Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 2
Meaning it cannot be encashed 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.
endorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. In order which the petitioner incurred was apparently due to the acts or omissions of
to not be rebutted, it is vital that David must have taken possession of the checks in Chandiramani, and hence, her recourse should have been against him and not against
accordance with Sec. 523. David. Thus, damages should be awarded to David.
CAB: David is the payee of the checks; thus he is presumed to be a holder in due course. DENIED.
There was nothing in the checks, especially as they are in the nature of cahiers checks,
wherein he could have suspected that something is amiss. RSAT
3
What constitutes a holder in due course. - A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (c) That he took it in good faith and for value;
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 that it has been
When Filipinas Orient presented the 4 Metrobank checks for encashment, these were indorsements and/or lack of indorsements are guaranteed. In so doing, they
dishonored. became general endorsers.
PMC refused to pay Filipinas Orient because it claimed it never received the proceeds Section 66 NIL: an endorser warrants that the instrument is
of the PBCom checks, as the proceeds were delivered to the wrong party who is not genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; that he has a
the payee, Pres. Yu Kio good title to it; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and
Filipinas Orient demanded that PBCom restore to Filipinas Orient’s account the value that the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and
of the PBCom checks. subsisting.
PBCom sought reimbursement from Metro Bank and Solid Bank, being the collecting o As endorsers, Metrobank and Solidbank cannot deny liability.
banks, but they refused to do so. Associated Bank v. CA: the collecting bank or last endorser
So Filipinas Orient filed a complaint for a sum of money against PMC, VP Tan Juan generally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain the
Lian, and/or PBCom with RTC Manila genuineness of all prior indorsements and is privy to the depositor
o PBCom filed 3rd party complaints against Metrobank and Solid Bank (the who negotiated the check.
collecting banks) o PBCom (drawee bank) cannot be held liable since it mainly relied on the
PMC and Tan Juan Lian's Answer: Pres. Yu Kio was not authorized to indorse PMC's express guarantee made by the collecting banks (Metrobank and Solidbank)
checks in his personal capacity. of all prior indorsements.
o Also filed a crossclaim against Metrobank and Solidbank, claiming the banks o Evidently, Metrobank and Solidbank disregarded established banking rules
were negligent in allowing Yu Kio to deposit the PBCom checks in his and procedures. They were negligent in accepting the checks and allowing
account. the transaction to push through. Hence, they are liable.
PBCom (drawee bank)'s Answer: in clearing the checks, it relied on the express The law imposes on the collecting bank the duty to diligently scrutinize the checks
guarantee made by Metrobank and Solidbank that the checks were validly indorsed. deposited with it for the purpose of determining their genuineness and
RTC held Metrobank and Solidbank liable for the value of the checks. regularity. The collecting bank, being primarily engaged in banking, holds itself out to
CA affirmed. the public as the expert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a high standard of
conduct.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari by Metrobank and Solidbank. Argument:
o PMC, VP Tan Juan Lian and/or PBCOM should be liable to Filipinas Orient Since the negligence of Metrobank and Solidbank was the direct cause of the
for the value of the checks. misappropriation of the checks, they should bear and answer for Filipinas Orient's
loss, without prejudice to their filing of an appropriate action against Yu Kio.
Whether Metro Bank and Solid Bank are liable to Filipinas Orient for accepting the
PBCom crossed checks payable to PMC – YES
PETITION DENIED. CA AFFIRMED.
4A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) it is value and (d) at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or
complete and regular on its face; (b) he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without defect in the title of the person negotiating it.
notice that it has previously been dishonored, if such was the fact; (c) he took it in good faith and for
Issue #4: W/N Hi- Cement is solidarily liable for the face value of Riverside’s and Kanebo’s
checks? NO
Hi-Cement could not also be made solidarily liable with Riverside and Kanebo for
the face value of their checks. Hi-Cement had nothing to do with the checks of
these two corporations.
The language of the trial court decision's dispositive portion reveals that
the fallo was for each corporation to be liable solidarily with E.T. Henry
and/or the spouses Tan for the respective values of their checks.
Furthermore, solidary liability cannot be presumed but must be established by
law or contract. Neither is present here.
At any rate, the issue has become moot in view of our ruling that Hi-Cement is
not liable for the checks.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
31600 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under
the following conditions:
Dino vs Judal-Loot
a. That it is complete and regular upon its face;
J. Carpio | April 19, 2010 b. That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and
without notice that it has been previously dishonored, if such
was the fact;
c. That he took it in good faith and for value;
A syndicate, one of whose members posed an owner of several parcels of land in d. That at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any
Canjulao, Lapu-Lapu City, approached petitioner and induced him to lend the infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person
group P3,000,000.00 to be secured by a real estate mortgage on the properties. negotiating it.
o A woman pretending to be Vivencia Ompok Consing, even offered to execute a In the case of a crossed check, as in this case, the following principles must
Deed of Absolute Sale covering the properties, instead of the usual mortgage additionally be considered: A crossed check (a) may not be encashed but
contract only deposited in the bank; (b) may be negotiated only once to one who has
Petitioner thus issued 3 Metrobank checks totaling 3,000,000 one of which is an account with a bank; and (c) warns the holder that it has been issued for
postdated February 1993 in the amount of P1,000,000.00 payable to Vivencia Ompok a definite purpose so that the holder thereof must inquire if he has received
Consing and/or Fe Lobitana. the check pursuant to that purpose; otherwise, he is not a holder in due
Petitioner then discovered that the documents involving the properties covered course
rights over government properties. He thus advised Metrobank to stop payment of As such, respondents had the duty to ascertain that the indorser’s
the checks. (Lobitana) title to the check or the nature of her possession.
o However, only one payment was stopped. The other two checks were already Respondent’s verification fom Metrobank does not amount to
encashed by the payees. determination of Lobitanas title to the check.
Lobitana negotiated and indorsed the check to respondents in exchang for cash in the Failing in this respect, respondents are guilty of gross negligence
sum of P948,000, which respondents borrowed from Metrobank and charged against amounting to legal absence of good faith,
their credit line. In this case, there is no question that the payees of the check, Lobitana or
Before respondents accepted the check, they first inquired from the drawee bank, Consing, were not the ones who presented the check for payment. Lobitana
Metrobank, Cebu-Mabolo Branch which is also their depositary bank, if the negotiated and indorsed the check to respondents in exchange
subject check was sufficiently funded, to which Metrobank answered in the for P948,000.00. It was respondents who presented the subject check for
positive. payment; It was not the payee who presented the check for payment; and
o However, when they deposited the check with the Cebu-Mabolo Branch, it was thus, there was no proper presentment. As a result, liability did not attach
dishonored [PAYMENT STOPPED] to the drawer. Accordingly, no right of recourse is available to respondents
Respondents thus filed a collection suit against petitioner and Lobitana before the against the drawer of the check, petitioner herein, since respondents are
trial court. not the proper party authorized to make presentment of the subject check.
o They contend that they are holders in due course and for value of the Metrobank
check and they had no prior information concerning the transactions of the
parties. W/N Respondents can recover on the check –Yes
o They also contend that on the face of the check, no condition or limitation was
imposed. However, the fact that respondents are not holders in due course does
The trial court ruled in favor of respondents they are HDC. not automatically mean that they cannot recover on the check.
Only petitioner filed an appeal with the CA The NIL does not provide that a holder who is not a holder in due
o The CA affirmed the TC. course may not in any case recover on the instrument. The only
Hence this petition. disadvantage of a holder who is not in due course is that the negotiable
instrument is subject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable
o Among such defenses is the absence or failure of
W/N respondents are holders in due course - NO consideration, which petitioner sufficiently established in
this case
Section 52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law defines a holder in due Respondents can collect from the immediate indorser,[21] in this case
course, thus: Lobitana.
GO VS. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST, CO. o The trial court absolved Chua in CEB-9866 because of the finding that
the subject checks in CEB-9866 were payments of petitioner for his
G.R. No. 168842 | Nachura | August 11, 2010 | Page 153 loans or borrowings from the parents of Ma. Teresa Chua, through Ma.
Teresa, who was given the total discretion by petitioner to transfer
money from the offices of Hope Pharmacy to pay the advances and
obligations of the drugstore.
FACTS o While the trial court exonerated Chua in CEB-9866, it however
declared respondent bank liable for being negligent in allowing
the deposit of crossed checks without the proper indorsement.
Petitioner Go was doing business under Hope Pharmacy which sells medicine
and pharmaceutical products in the Cebu City. He employed Ma. Teresa Chua as CA: affirmed.
his pharmacist and trustee/caretaker and Glyndah Tabañag who took care of the GO: MBTC should be held accountable for the entire amount of the checks
receipts and invoices and assisted Chua in making deposits for petitioner’s because it accepted the checks for deposit under Chua’s account despite the fact
accounts. that the checks were crossed and that the payee named therein was not Chua.
Petitioner filed two separate cases before the RTC of Cebu. MBTC: Go is not entitled to reimbursement of the total sum of P1,492,595.06
The 1st civil case (Civil Case No. CEB-9713) was filed by petitioner against Chua from either Maria Teresa Chua or respondent bank because petitioner was not
and Tabañag for a sum of money with preliminary attachment. damaged thereby.
o Petitioner claimed that there were unauthorized deposits and
encashments made by Chua and Tabañag in the total amount of
P109,433.30. ISSUE #1: W/N MBTC SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR FOR ALLOWING THE DEPOSIT
The 2nd civil case (Civil Case No. CEB-9866) was filed by petitioner for a sum of OF CROSSED CHECKS (WHICH WERE ISSUED IN FAVOR OF AND PAYABLE TO GO)
money with damages against herein respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust WITHOUT BEING INDORSED BY GO TO THE ACCOUNT OF CHUA - YES
Company (Metrobank) and Chua.
o Petitioner averred that there were thirty-two (32) checks with Hope A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand. A crossed
Pharmacy as payee, for varying sums, amounting to check is one where two parallel lines are drawn across its face or across the
P1,492,595.06, that were not endorsed by him but were deposited corner thereof. It may be crossed generally or specially.
under the personal account of Chua with respondent bank. A check is crossed specially when the name of a particular banker or a company
o Petitioner claimed that the said checks were crossed checks payable is written between the parallel lines drawn. It is crossed generally when only the
to Hope Pharmacy only; and that without the participation and words "and company" are written or nothing is written at all between the
connivance of respondent bank, the checks could not have been parallel lines, as in this case. It may be issued so that presentment can be made
accepted for deposit to any other account, except petitioners only by a bank.
account. In order to preserve the credit worthiness of checks, jurisprudence has
RTC: dismissed both complaints and ordered Metrobank to pay Vicente pronounced that crossing of a check has the following effects:
Go/Hope Pharmacy P50,000.00 as moral damages and attorney’s fees and (a) the check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank;
litigation expenses in the aggregate sum of P25,000. It ruled that:
o FEBTC Check No. 251111 in the amount of P22,635 payable to cash, (b) the check may be negotiated only once to one who has an account
was drawn by Loy Libron in payment of her purchases of medicines with a bank; and
which Ma. Teresa Chua was selling side by side with the medicines of
the Hope Pharmacy, for which she was granted permission by
(c) the act of crossing the check serves as warning to the holder
petitioner Go.
o RCBC Check Nos. 294519 and 330958 were checks belonging to that the check has been issued for a definite purpose so that he
petitioner Vicente Go payable to cash; these checks were replacements must inquire if he has received the check pursuant to that
of the sums earlier advanced by Ma. Teresa Chua, but which were purpose, otherwise, he is not a holder in due course.
deposited in the account of Vicente Go with RCBC;
o Check No. PCIB 005374 drawn by Elizabeth Enriquez payable to Hope The Court has taken judicial cognizance of the practice that a check with two
Pharmacy/Cash in the amount of P6,798.30 was admittedly encashed parallel lines in the upper left-hand corner means that it could only
by the defendant, Glyndah Tabañag. As per instruction by Vicente Go, be deposited and not converted into cash.
Glyndah requested the drawer to insert the word Cash, so that she
could encash the same with PCIB, to meet the Hope Pharmacy’s IN THIS CASE, there is no dispute that the subject 32 checks with the total
overdraft. amount of P1,492,595.06 were crossed checks with petitioner as the
named payee.
o Respondent bank should not be held liable for the entire amount of the • Equitable acceded to his demands on the assumption that Uy, as the son-in-law of
checks considering that the checks were given to Chua as payments by Interco’s majority stockholder, was acting pursuant to Interco’s orders. The bank also
petitioner for loans obtained from the parents of Chua. Thus, petitioner relied on Uy’s status as a valued client. Thus, Equitable accepted the checks for deposit
suffered no pecuniary loss in the deposit of the checks to the account of in Uy’s personal accounts and stamped "ALL PRIOR ENDORSEMENT AND/OR LACK OF
Chua. ENDORSEMENT GUARANTEED" on their dorsal portion. Uy promptly withdrew the
HOWEVER, the Court affirmed the finding of the RTC that respondent bank was proceeds of the checks.
negligent in permitting the deposit and encashment of the crossed checks • In October 1991, SSPI reminded Interco of the payment amounting to P985,234.98, and
without the proper indorsement. again on January 14, 1992. SSPI explained that it needed the money but Interco replied
o An indorsement is necessary for the proper negotiation of checks that it had already issued the 3 checks payable to it. SSPI denied receipt of these checks.
specially if the payee named therein or holder thereof is not the one • SSPI requested information from Equitable regarding the checks but the bank refused to
depositing or encashing it. Knowing fully well that the subject checks give any information invoking the confidentiality of deposits. Eventually, however, they
were crossed, that the payee was not the holder and that the checks found out about Uy’s scheme.
contained no indorsement, respondent bank should have taken • On June 30 (23 months after the issuance of the checks), Interco finally paid the value of
reasonable steps in order to determine the validity of the the 3 checks to SSPI, plus a portion of the accrued interests. Interco refused to pay the
representations made by Chua. entire accrued interest on the ground that it was not responsible for the delay. Thus,
o Respondent bank was amiss in its duty as an agent of the payee. there was a balance in interest income.
Prudence dictates that respondent bank should not have merely relied • SSPI and its president, Pardo, filed a complaint for damages case with application for a
on the assurances given by Chua. writ of preliminary attachment against Uy and Equitable Bank, which alleged that the 3
Respondent’s OIC Jonathan Davis also testified that he allowed Ma. Teresa Chua crossed checks, all payable to the order of SSPI and with the notation "account payee
to deposit the checks because it was a privilege given to valued customers since only," could be deposited and encashed by SSPI only. However, due to Uy’s fraudulent
this arrangement went on for about three years, without any complaint from Mr. representations, and Equitable’s indispensable connivance or gross negligence, the
Go/Hope Pharmacy. restrictive nature of the checks was ignored and the checks were deposited in Uy’s
o The law imposes a duty of extraordinary diligence on the collecting account. Thus, the plaintiffs prayed for an award of actual damages consisting of the
bank to scrutinize checks deposited with it, for the purpose of unrealized interest income. Pardo claimed ₱3M as moral damages. They also prayed for
determining their genuineness and regularity. The fact that this exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
arrangement had been practiced for three years without Mr. Go/Hope • The RTC granted their application and issued the writ but this was eventually discharged
Pharmacy raising any objection does not detract from the duty of the by a counterbond.
bank to exercise extraordinary diligence. • Equitable then argued for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action. It
maintained that interest income is due only when it is expressly stipulated in writing.
Moreover, SSPI’s acceptance of Interco’s payment on the sales invoices is a waiver or
CA AFFIRMED. extinction of SSPI’s cause of action based on the 3 checks. Equitable further argued that
it is not liable to SSPI because it accepted the 3 crossed checks in good faith; that due to
Uy’s close relations with the drawer of the checks, the bank had basis to assume that the
drawer authorized Uy to countermand the original order stated in the check. Since only
EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. SPECIAL STEEL PRODUCTS Uy is responsible for the fraudulent conversion of the checks, he should reimburse
G.R. No. 175350 | June 13, 2012 | Del Castillo, J. Equitable for any amounts that it may be made liable to plaintiffs.
• Uy answered that the checks were negotiated to him; that he is a holder for value of the
FACTS: checks and that he has a good title thereto. He did not, however, explain how he obtained
• Special Steel Products, Inc. (SSPI) sold welding electrodes to International Copra Export the checks, from whom he obtained his title, and the value for which he received them.
Corporation (Interco), as evidenced sales invoices, with an interest rate of 36% per • The RTC clarified that SSPI’s cause of action against Uy and Equitable is for quasi-delict.
annum in case of delay. Equitable was negligent in permitting Uy to deposit the checks in his account without
• In payment for the welding electrodes, Interco issued 3 checks payable to the order of verifying Uy’s right to endorse the crossed checks. Uy’s conversion of the checks and
SSPI on July 10, 16, and 29, 1991. Each check was crossed with the notation "account Equitable’s negligence make them liable to compensate SSPI for the actual damage it
payee only" and was drawn against Equitable. The records do not identify the signatory sustained, which consists of the income that SSPI failed to realize during the delay. The
for these checks, or explain how Uy, Interco’s purchasing officer, came into possession RTC then equated this unrealized income with the interest income that SSPI failed to
of these checks. collect from Interco. The CA affirmed.
• The records only disclose that Uy presented each crossed check to Equitable on the day
of its issuance and claimed that he had good title and demanded the deposit of the checks ISSUE: WON SSPI has a cause of action against Equitable for quasi-delict - YES
in his personal accounts.
RATIO:
• SSPI’s cause of action is not based on the 3 checks. SSPI does not ask Equitable or Uy to
deliver to it the proceeds of the checks as the rightful payee. SSPI does not assert a right RATIO:
based on the undelivered checks or for breach of contract. Instead, it asserts a cause of • The bank argues that it was Uy who was enriched by the entire scheme and should
action based on quasi-delict. A quasi-delict is an act or omission, there being fault or reimburse Equitable for whatever amounts the Court might order it to pay in damages
negligence, which causes damage to another. to SSPI, and the Court agrees. There is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly
• The checks that Interco issued in favor of SSPI were all crossed, made payable to SSPI’s benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.
order, and contained the notation "account payee only." This creates a reasonable • In the instant case, the fraudulent scheme concocted by Uy allowed him to improperly
expectation that the payee alone would receive the proceeds of the checks and that receive the proceeds of the three crossed checks and enjoy the profits from these
diversion of the checks would be averted. This expectation arises from the accepted proceeds during the entire time that it was withheld from SSPI. Equitable, through its
banking practice that crossed checks are intended for deposit in the named payee’s gross negligence and mislaid trust on Uy, became an unwitting instrument in Uy’s
account only and no other. At the very least, the nature of crossed checks should place a scheme. Equitable’s fault renders it solidarily liable with Uy, insofar as respondents are
bank on notice that it should exercise more caution or expend more than a cursory concerned. Nevertheless, as between Equitable and Uy, Equitable should be allowed to
inquiry, to ascertain whether the payee on the check has authorized the holder to deposit recover from Uy whatever amounts Equitable may be made to pay under the judgment.
the same in a different account. It is clear that Equitable did not profit in Uy’s scheme.
• Since the banking business is impressed with public interest, the trust and confidence of
the public in it is of paramount importance. Consequently, the highest degree of diligence
is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are required of it. Equitable JJ: Why is the collecting bank liable to the payee? For there to be a tort, there should be
did not observe the required degree of diligence expected of a banking institution under a duty. Collecting bank owes no duty to the payee. Interco should sue EBC for breach of
the existing factual circumstances. contract.
• The fact that a person, other than the named payee of the crossed check, was presenting
it for deposit should have put the bank on guard. It should have verified if the payee
(SSPI) authorized the holder (Uy) to present the same in its behalf, or indorsed it to him.
Equitable contends that its knowledge that Uy is the son-in-law of the majority
stockholder of the drawer, Interco, made it safe to assume that the drawer authorized
Uy to countermand the order appearing on the check. In other words, Equitable
theorizes that Interco reconsidered its original order and decided to give the proceeds
of the checks to Uy. That the bank arrived at this conclusion without anything on the face
of the checks to support it is demonstrative of its lack of caution. It is troubling that
Equitable proceeded with the transaction based only on its knowledge that Uy had close
relations with Interco. The bank did not even make inquiries with the drawer and their
valued client, Interco, to verify Uy’s representation.
RATIO:
• SSPI agreed that the delay was not Interco’s fault, but that of the defendants’, as such,
Interco is not in delay (at least not after issuance of the checks) and the stipulated
interest payments in their contract did not become operational. If Interco is not liable to
pay for the 36% per annum interest rate, then SSPI did not lose that income.
• More importantly, the provisions of a contract generally take effect only among the
parties, their assigns and heirs. SSPI cannot invoke the contractual stipulation on interest
payments against Equitable because it is neither a party to the contract, nor an assignee
or an heir to the contracting parties.
• Still, it is clear that defendants’ actions deprived SSPI of the present use of its money for
a period of 2 years. SSPI is therefore entitled to obtain from the tortfeasors the profits
that it failed to obtain and should recover interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum, this
being an award for damages based on quasi-delict and not for a loan or forbearance of
money.
ISSUE: WON Uy should reimburse Equitable for whatever amounts the Court might order
it to pay in damages to SSPI - YES