominguez to file the fourth-party complaint against Justina Tinio is also reserved. SO ORDERED. In her appeal, defendant-appellant presses that the lower court erred: IN ORDERING THE APPELLANT TO PAY THE APPELLEE THE FACE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT CHECK AFTER FINDING THAT THE DRAWER ISSUED THE SUBJECT CHECK TO A PERSON ALREADY DECEASED FOR 11-½ YEARS AND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT BENEFIT FROM ENCASHING SAID CHECK. From the stipulation of facts it is admitted that the check in question was delivered to defendant-appellant by Adelaida Dominguez for the purpose of encashment and that her signature was affixed on said check when she cashed it with the plaintiff Bank. Likewise it is admitted that defendant-appellant was the last indorser of the said check. As such indorser, she was supposed to have warranted that she has good title to said check; for under Section 65 of the Negotiable Instruments Law: 6 Every person negotiating an instrument by delivery or by qualified indorsement, warrants: (a) That the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be. (b) That she has good title to it. xxx xxx xxx and under Section 65 of the same Act: Every indorser who indorses without qualification warrants to all subsequent holders in due course: (a) The matters and things mentioned in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of the next preceding sections; (b) That the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting. It turned out, however, that the signature of the original payee of the check, Martin Lorenzo was a forgery because he was already dead 7 almost 11 years before the check in question was issued by the Bureau of Treasury. Under action 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act 2031): When a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instruments, or to give a discharge thereof against any party thereto, can be acquired through or under such signature unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority. It is clear from the provision that where the signature on a negotiable instrument if forged, the negotiation of the check is without force or effect. But does this mean that the existence of one forged signature therein will render void all the other negotiations of the check with respect to the other parties whose signature are genuine? In the case of Beam vs. Farrel, 135 Iowa 670, 113 N.W. 590, where a check has several indorsements on

it, it was held that it is only the negotiation based on the forged or unauthorized signature which is inoperative. Applying this principle to the case before Us, it can be safely concluded that it is only the negotiation predicated on the forged indorsement that should be declared inoperative. This means that the negotiation of the check in question from Martin Lorenzo, the original payee, to Ramon R. Lorenzo, the second indorser, should be declared of no affect, but the negotiation of the aforesaid check from Ramon R. Lorenzo to Adelaida Dominguez, the third indorser, and from Adelaida Dominguez to the defendantappellant who did not know of the forgery, should be considered valid and enforceable, barring any claim of forgery. What happens then, if, after the drawee bank has paid the amount of the check to the holder thereof, it was discovered that the signature of the payee was forged? Can the drawee bank recover from the one who encashed the check? In the case of State v. Broadway Mut. Bank, 282 S.W. 196, 197, it was held that the drawee of a check can recover from the holder the money paid to him on a forged instrument. It is not supposed to be its duty to ascertain whether the signatures of the payee or indorsers are genuine or not. This is because the indorser is supposed to warrant to the drawee that the signatures of the payee and previous indorsers are genuine, warranty not extending only to holders in due course. One who purchases a check or draft is bound to satisfy himself that the paper is genuine and that by indorsing it or presenting it for payment or putting it into circulation before presentation he impliedly asserts that he has performed his duty and the drawee who has paid the forged check, without actual negligence on his part, may recover the money paid from such negligent purchasers. In such cases the recovery is permitted because although the drawee was in a way negligent in failing to detect the forgery, yet if the encasher of the check had performed his duty, the forgery would in all probability, have been detected and the fraud defeated. The reason for allowing the drawee bank to recover from the encasher is: Every one with even the least experience in business knows that no business man would accept a check in exchange for money or goods unless he is satisfied that the check is genuine. He accepts it only because he has proof that it is genuine, or because he has sufficient confidence in the honesty and financial responsibility of the person who vouches for it. If he is deceived he has suffered a loss of his cash or goods through his own mistake. His own credulity or recklessness, or misplaced confidence was the sole cause of the loss. Why should he be permitted to shift the loss due to his own fault in assuming the risk, upon the drawee, simply because of the accidental circumstance that the drawee afterwards failed to detect the forgery when the check was presented? 8 Similarly, in the case before Us, the defendant-appellant, upon receiving the check in question from Adelaida Dominguez, was duty-bound to ascertain whether the check in question was genuine before presenting it to plaintiff Bank for payment. Her failure to do so makes her liable for the loss and the plaintiff Bank may recover from her the money she received for the check. As reasoned out above, had she performed the duty of ascertaining the genuineness of the check, in all probability the forgery would have been detected and the fraud defeated. In our jurisdiction We have a case of similar import.

9 The Great Eastern Life Insurance Company drew its check for P2000.00 on the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation payable to the order of Lazaro Melicor. A certain E. M. Maasin fraudulently obtained the check and forged the signature of Melicor, as an indorser, and then personally indorsed and presented the check to the Philippine National Bank where the amount of the check was placed to his (Maasin's) credit. On the next day, the Philippine National Bank indorsed the cheek to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation which paid it and charged the amount of the check to the insurance company. The Court held that the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was liable to the insurance company for the amount of the check and that the Philippine National Bank was in turn liable to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Said the Court:

Where a check is drawn payable to the order of one person and is presented to a bank by another and purports upon its face to have been duly indorsed by the payee of the check, it is the duty of the bank to know that the check was duly indorsed by the original payee, and where the bank pays the amount of the check to a third person, who has forged the signature of the payee, the loss falls upon the bank who cashed the check, and its only remedy is against the person to whom it paid the money. With the foregoing doctrine We are to concede that the plaintiff Bank should suffer the loss when it paid the amount of the check in question to defendant-appellant, but it has the remedy to recover from the latter the amount it paid to her. Although the defendant-appellant to whom the plaintiff Bank paid the check was not

proven to be the author of the supposed forgery, yet as last indorser of the check, she has warranted that she has good title to it 10 even if in fact she did not have it because the payee of the check was already dead 11 years before the check was issued. The fact that immediately after receiving title cash proceeds of the check in question in the amount of P1,246.08 from the plaintiff Bank, defendant-appellant immediately turned over said amount to Adelaida Dominguez (Third-Party defendant and the Fourth-Party plaintiff) who in turn handed the amount to Justina Tinio on the same date would not exempt her from liability because by doing so, she acted as an accommodation party in the check for which she is also liable under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act 2031), thus: .An accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be only an accommodation party. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto with costs against defendant-appellant. SO ORDERED.