G.R. No. 97753. August 10, 1992.*

1.) CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents.

Commercial Law; Negotiable Instruments Law; Requisites for an instrument to become negotiable.—Section 1 of 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.”

Same; Same; Same; The negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is determined from the writing that is from the face of the instrument itself.—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. In the construction of a bill or note, the intention of the parties is to control, if it can be legally ascertained. 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.

Same; Same; Same; 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 and a holder may be the payee or indorsee of a bill or note who is in possession of it or the bearer thereof.—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, and a holder may be the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. 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.

Same; Same; Same; 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.—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. As such holder of collateral security, he would be a pledgee but the requirements there-for 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.

Civil Law; Estoppel; 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.—In a letter dated November 26, 1982 addressed to respondent Security Bank, J.Q. Aranas, Jr., Caltex Credit Manager, wrote: “x x x These certificates of deposit were negotiated to us by Mr. Angel dela Cruz to guarantee his purchases of fuel products” (Italics ours.) 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. A party may not go back on his own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. 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.

Same; Same; An issue raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower court is barred by estoppel.—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. 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.

Remedial Law; Pre-trial; The determination of issues at a pretrial conference bars the consideration of other questions on appeal.—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.

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 CTDDates Serial Nos. Quantity Amount

22 Feb. 82 90101 to 90120 20 P80,00026 Feb. 82 74602 to 74691 90 360,0002 Mar. 82 74701 to 74740 40 160,0004 Mar. 82 90127 to 90146 20 80,0005 Mar. 82 74797 to 94800 4 16,0005 Mar. 82 89965 to 89986 22 88,0005 Mar. 82 70147 to 90150 4 16,0008 Mar. 82 90001 to 90020 20 80,0009 Mar. 82 90023 to 90050 28 112,0009 Mar. 82 89991 to 90000 10 40,0009 Mar. 82 90251 to 90272 22 88,000——— ————Total 280 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 282-561).

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 BANKAND TRUST COMPANY6778 Ayala Ave., Makati No. 90101Metro Manila, PhilippinesSUCAT OFFICEP 4,000.00CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITRate 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 ofpayment 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. 29 The 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.

G.R. No. 88866. February 18, 1991.*

2.) METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GOLDEN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., LUCIA CASTILLO, MAGNO CASTILLO and GLORIA CASTILLO, respondents.

Civil Law; Obligations and Contracts; Agency; 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 Metro-bank 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.

Mercantile Law; Negotiable Instruments; Requisites of Negotiabil-ity; An instrument to be negotiable must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money.—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 trasaction which gives rise to the instrument. 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 uncon-ditional” 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. [Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 169(1991)]

CRUZ, J.:

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 thewarrants. 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.

x x x           x x x          x x x

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.1âwphi1 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.

No. L-72593. April 30, 1987.*

3.) CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., HENRY WEE, and RODOLFO T. VERGARA, petitioners, vs. IFC LEASING AND ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, respondent.

Negotiable Instruments Law; Promissory Note must he payable to order or bearer to be negotiable.—"The instrument in order to be considered negotiable must contain the so called 'words of negotiability'-ie., must be payable to 'order' or 'bearer.' These words serve as an expression of consent that the instrument may be transferred. This consent is indispensable since a maker assumes greater risks under a negotiable instrument than under a non-negotiable one.

Same; Same; When instrument is payable to order.—The instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable to the order of a specified person or to him or his order . . . "These are the only two ways by which an instrument may be made payable to order. There must be always be a specified person named in the instrument. It means that the bill or note is to be paid to the person designated in the instrument or to any person to whom he has indorsed and delivered the same. Without the words 'or order' or 'to the order of,' the instrument is payable only to the person designated therein and is therefore non-negotiable. Any subsequent purchaser thereof will not enjoy the

advantages of being a holder of a negotiable instrument, but will merely 'step into the shoes' of the person designated in the instrument and will thus be open to all defenses available against the latter."

Same; Same; Effect if promissory note is non-negotiable.—Therefore, considering that the subject promissory note is not a negotiable instrument, it follows that the respondent can never be a holder in due course but remains a mere assignee of the note in question. Thus, the petitioner may raise against the respondent all defenses available to it as against the seller-assignor, Industrial Products Marketing. [Consolidated Plywood lndustries, Inc. vs. IFC Leasing and Acceptance Corporation, 149 SCRA 448(1987)]

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which assails on questions of law a decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. CV No. 68609 dated July 17, 1985, as well as its resolution dated October 17, 1985, denying the motion for reconsideration.

The antecedent facts culled from the petition are as follows:

The petitioner is a corporation engaged in the logging business. It had for its program of logging activities for the year 1978 the opening of additional roads, and simultaneous logging operations along the route of said roads, in its logging concession area at Baganga, Manay, and Caraga, Davao Oriental. For this purpose, it needed two (2) additional units of tractors.

Cognizant of petitioner-corporation's need and purpose, Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila, through its sister company and marketing arm, Industrial Products Marketing (the "seller-assignor"), a corporation dealing in tractors and other heavy equipment business, offered to sell to petitioner-corporation two (2) "Used" Allis Crawler Tractors, one (1) an HDD-21-B and the other an HDD-16-B.

In order to ascertain the extent of work to which the tractors were to be exposed, (t.s.n., May 28, 1980, p. 44) and to determine the capability of the "Used" tractors being offered, petitioner-corporation requested the seller-assignor to inspect the job site. After conducting said inspection, the seller-assignor assured petitioner-corporation that the "Used" Allis Crawler Tractors which were being offered were fit for the job, and gave the corresponding warranty of ninety (90) days performance of the machines and availability of parts. (t.s.n., May 28, 1980, pp. 59-66).

With said assurance and warranty, and relying on the seller-assignor's skill and judgment, petitioner-corporation through petitioners Wee and Vergara, president and vice- president, respectively, agreed to purchase on installment said two (2) units of "Used" Allis Crawler Tractors. It also paid the down payment of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P210,000.00).

On April 5, 1978, the seller-assignor issued the sales invoice for the two 2) units of tractors (Exh. "3-A"). At the same time, the deed of sale with chattel mortgage with promissory note was executed (Exh. "2").

Simultaneously with the execution of the deed of sale with chattel mortgage with promissory note, the seller-assignor, by means of a deed of assignment (E exh. " 1 "), assigned its rights and interest in the chattel mortgage in favor of the respondent.

Immediately thereafter, the seller-assignor delivered said two (2) units of "Used" tractors to the petitioner-corporation's job site and as agreed, the seller-assignor stationed its own mechanics to supervise the operations of the machines.

Barely fourteen (14) days had elapsed after their delivery when one of the tractors broke down and after another nine (9) days, the other tractor likewise broke down (t.s.n., May 28, 1980, pp. 68-69).

On April 25, 1978, petitioner Rodolfo T. Vergara formally advised the seller-assignor of the fact that the tractors broke down and requested for the seller-assignor's usual prompt attention under the warranty (E exh. " 5 ").

In response to the formal advice by petitioner Rodolfo T. Vergara, Exhibit "5," the seller-assignor sent to the job site its mechanics to conduct the necessary repairs (Exhs. "6," "6-A," "6-B," 16 C," "16-C-1," "6-D," and "6-E"), but the tractors did not come out to be what they should be after the repairs were undertaken because the units were no longer serviceable (t. s. n., May 28, 1980, p. 78).

Because of the breaking down of the tractors, the road building and simultaneous logging operations of petitioner-corporation were delayed and petitioner Vergara advised the seller-assignor that the payments of the installments as listed in the promissory note would likewise be delayed until the seller-assignor completely fulfills its obligation under its warranty (t.s.n, May 28, 1980, p. 79).

Since the tractors were no longer serviceable, on April 7, 1979, petitioner Wee asked the seller-assignor to pull out the units and have them reconditioned, and thereafter to offer them for sale. The proceeds were to be given to the respondent and the excess, if any, to be divided between the seller-assignor and petitioner-corporation which offered to bear one-half (1/2) of the reconditioning cost (E exh. " 7 ").

No response to this letter, Exhibit "7," was received by the petitioner-corporation and despite several follow-up calls, the seller-assignor did nothing with regard to the request, until the complaint in this case was filed by the respondent against the petitioners, the corporation, Wee, and Vergara.

The complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioners for the recovery of the principal sum of One Million Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Nine Pesos & 71/100 (P1,093,789.71), accrued interest of One Hundred Fifty One Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen Pesos & 86/100 (P151,618.86) as of August 15, 1979, accruing interest thereafter at the rate of twelve (12%) percent per annum, attorney's fees of

Two Hundred Forty Nine Thousand Eighty One Pesos & 71/100 (P249,081.7 1) and costs of suit.

The petitioners filed their amended answer praying for the dismissal of the complaint and asking the trial court to order the respondent to pay the petitioners damages in an amount at the sound discretion of the court, Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as and for attorney's fees, and Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for expenses of litigation. The petitioners likewise prayed for such other and further relief as would be just under the premises.

In a decision dated April 20, 1981, the trial court rendered the following judgment:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally in their official and personal capacities the principal sum of ONE MILLION NINETY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT PESOS & 71/100 (P1,093,798.71) with accrued interest of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTEEN PESOS & 86/100 (P151,618.,86) as of August 15, 1979 and accruing interest thereafter at the rate of 12% per annum;

2. ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the principal and to pay the costs of the suit.

Defendants' counterclaim is disallowed. (pp. 45-46, Rollo)

On June 8, 1981, the trial court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners.

Thus, the petitioners appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court and assigned therein the following errors:

I

THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE SELLER ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA DID NOT APPROVE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS CLAIM OF WARRANTY.

II

THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE IS A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE AND SUED UNDER SAID NOTE AS HOLDER THEREOF IN DUE COURSE.

On July 17, 1985, the Intermediate Appellate Court issued the challenged decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court. The pertinent portions of the decision are as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

From the evidence presented by the parties on the issue of warranty, We are of the considered opinion that aside from the fact that no provision of warranty appears or is provided in the Deed of Sale of the tractors and even admitting that in a contract of sale unless a contrary intention appears, there is an implied warranty, the defense of breach of warranty, if there is any, as in this case, does not lie in favor of the appellants and against the plaintiff-appellee who is the assignee of the promissory note and a holder of the same in due course. Warranty lies in this case only between Industrial Products Marketing and Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. The plaintiff-appellant herein upon application by appellant corporation granted financing for the purchase of the questioned units of Fiat-Allis Crawler,Tractors.

xxx xxx xxx

Holding that breach of warranty if any, is not a defense available to appellants either to withdraw from the contract and/or demand a proportionate reduction of the price with damages in either case (Art. 1567, New Civil Code). We now come to the issue as to whether the plaintiff-appellee is a holder in due course of the promissory note.

To begin with, it is beyond arguments that the plaintiff-appellee is a financing corporation engaged in financing and receivable discounting extending credit facilities to consumers and industrial, commercial or agricultural enterprises by discounting or factoring commercial papers or accounts receivable duly authorized pursuant to R.A. 5980 otherwise known as the Financing Act.

A study of the questioned promissory note reveals that it is a negotiable instrument which was discounted or sold to the IFC Leasing and Acceptance Corporation for P800,000.00 (Exh. "A") considering the following. it is in writing and signed by the maker; it contains an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum of money payable at a fixed or determinable future time; it is payable to order (Sec. 1, NIL); the promissory note was negotiated when it was transferred and delivered by IPM to the appellee and duly endorsed to the latter (Sec. 30, NIL); it was taken in the conditions that the note was complete and regular upon its face before the same was overdue and without notice, that it had been previously dishonored and that the note is in good faith and for value without notice of any infirmity or defect in the title of IPM (Sec. 52, NIL); that IFC Leasing and Acceptance Corporation held the instrument free from

any defect of title of prior parties and free from defenses available to prior parties among themselves and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof against all parties liable thereon (Sec. 57, NIL); the appellants engaged that they would pay the note according to its tenor, and admit the existence of the payee IPM and its capacity to endorse (Sec. 60, NIL).

In view of the essential elements found in the questioned promissory note, We opine that the same is legally and conclusively enforceable against the defendants-appellants.

WHEREFORE, finding the decision appealed from according to law and evidence, We find the appeal without merit and thus affirm the decision in toto. With costs against the appellants. (pp. 50-55, Rollo)

The petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision of July 17, 1985 was denied by the Intermediate Appellate Court in its resolution dated October 17, 1985, a copy of which was received by the petitioners on October 21, 1985.

Hence, this petition was filed on the following grounds:

I.

ON ITS FACE, THE PROMISSORY NOTE IS CLEARLY NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AS DEFINED UNDER THE LAW SINCE IT IS NEITHER PAYABLE TO ORDER NOR TO BEARER.

II

THE RESPONDENT IS NOT A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE: AT BEST, IT IS A MERE ASSIGNEE OF THE SUBJECT PROMISSORY NOTE.

III.

SINCE THE INSTANT CASE INVOLVES A NON-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND THE TRANSFER OF RIGHTS WAS THROUGH A MERE ASSIGNMENT, THE PETITIONERS MAY RAISE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ALL DEFENSES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO IT AS AGAINST THE SELLER- ASSIGNOR, INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS MARKETING.

IV.

THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE BECAUSE:

A) THE SELLER-ASSIGNOR IS GUILTY OF BREACH OF WARRANTY UNDER THE LAW;

B) IF AT ALL, THE RESPONDENT MAY RECOVER ONLY FROM THE SELLER-ASSIGNOR OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE.

V.

THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE CHATTEL MORTGAGE BY THE SELLER- ASSIGNOR IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION FROM BEING A SALE ON INSTALLMENTS TO A PURE LOAN.

VI.

THE PROMISSORY NOTE CANNOT BE ADMITTED OR USED IN EVIDENCE IN ANY COURT BECAUSE THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTARY STAMPS HAVE NOT BEEN AFFIXED THEREON OR CANCELLED.

The petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered setting aside the decision dated July 17, 1985, as well as the resolution dated October 17, 1985 and dismissing the complaint but granting petitioners' counterclaims before the court of origin.

On the other hand, the respondent corporation in its comment to the petition filed on February 20, 1986, contended that the petition was filed out of time; that the promissory note is a negotiable instrument and respondent a holder in due course; that respondent is not liable for any breach of warranty; and finally, that the promissory note is admissible in evidence.

The core issue herein is whether or not the promissory note in question is a negotiable instrument so as to bar completely all the available defenses of the petitioner against the respondent-assignee.

Preliminarily, it must be established at the outset that we consider the instant petition to have been filed on time because the petitioners' motion for reconsideration actually raised new issues. It cannot, therefore, be considered pro- formal.

The petition is impressed with merit.

First, there is no question that the seller-assignor breached its express 90-day warranty because the findings of the trial court, adopted by the respondent appellate court, that "14 days after delivery, the first tractor broke down and 9 days, thereafter, the second tractor became inoperable" are sustained by the records. The petitioner was clearly a victim of a warranty not honored by the maker.

The Civil Code provides that:

ART. 1561. The vendor shall be responsible for warranty against the hidden defects which the thing sold may have, should they render it unfit for the use for which it is intended, or should they diminish its fitness for such use to such an extent that, had the vendee been aware thereof, he would not have acquired it or would have given a lower price for it; but said vendor shall not be answerable for patent defects or those which may be visible, or for those which are not visible if the vendee is an expert who, by reason of his trade or profession, should have known them.

ART. 1562. In a sale of goods, there is an implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness of the goods, as follows:

(1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are acquired, and it appears that the buyer relies on the sellers skill or judge judgment (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose;

xxx xxx xxx

ART. 1564. An implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade.

xxx xxx xxx

ART. 1566. The vendor is responsible to the vendee for any hidden faults or defects in the thing sold even though he was not aware thereof.

This provision shall not apply if the contrary has been stipulated, and the vendor was not aware of the hidden faults or defects in the thing sold. (Emphasis supplied).

It is patent then, that the seller-assignor is liable for its breach of warranty against the petitioner. This liability as a general rule, extends to the corporation to whom it assigned its rights and interests unless the assignee is a holder in due course of the promissory note in question, assuming the note is negotiable, in which case the latter's rights are based on the negotiable instrument and assuming further that the petitioner's defenses may not prevail against it.

Secondly, it likewise cannot be denied that as soon as the tractors broke down, the petitioner-corporation notified the seller-assignor's sister company, AG & P, about the breakdown based on the seller-assignor's express 90-day warranty, with which the latter complied by sending its mechanics. However, due to the seller-assignor's delay and its failure to comply with its warranty, the tractors became totally unserviceable and useless for the purpose for which they were purchased.

Thirdly, the petitioner-corporation, thereafter, unilaterally rescinded its contract with the seller-assignor.

Articles 1191 and 1567 of the Civil Code provide that:

ART. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.

The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek

rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.

xxx xxx xxx

ART. 1567. In the cases of articles 1561, 1562, 1564, 1565 and 1566, the vendee may elect between withdrawing from the contract and demanding a proportionate reduction of the price, with damages in either case. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner, having unilaterally and extrajudicially rescinded its contract with the seller-assignor, necessarily can no longer sue the seller-assignor except by way of counterclaim if the seller-assignor sues it because of the rescission.

In the case of the University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles (35 SCRA 102) we held:

In other words, the party who deems the contract violated may consider it resolved or rescinded, and act accordingly, without previous court action, but it proceeds at its own risk. For it is only the final judgment of the corresponding court that will conclusively and finally settle whether the action taken was or was not correct in law. But the law definitely does not require that the contracting party who believes itself injured must first file suit and wait for adjudgement before taking extrajudicial steps to protect its interest. Otherwise, the party injured by the other's breach will have to passively sit and watch its damages accumulate during the pendency of the suit until the final judgment of rescission is rendered when the law itself requires that he should exercise due diligence to minimize its own damages (Civil Code, Article 2203). (Emphasis supplied)

Going back to the core issue, we rule that the promissory note in question is not a negotiable instrument.

The pertinent portion of the note is as follows:

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I/we jointly and severally promise to pay to the INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS MARKETING, the sum of ONE MILLION NINETY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE PESOS & 71/100 only (P 1,093,789.71), Philippine Currency, the said principal sum, to be payable in 24 monthly installments starting July 15, 1978 and every 15th of the month thereafter until fully paid. ...

Considering that paragraph (d), Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law requires that a promissory note "must be payable to order or bearer, " it cannot be denied that the promissory note in question is not a negotiable instrument.

The instrument in order to be considered negotiablility-i.e. must contain the so-called 'words of negotiable, must be payable to 'order' or 'bearer'. These words serve as an expression of consent that the instrument may be

transferred. This consent is indispensable since a maker assumes greater risk under a negotiable instrument than under a non-negotiable one. ...

xxx xxx xxx

When instrument is payable to order.

SEC. 8. WHEN PAYABLE TO ORDER. — The instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable to the order of a specified person or to him or his order. . . .

xxx xxx xxx

These are the only two ways by which an instrument may be made payable to order. There must always be a specified person named in the instrument. It means that the bill or note is to be paid to the person designated in the instrument or to any person to whom he has indorsed and delivered the same. Without the words "or order" or"to the order of, "the instrument is payable only to the person designated therein and is therefore non-negotiable. Any subsequent purchaser thereof will not enjoy the advantages of being a holder of a negotiable instrument but will merely "step into the shoes" of the person designated in the instrument and will thus be open to all defenses available against the latter." (Campos and Campos, Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law, Third Edition, page 38). (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, considering that the subject promissory note is not a negotiable instrument, it follows that the respondent can never be a holder in due course but remains a mere assignee of the note in question. Thus, the petitioner may raise against the respondent all defenses available to it as against the seller-assignor Industrial Products Marketing.

This being so, there was no need for the petitioner to implied the seller-assignor when it was sued by the respondent-assignee because the petitioner's defenses apply to both or either of either of them. Actually, the records show that even the respondent itself admitted to being a mere assignee of the promissory note in question, to wit:

ATTY. PALACA:

Did we get it right from the counsel that what is being assigned is the Deed of Sale with Chattel Mortgage with the promissory note which is as testified to by the witness was indorsed? (Counsel for Plaintiff nodding his head.) Then we have no further questions on cross,

COURT:

You confirm his manifestation? You are nodding your head? Do you confirm that?

ATTY. ILAGAN:

The Deed of Sale cannot be assigned. A deed of sale is a transaction between two persons; what is assigned are rights, the rights of the mortgagee were assigned to the IFC Leasing & Acceptance Corporation.

COURT:

He puts it in a simple way as one-deed of sale and chattel mortgage were assigned; . . . you want to make a distinction, one is an assignment of mortgage right and the other one is indorsement of the promissory note. What counsel for defendants wants is that you stipulate that it is contained in one single transaction?

ATTY. ILAGAN:

We stipulate it is one single transaction. (pp. 27-29, TSN., February 13, 1980).

Secondly, even conceding for purposes of discussion that the promissory note in question is a negotiable instrument, the respondent cannot be a holder in due course for a more significant reason.

The evidence presented in the instant case shows that prior to the sale on installment of the tractors, there was an arrangement between the seller-assignor, Industrial Products Marketing, and the respondent whereby the latter would pay the seller-assignor the entire purchase price and the seller-assignor, in turn, would assign its rights to the respondent which acquired the right to collect the price from the buyer, herein petitioner Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc.

A mere perusal of the Deed of Sale with Chattel Mortgage with Promissory Note, the Deed of Assignment and the Disclosure of Loan/Credit Transaction shows that said documents evidencing the sale on installment of the tractors were all executed on the same day by and among the buyer, which is herein petitioner Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc.; the seller-assignor which is the Industrial Products Marketing; and the assignee-financing company, which is the respondent. Therefore, the respondent had actual knowledge of the fact that the seller-assignor's right to collect the purchase price was not unconditional, and that it was subject to the condition that the tractors -sold were not defective. The respondent knew that when the tractors turned out to be defective, it would be subject to the defense of failure of consideration and cannot recover the purchase price from the petitioners. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the promissory note is negotiable, the respondent, which took the same with actual knowledge of the foregoing facts so that its action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith, is not a holder in due course. As such, the respondent is subject to all defenses which the petitioners may raise against the seller-assignor. Any other interpretation would be most inequitous to the unfortunate buyer who is not only

saddled with two useless tractors but must also face a lawsuit from the assignee for the entire purchase price and all its incidents without being able to raise valid defenses available as against the assignor.

Lastly, the respondent failed to present any evidence to prove that it had no knowledge of any fact, which would justify its act of taking the promissory note as not amounting to bad faith.

Sections 52 and 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provide that: negotiating it.

xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 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:

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

(c) That he took it in good faith and for value

(d) That the time it was negotiated by him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument of deffect in the title of the person negotiating it

xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 56. WHAT CONSTITUTES NOTICE OF DEFFECT. — To constitute notice of an infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same, the person to whom it is negotiated must have had actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounts to bad faith. (Emphasis supplied)

We subscribe to the view of Campos and Campos that a financing company is not a holder in good faith as to the buyer, to wit:

In installment sales, the buyer usually issues a note payable to the seller to cover the purchase price. Many times, in pursuance of a previous arrangement with the seller, a finance company pays the full price and the note is indorsed to it, subrogating it to the right to collect the price from the buyer, with interest. With the increasing frequency of installment buying in this country, it is most probable that the tendency of the courts in the United States to protect the buyer against the finance company will , the finance company will be subject to the defense of failure of consideration and cannot recover the purchase price from the buyer. As against the argument that such a rule would seriously affect "a certain mode of

transacting business adopted throughout the State," a court in one case stated:

It may be that our holding here will require some changes in business methods and will impose a greater burden on the finance companies. We think the buyer-Mr. & Mrs. General Public-should have some protection somewhere along the line. We believe the finance company is better able to bear the risk of the dealer's insolvency than the buyer and in a far better position to protect his interests against unscrupulous and insolvent dealers. . . .

If this opinion imposes great burdens on finance companies it is a potent argument in favor of a rule which win afford public protection to the general buying public against unscrupulous dealers in personal property. . . . (Mutual Finance Co. v. Martin, 63 So. 2d 649, 44 ALR 2d 1 [1953]) (Campos and Campos, Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law, Third Edition, p. 128).

In the case of Commercial Credit Corporation v. Orange Country Machine Works (34 Cal. 2d 766) involving similar facts, it was held that in a very real sense, the finance company was a moving force in the transaction from its very inception and acted as a party to it. When a finance company actively participates in a transaction of this type from its inception, it cannot be regarded as a holder in due course of the note given in the transaction.

In like manner, therefore, even assuming that the subject promissory note is negotiable, the respondent, a financing company which actively participated in the sale on installment of the subject two Allis Crawler tractors, cannot be regarded as a holder in due course of said note. It follows that the respondent's rights under the promissory note involved in this case are subject to all defenses that the petitioners have against the seller-assignor, Industrial Products Marketing. For Section 58 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides that "in the hands of any holder other than a holder in due course, a negotiable instrument is subject to the same defenses as if it were non-negotiable. ... "

Prescinding from the foregoing and setting aside other peripheral issues, we find that both the trial and respondent appellate court erred in holding the promissory note in question to be negotiable. Such a ruling does not only violate the law and applicable jurisprudence, but would result in unjust enrichment on the part of both the assigner- assignor and respondent assignee at the expense of the petitioner-corporation which rightfully rescinded an inequitable contract. We note, however, that since the seller-assignor has not been impleaded herein, there is no obstacle for the respondent to file a civil Suit and litigate its claims against the seller- assignor in the rather unlikely possibility that it so desires,

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the respondent appellate court dated July 17, 1985, as well as its resolution dated October 17, 1986, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The complaint against the petitioner before the trial court is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

No. L-74451. May 25, 1988.*

4.) EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and THE EDWARD J. NELL CO., respondents.

Commercial Law; Negotiable Instruments Law; Checks; The subject check was, initially, not non-negotiable; Reason.—Contrary to the finding of respondent Appellate Court, the subject check was, initially, not non-negotiable. Neither was it a crossed check. The rubber-stamping transversally on the face of the subject check of the words “Nonnegotiable for Payee’s Account Only” between two (2) parallel lines, and “Non-negotiable, Teller No. 4, August 17, 1986," separately boxed, was made only by the Bank teller in accordance with customary bank practice, and not by NELL as the drawer of the check, and simply meant that thereafter the same check could no longer be negotiated.

Same; Same; Same; The subject check was equivocal and patentlyambiguous; Reasons; The ambiguity should be construed against the party who caused the ambiguity.—The subject check was equivocal and patently ambiguous. By making the check read: “Pay to the EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION Order of A/C OF CASVILLE ENTERPRISES, INC." the payee ceased to be indicated with reasonable certainty in contravention of Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. As worded, it could be accepted as deposit to the account of the party named after the symbols “A/C," or payable to the Bank as trustee, or as an agent, for Casville Enterprises, Inc., with the latter being the ultimate beneficiary. That ambiguity is to be taken contra proferentem that is, construed against NELL who caused the ambiguity and could have also avoided it by the exercise of a little more care. Thus, Article 1377 of the Civil Code, provides: “Art. 1377. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.”

Same; Same; Same; It was NELL’s own acts, which put it into the power of Casals & Casville Enterprises to perpetuate the fraud against it and, consequently, it must bear the loss.—NELL had received three (3) postdated checks all dated 16 November, 1976

from Casville to secure the subject check and had accepted the deposit with it of two (2) titles of real properties as collateral for said postdated checks. Thus, NELL was erroneously confident that its interests were sufficiently protected. Never had it suspected that those postdated checks would be dishonored, nor that the subject check would be utilized by Casals for a purpose other than for opening the letter of credit. In the last analysis, it was NELL’s own acts, which put it into the power of Casals and Casville Enterprises to perpetuate the fraud against it and, consequently, it must bear the loss (Blondeau, et al., vs. Nano, et al., 61 Phil. 625 [1935]; Sta. Maria vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, 89 Phil. 780 [1951]; Republic of the Philippines vs. Equitable Banking Corporation, L-15895, January 30, 1974, 10 SCRA 8). “x x x As between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequence of a breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear the loss.”

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

In this Petition for Review on certiorari petitioner, Equitable Banking Corporation, prays that the adverse judgment against it rendered by respondent Appellate Court, 1 dated 4 October 1985, and its majority Resolution, dated 28 April 1986, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, 2 be annulled and set aside.

The facts pertinent to this Petition, as summarized by the Trial Court and adopted by reference by Respondent Appellate Court, emanated from the case entitled "Edward J. Nell Co. vs. Liberato V. Casals, Casville Enterprises, Inc., and Equitable Banking Corporation" of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 25112), and read:

From the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds that sometime in 1975 defendant Liberato Casals went to plaintiff Edward J. Nell Company and told its senior sales engineer, Amado Claustro that he was interested in buying one of the plaintiff's garrett skidders. Plaintiff was a dealer of machineries, equipment and supplies. Defendant Casals represented himself as the majority stockholder, president and general manager of Casville Enterprises, Inc., a firm engaged in the large scale production, procurement and processing of logs and lumber products, which had a plywood plant in Sta. Ana, Metro Manila.

After defendant Casals talked with plaintiff's sales engineer, he was referred to plaintiffs executive vice-president, Apolonio Javier, for negotiation in connection with the manner of payment. When Javier asked

for cash payment for the skidders, defendant Casals informed him that his corporation, defendant Casville Enterprises, Inc., had a credit line with defendant Equitable Banking Corporation. Apparently, impressed with this assertion, Javier agreed to have the skidders paid by way of a domestic letter of credit which defendant Casals promised to open in plaintiffs favor, in lieu of cash payment. Accordingly, on December 22, 1975, defendant Casville, through its president, defendant Casals, ordered from plaintiff two units of garrett skidders ...

The purchase order for the garrett skidders bearing No. 0051 and dated December 22, 1975 (Exhibit "A") contained the following terms and conditions:

Two (2) units GARRETT Skidders Model 30A complete as basically described in the bulletin

PRICE: F.O.B. dock

Manila P485,000.00/unit

For two (2) units P970,000.00

SHIPMENT: We will inform you the date and name of the vessel as soon as arranged.

TERMS: By irrevocable domestic letter of credit to be issued in favor of THE EDWARD J. NELL CO. or ORDER payable in thirty six (36) months and will be opened within ninety (90) days after date of shipment. at first installment will be due one hundred eighty (180) days after date of shipment. Interest-14% per annum (Exhibit A)

xxx xxx xxx

... in a letter dated April 21, 1976, defendants Casals and Casville requested from plaintiff the delivery of one (1) unit of the bidders, complete with tools and cables, to Cagayan de Oro, on or before Saturday, April 24,1976, on board a Lorenzo shipping vessel, with the information that an irrevocable Domestic Letter of Credit would be opened in plaintiff's favor on or before June 30, 1976 under the terms and conditions agreed upon (Exhibit "B")

On May 3, 1976, in compliance with defendant Casvile's recognition request, plaintiff shipped to Cagayan de Oro City a Garrett skidder. Plaintiff paid the shipping cost in the amount of P10,640.00 because of the verbal assurance of defendant Casville that it would be covered by the letter of credit soon to be opened.

xxx xxx xxx

On July 15, 1976, defendant Casals handed to plaintiff a check in the amount of P300,000.00 postdated August 4, 1976, which was followed by another check of same date. Plaintiff considered these checks either as partial payment for the skidder that was already delivered to Cagayan de Oro or as reimbursement for the marginal deposit that plaintiff was supposed to pay.

In a letter dated August 3, 1976 (Exhibit "C"), defendants Casville informed the plaintiff that their application for a letter of credit for the payment of the Garrett skidders had been approved by the Equitable Banking Corporation. However, the defendants said that they would need the sum of P300,000.00 to stand as collateral or marginal deposit in favor of Equitable Banking Corporation and an additional amount of P100,000.00, also in favor of Equitable Banking Corporation, to clear the title of the Estrada property belonging to defendant Casals which had been approved as security for the trust receipts to be issued by the bank, covering the above-mentioned equipment.

Although the marginal deposit was supposed to be produced by defendant Casville Enterprises, plaintiff agreed to advance the necessary amount in order to facilitate the transaction. Accordingly, on August 5,1976, plaintiff issued a check in the amount of P400,000.00 (Exhibit "2") drawn against the First National City Bank and made payable to the order of Equitable Banking Corporation and with the following notation or memorandum:

a/c of Casville Enterprises Inc. for Marginal deposit and payment of balance on Estrada Property to be used as security for trust receipt for opening L/C of Garrett Skidders in favor of the Edward J. Nell Co." Said check together with the cash disbursement voucher (Exhibit "2-A") containing the explanation:

Payment for marginal deposit and other expenses re opening of L/C for account of Casville Ent..

A covering letter (Exhibit "3") was also sent and when the three documents were presented to Severino Santos, executive vice president of defendant bank, Santos did not accept them because the terms and conditions required by the bank for the opening of the letter of credit had not yet been agreed on.

On August 9, 1976, defendant Casville wrote the bank applying for two letters of credit to cover its purchase from plaintiff of two Garrett skidders, under the following terms and conditions:

a) On sight Letter of Credit for P485,000.00; b) One 36 months Letter of Credit for P606,000.00; c) P300,000.00 CASH marginal deposit1 d) Real

Estate Collateral to secure the Trust Receipts; e) We shall chattel mortgage the equipments purchased even after payment of the first L/C as additional security for the balance of the second L/C and f) Other conditions you deem necessary to protect the interest of the bank."

In a letter dated August 11, 1976 (Exhibit "D-l"), defendant bank replied stating that it was ready to open the letters of credit upon defendant's compliance of the following terms and conditions:

c) 30% cash margin deposit; d) Acceptable Real Estate Collateral to secure the Trust Receipts; e) Chattel Mortgage on the equipment; and Ashville f) Other terms and conditions that our bank may impose.

Defendant Casville sent a copy of the foregoing letter to the plaintiff enclosing three postdated checks. In said letter, plaintiff was informed of the requirements imposed by the defendant bank pointing out that the "cash marginal required under paragraph (c) is 30% of Pl,091,000.00 or P327,300.00 plus another P100,000.00 to clean up the Estrada property or a total of P427,300.00" and that the check covering said amount should be made payable "to the Order of EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION for the account of Casville Enterprises Inc." Defendant Casville also stated that the three (3) enclosed postdated checks were intended as replacement of the checks that were previously issued to plaintiff to secure the sum of P427,300.00 that plaintiff would advance to defendant bank for the account of defendant Casville. All the new checks were postdated November 19, 1976 and drawn in the sum of Pl45,500.00 (Exhibit "F"), P181,800.00 (Exhibit "G") and P100,000.00 (Exhibit "H").

On the same occasion, defendant Casals delivered to plaintiff TCT No. 11891 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City and TCT No. 50851 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal covering two pieces of real estate properties.

Subsequently, Cesar Umali, plaintiffs credit and collection manager, accompanied by a representative of defendant Casville, went to see Severino Santos to find out the status of the credit line being sought by defendant Casville. Santos assured Umali that the letters of credit would be opened as soon as the requirements imposed by defendant bank in its letter dated August 11, 1976 had been complied with by defendant Casville.

On August 16, 1976, plaintiff issued a check for P427,300.00, payable to the "order of EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION A/C CASVILLE ENTERPRISES, INC." and drawn against the first National City Bank (Exhibit "E-l"). The check did not contain the notation found in the previous check issued by the plaintiff (Exhibit "2") but the substance of said notation was reproduced in a covering letter dated August 16,1976 that went with the check (Exhibit "E").<äre||anº•1àw> Both the check and the covering letter were sent to defendant bank through defendant Casals. Plaintiff entrusted

the delivery of the check and the latter to defendant Casals because it believed that no one, including defendant Casals, could encash the same as it was made payable to the defendant bank alone. Besides, defendant Casals was known to the bank as the one following up the application for the letters of credit.

Upon receiving the check for P427,300.00 entrusted to him by plaintiff defendant Casals immediately deposited it with the defendant bank and the bank teller accepted the same for deposit in defendant Casville's checking account. After depositing said check, defendant Casville, acting through defendant Casals, then withdrew all the amount deposited.

Meanwhile, upon their presentation for encashment, plaintiff discovered that the three checks (Exhibits "F, "G" and "H") in the total amount of P427,300.00, that were issued by defendant Casville as collateral were all dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account.

As defendant Casville failed to pay its obligation to defendant bank, the latter foreclosed the mortgage executed by defendant Casville on the Estrada property which was sold in a public auction sale to a third party.

Plaintiff allowed some time before following up the application for the letters of credit knowing that it took time to process the same. However, when the three checks issued to it by defendant Casville were dishonored, plaintiff became apprehensive and sent Umali on November 29, 1976, to inquire about the status of the application for the letters of credit. When plaintiff was informed that no letters of credit were opened by the defendant bank in its favor and then discovered that defendant Casville had in the meanwhile withdrawn the entire amount of P427,300.00, without paying its obligation to the bank plaintiff filed the instant action.

While the the instant case was being tried, defendants Casals and Casville assigned the garrett skidder to plaintiff which credited in favor of defendants the amount of P450,000.00, as partial satisfaction of plaintiff's claim against them.

Defendants Casals and Casville hardly disputed their liability to plaintiff. Not only did they show lack of interest in disputing plaintiff's claim by not appearing in most of the hearings, but they also assigned to plaintiff the garrett skidder which is an action of clear recognition of their liability.

What is left for the Court to determine, therefore, is only the liability of defendant bank to plaintiff.

xxx xxx xxx

Resolving that issue, the Trial Court rendered judgment, affirmed by Respondent Court in toto, the pertinent portion of which reads:

xxx xxx xxx

Defendants Casals and Casville Enterprises and Equitable Banking Corporation are ordered to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P427,300.00, representing the amount of plaintiff's check which defendant bank erroneously credited to the account of defendant Casville and which defendants Casal and Casville misappropriated, with 12% interest thereon from April 5, 1977, until the said sum is fully paid.

Defendant Equitable Banking Corporation is ordered to pay plaintiff attorney's fees in the sum of P25,000.00 .

Proportionate cost against all the defendants.

SO ORDERED.

The crucial issue to resolve is whether or not petitioner Equitable Banking Corporation (briefly, the Bank) is liable to private respondent Edward J. Nell Co. (NELL, for short) for the value of the second check issued by NELL, Exhibit "E-l," which was made payable

to the order of EQUITABLE Ashville BANIUNG CORPORATION A/C OF CASVILLE ENTERPRISES INC.

and which the Bank teller credited to the account of Casville.

The Trial Court found that the amount of the second check had been erroneously credited to the Casville account; held the Bank liable for the mistake of its employees; and ordered the Bank to pay NELL the value of the check in the sum of P427,300.00, with legal interest. Explained the Trial Court:

The Court finds that the check in question was payable only to the defendant bank and to no one else. Although the words "A/C OF CASVILLE ENTERPRISES INC. "appear on the face of the check after or under the name of defendant bank, the payee was still the latter. The addition of said words did not in any way make Casville Enterprises, Inc. the Payee of the instrument for the words merely indicated for whose account or in connection with what account the check was issued by the plaintiff.

Indeed, the bank teller who received it was fully aware that the check was not negotiable since he stamped thereon the words "NON-NEGOTIABLE For Payee's Account Only" and "NON-NEGOTIABLE TELLER NO. 4, August 17,1976 EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION.

But said teller should have exercised more prudence in the handling of Id check because it was not made out in the usual manner. The addition of the words A/C OF CASVILLE ENTERPRISES INC." should have placed the teller on guard and he should have clarified the matter with his superiors.

Instead of doing so, however, the teller decided to rely on his own judgment and at the risk of making a wrong decision, credited the entire amount in the name of defendant Casville although the latter was not the payee named in the check. Such mistake was crucial and was, without doubt, the proximate cause of plaintiffs defraudation.

xxx xxx xxx

Respondent Appellate Court upheld the above conclusions stating in addition:

1) The appellee made the subject check payable to appellant's order, for the account of Casville Enterprises, Inc. In the light of the other facts, the directive was for the appellant bank to apply the value of the check as payment for the letter of credit which Casville Enterprises, Inc. had previously applied for in favor of the appellee (Exhibit D-1, p. 5). The issuance of the subject check was precisely to meet the bank's prior requirement of payment before issuing the letter of credit previously applied for by Casville Enterprises in favor of the appellee;

xxx xxx xxx

We disagree.

1) The subject check was equivocal and patently ambiguous. By making the check read:

Pay to the EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION Order of A/C OF CASVILLE ENTERPRISES, INC.

the payee ceased to be indicated with reasonable certainty in contravention of Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. 3 As worded, it could be accepted as deposit to the account of the party named after the symbols "A/C," or payable to the Bank as trustee, or as an agent, for Casville Enterprises, Inc., with the latter being the ultimate beneficiary. That ambiguity is to be taken contra proferentem that is, construed against NELL who caused the ambiguity and could have also avoided it by the exercise of a little more care. Thus, Article 1377 of the Civil Code, provides:

Art. 1377. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.

2) Contrary to the finding of respondent Appellate Court, the subject check was, initially, not non-negotiable. Neither was it a crossed check. The rubber-stamping transversall on the face of the subject check of the words "Non-negotiable for Payee's Account Only" between two (2) parallel lines, and "Non-negotiable, Teller- No. 4, August 17, 1976," separately boxed, was made only by the Bank teller in accordance with customary bank practice, and not by NELL as the drawer of the check, and simply meant that thereafter the same check could no longer be negotiated.

3) NELL's own acts and omissions in connection with the drawing, issuance and delivery of the 16 August 1976 check, Exhibit "E-l," and its implicit trust in Casals, were the proximate cause of its own defraudation: (a) The original check of 5 August 1976, Exhibit "2," was payable to the order solely of "Equitable Banking Corporation." NELL changed the payee in the subject check, Exhibit "E", however, to "Equitable Banking Corporation, A/C of Casville Enterprises Inc.," upon Casals request. NELL also eliminated both the cash disbursement voucher accompanying the check which read:

Payment for marginal deposit and other expense re opening of L/C for account of Casville Enterprises.

and the memorandum:

a/c of Casville Enterprises Inc. for Marginal deposit and payment of balance on Estrada Property to be used as security for trust receipt for opening L/C of Garrett Skidders in favor of the Edward Ashville J Nell Co.

Evidencing the real nature of the transaction was merely a separate covering letter, dated 16 August 1976, which Casals, sinisterly enough, suppressed from the Bank officials and teller.

(b) NELL entrusted the subject check and its covering letter, Exhibit "E," to Casals who, obviously, had his own antagonistic interests to promote. Thus it was that Casals did not purposely present the subject check to the Executive Vice-President of the Bank, who was aware of the negotiations regarding the Letter of Credit, and who had rejected the previous check, Exhibit "2," including its three documents because the terms and conditions required by the Bank for the opening of the Letter of Credit had not yet been agreed on.

(c) NELL was extremely accommodating to Casals. Thus, to facilitate the sales transaction, NELL even advanced the marginal deposit for the garrett skidder. It is, indeed, abnormal for the seller of goods, the price of which is to be covered by a letter of credit, to advance the marginal deposit for the same.

(d) NELL had received three (3) postdated checks all dated 16 November, 1976 from Casvine to secure the subject check and had accepted the deposit with it of two (2) titles of real properties as collateral for said postdated checks. Thus, NELL was erroneously confident that its interests were sufficiently protected. Never had it suspected that those postdated checks would be dishonored, nor that the subject check would be utilized by Casals for a purpose other than for opening the letter of credit.

In the last analysis, it was NELL's own acts, which put it into the power of Casals and Casville Enterprises to perpetuate the fraud against it and, consequently, it must bear the loss (Blondeau, et al., vs. Nano, et al., 61 Phil. 625 [1935]; Sta. Maria vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, 89 Phil. 780 [1951]; Republic of the Philippines vs. Equitable Banking Corporation, L-15895, January 30,1964, 10 SCRA 8).

... As between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequence of a breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear the loss.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is granted and the Decision of respondent Appellate Court, dated 4 October 1985, and its majority Resolution, dated 28 April 1986, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, are hereby SET ASIDE. The Decision of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XI. is modified in that petitioner Equitable Banking Corporation is absolved from any and all liabilities to the private respondent, Edward J. Nell Company, and the Amended Complaint against petitioner bank is hereby ordered dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 85419. March 9, 1993.*

5.) 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.

Remedial Law; Action; Definition and essential elements of a cause of action.—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.

Commercial Law; Negotiable Instruments Law; 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.—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.

Same; Same; Same; The payee of a negotiable instrument acquires no interest with respect thereto until its delivery to him.—Thus, the payee of a negotiable instrument acquires no interest with respect thereto until its delivery to him. Delivery of an

instrument means transfer of possession, actual or constructive, from one person to another. 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.

Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.—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. None of these exceptions were alleged by respondent Sima Wei.

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 herco-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. No. 92244. February 9, 1993.*

6.) NATIVIDAD GEMPESAW, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.

Negotiable Instruments Law; Checks; Forged Indorsements; Effect of drawer's negligence.—As a matter of practical significance, problems arising from forged indorsements of checks may generally be broken into two types of cases: (1) where forgery was accomplished by a person not associated with the drawer—for example a mail robbery; and (2) where the indorsement was forged by an agent of the drawer. This difference in situations would determine the effect of the drawer's negligence with respect to forged indorsements. While there is no duty resting on the depositor to look for forged indorsements on his cancelled checks in contrast to a duty imposed upon him to look for forgeries of his own name, a depositor is under a duty to set up an accounting system and a business procedure as are reasonably calculated to prevent or render difficult the forgery of indorsements, particularly by the depositor's own employees. And if the drawer (depositor) learns that a check drawn by him has been paid under a forged indorsement, the drawer is under duty promptly to report such fact to the drawee bank. For his negligence or failure either to discover or to report promptly the fact of such forgery to the drawee, the drawer loses his right against the drawee who has debited his account under the forged indorsement. In other words, he is precluded from using forgery as a basis for his claim for recrediting of his account.

Same; Same; Same; Same.—As a rule, a drawee bank who has paid a check on which an indorsement has been forged cannot charge the drawer's account for the amount of said check. An exception to this rule is where the drawer is guilty of such negligence

which causes the bank to honor such a check or checks. If a check is stolen from the payee, it is quite obvious that the drawer cannot possibly discover the forged indorsement by mere examination of his cancelled check. This accounts for the rule that although a depositor owes a duty to his drawee bank to examine his cancelled checks for forgery of his own signature, he has no similar duty as to forged indorsements. A different situation arises where the indorsement was forged by an employee or a ent of the drawer, or done with the active participation of the latter. Most of the cases involving forgery by an agent or employee deal with the payee's indorsement. The drawer and the payee oftentimes have business relations of long standing. The continued occurrence of business transactions of the same nature provides the opportunity for the agent/employee to commit the fraud after having developed familiarity with the signatures of the parties. However, sooner or later, some leak will show on the drawer's books. It will then be just a question of time until the fraud is discovered. This is specially true when the agent perpetrates a series of forgeries as in the case at bar. The negligence of a depositor which will prevent recovery of an unauthorized payment is based on failure of the depositor to act as a prudent businessman would under the circumstances.

Same; Same; No legal obligation on drawee not to honor crossed checks.—Petitioner argues that respondent drawee Bank should not have honored the checks because they were crossed checks. Issuing a crossed check imposes no legal obligation on the drawee not to honor such a check. It is more of a warning to the holder that the 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 transactions between banks. 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.

Banks and Banking; Contractual relation between depositor as obligee and drawee bank as obligor; Violation of rule on non-acceptance of second indorsements without approval of branch manager.—There is no question that there is a contractual relation between petitioner as depositor (obligee) and the respondents drawee bank as the obligor. In the performance of its obligation, the drawee bank is bound by its internal banking rules and regulations which form part of any contract it enters into with any of its depositors. When it violated its internal rules that second endorsements are not to be accepted without the approval of its branch managers and it did accept the same upon the mere approval of Boon, a chief accountant, it contravened the tenor of its obligation at the very least, if it were not actually guilty of fraud or negligence. Furthermore, the fact that the respondent drawee Bank did not discover the irregularity with respect to the acceptance of checks with second indorsement for deposit even without the approval of the branch manager despite periodic inspection

conducted by a team of auditors from the main office constitutes negligence on the part of the bank in carrying out its obligations to its depositors. Article 1173 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 correspondents with the circumstance of the persons, of the time and of the place. x x x." We hold that banking business is so impressed with public interest where the trust and confidence of the public in general is of paramount importance such that the appropriate standard of diligence must be a high degree of diligence, if not the utmost diligence. Surely, respondent drawee Bank cannot claim it exercised such a degree of diligence that is required of it. There is no way We can allow it now to escape liability for such negligence. Its liability as obligor is not merely vicarious but primary wherein the defense of exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees is of no moment.

CAMPOS, JR., J.:

From the adverse decision * of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 16447), petitioner, Natividad Gempesaw, appealed to this Court in a Petition for Review, on the issue of the right of the drawer to recover from the drawee bank who pays a check with a forged indorsement of the payee, debiting the same against the drawer's account.

The records show that on January 23, 1985, petitioner filed a Complaint against the private respondent Philippine Bank of Communications (respondent drawee Bank) for recovery of the money value of eighty-two (82) checks charged against the petitioner's account with the respondent drawee Bank on the ground that the payees' indorsements were forgeries. The Regional Trial Court, Branch CXXVIII of Caloocan City, which tried the case, rendered a decision on November 17, 1987 dismissing the complaint as well as the respondent drawee Bank's counterclaim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in a decision rendered on February 22, 1990, affirmed the decision of the RTC on two grounds, namely (1) that the plaintiff's (petitioner herein) gross negligence in issuing the checks was the proximate cause of the loss and (2) assuming that the bank was also negligent, the loss must nevertheless be borne by the party whose negligence was the proximate cause of the loss. On March 5, 1990, the petitioner filed this petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court setting forth the following as the alleged errors of the respondent Court: 1

I

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRAWER IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE RESULTING INJURY TO THE DRAWEE BANK, AND THE DRAWER IS PRECLUDED FROM SETTING UP THE FORGERY OR WANT OF AUTHORITY.

II

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ALSO ERRED IN NOT FINDING AND RULING THAT IT IS THE GROSS AND INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE

AND FRAUDULENT ACTS OF THE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT BANK IN FORGING THE SIGNATURE OF THE PAYEES AND THE WRONG AND/OR ILLEGAL PAYMENTS MADE TO PERSONS, OTHER THAN TO THE INTENDED PAYEES SPECIFIED IN THE CHECKS, IS THE DIRECT AND PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE TO PETITIONER WHOSE SAVING (SIC) ACCOUNT WAS DEBITED.

III

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ALSO ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE RESPONDENT BANK TO RESTORE OR RE-CREDIT THE CHECKING ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CALOOCAN CITY BRANCH BY THE VALUE OF THE EIGHTY-TWO (82) CHECKS WHICH IS IN THE AMOUNT OF P1,208,606.89 WITH LEGAL INTEREST.

From the records, the relevant facts are as follows:

Petitioner Natividad O. Gempesaw (petitioner) owns and operates four grocery stores located at Rizal Avenue Extension and at Second Avenue, Caloocan City. Among these groceries are D.G. Shopper's Mart and D.G. Whole Sale Mart. Petitioner maintains a checking account numbered 13-00038-1 with the Caloocan City Branch of the respondent drawee Bank. To facilitate payment of debts to her suppliers, petitioner draws checks against her checking account with the respondent bank as drawee. Her customary practice of issuing checks in payment of her suppliers was as follows: the checks were prepared and filled up as to all material particulars by her trusted bookkeeper, Alicia Galang, an employee for more than eight (8) years. After the bookkeeper prepared the checks, the completed checks were submitted to the petitioner for her signature, together with the corresponding invoice receipts which indicate the correct obligations due and payable to her suppliers. Petitioner signed each and every check without bothering to verify the accuracy of the checks against the corresponding invoices because she reposed full and implicit trust and confidence on her bookkeeper. The issuance and delivery of the checks to the payees named therein were left to the bookkeeper. Petitioner admitted that she did not make any verification as to whether or not the checks were delivered to their respective payees. Although the respondent drawee Bank notified her of all checks presented to and paid by the bank, petitioner did not verify he correctness of the returned checks, much less check if the payees actually received the checks in payment for the supplies she received. In the course of her business operations covering a period of two years, petitioner issued, following her usual practice stated above, a total of eighty-two (82) checks in favor of several suppliers. These checks were all presented by the indorsees as holders thereof to, and honored by, the respondent drawee Bank. Respondent drawee Bank correspondingly debited the amounts thereof against petitioner's checking account numbered 30-00038-1. Most of the aforementioned checks were for amounts in excess of her actual obligations to the various payees as shown in their corresponding invoices. To mention a few:

. . . 1) in Check No. 621127, dated June 27, 1984 in the amount of P11,895.23 in favor of Kawsek Inc. (Exh. A-60), appellant's actual obligation to said payee was only P895.33 (Exh. A-83); (2) in Check No. 652282 issued on September 18, 1984 in favor of Senson Enterprises in the amount of P11,041.20 (Exh. A-67) appellant's actual obligation to said payee was only P1,041.20 (Exh. 7); (3) in Check No. 589092 dated April 7, 1984 for the amount of P11,672.47 in favor of Marchem (Exh. A-61) appellant's obligation was only P1,672.47 (Exh. B); (4) in Check No. 620450 dated May 10, 1984 in favor of Knotberry for P11,677.10 (Exh. A-31) her actual obligation was only P677.10 (Exhs. C and C-1); (5) in Check No. 651862 dated August 9, 1984 in favor of Malinta Exchange Mart for P11,107.16 (Exh. A-62), her obligation was only P1,107.16 (Exh. D-2); (6) in Check No. 651863 dated August 11, 1984 in favor of Grocer's International Food Corp. in the amount of P11,335.60 (Exh. A-66), her obligation was only P1,335.60 (Exh. E and E-1); (7) in Check No. 589019 dated March 17, 1984 in favor of Sophy Products in the amount of P11,648.00 (Exh. A-78), her obligation was only P648.00 (Exh. G); (8) in Check No. 589028 dated March 10, 1984 for the amount of P11,520.00 in favor of the Yakult Philippines (Exh. A-73), the latter's invoice was only P520.00 (Exh. H-2); (9) in Check No. 62033 dated May 23, 1984 in the amount of P11,504.00 in favor of Monde Denmark Biscuit (Exh. A-34), her obligation was only P504.00 (Exhs. I-1 and I-2). 2

Practically, all the checks issued and honored by the respondent drawee bank were crossed checks. 3 Aside from the daily notice given to the petitioner by the respondent drawee Bank, the latter also furnished her with a monthly statement of her transactions, attaching thereto all the cancelled checks she had issued and which were debited against her current account. It was only after the lapse of more two (2) years that petitioner found out about the fraudulent manipulations of her bookkeeper.

All the eighty-two (82) checks with forged signatures of the payees were brought to Ernest L. Boon, Chief Accountant of respondent drawee Bank at the Buendia branch, who, without authority therefor, accepted them all for deposit at the Buendia branch to the credit and/or in the accounts of Alfredo Y. Romero and Benito Lam. Ernest L. Boon was a very close friend of Alfredo Y. Romero. Sixty-three (63) out of the eighty-two (82) checks were deposited in Savings Account No. 00844-5 of Alfredo Y. Romero at the respondent drawee Bank's Buendia branch, and four (4) checks in his Savings Account No. 32-81-9 at its Ongpin branch. The rest of the checks were deposited in Account No. 0443-4, under the name of Benito Lam at the Elcaño branch of the respondent drawee Bank.

About thirty (30) of the payees whose names were specifically written on the checks testified that they did not receive nor even see the subject checks and that the indorsements appearing at the back of the checks were not theirs.

The team of auditors from the main office of the respondent drawee Bank which conducted periodic inspection of the branches' operations failed to discover, check or

stop the unauthorized acts of Ernest L. Boon. Under the rules of the respondent drawee Bank, only a Branch Manager and no other official of the respondent drawee bank, may accept a second indorsement on a check for deposit. In the case at bar, all the deposit slips of the eighty-two (82) checks in question were initialed and/or approved for deposit by Ernest L. Boon. The Branch Managers of the Ongpin and Elcaño branches accepted the deposits made in the Buendia branch and credited the accounts of Alfredo Y. Romero and Benito Lam in their respective branches.

On November 7, 1984, petitioner made a written demand on respondent drawee Bank to credit her account with the money value of the eighty-two (82) checks totalling P1,208.606.89 for having been wrongfully charged against her account. Respondent drawee Bank refused to grant petitioner's demand. On January 23, 1985, petitioner filed the complaint with the Regional Trial Court.

This is not a suit by the party whose signature was forged on a check drawn against the drawee bank. The payees are not parties to the case. Rather, it is the drawer, whose signature is genuine, who instituted this action to recover from the drawee bank the money value of eighty-two (82) checks paid out by the drawee bank to holders of those checks where the indorsements of the payees were forged. How and by whom the forgeries were committed are not established on the record, but the respective payees admitted that they did not receive those checks and therefore never indorsed the same. The applicable law is the Negotiable Instruments Law  4(heretofore referred to as the NIL). Section 23 of the NIL provides:

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 instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment 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.

Under the aforecited provision, forgery is a real or absolute defense by the party whose signature is forged. A party whose signature to an instrument was forged was never a party and never gave his consent to the contract which gave rise to the instrument. Since his signature does not appear in the instrument, he cannot be held liable thereon by anyone, not even by a holder in due course. Thus, if a person's signature is forged as a maker of a promissory note, he cannot be made to pay because he never made the promise to pay. Or where a person's signature as a drawer of a check is forged, the drawee bank cannot charge the amount thereof against the drawer's account because he never gave the bank the order to pay. And said section does not refer only to the forged signature of the maker of a promissory note and of the drawer of a check. It covers also a forged indorsement, i.e., the forged signature of the payee or indorsee of a note or check. Since under said provision a forged signature is "wholly inoperative", no one can gain title to the instrument through such forged indorsement. Such an indorsement prevents any subsequent party from acquiring any right as against any party whose name appears prior to the forgery. Although rights may exist

between and among parties subsequent to the forged indorsement, not one of them can acquire rights against parties prior to the forgery. Such forged indorsement cuts off the rights of all subsequent parties as against parties prior to the forgery. However, the law makes an exception to these rules where a party is precluded from setting up forgery as a defense.

As a matter of practical significance, problems arising from forged indorsements of checks may generally be broken into two types of cases: (1) where forgery was accomplished by a person not associated with the drawer — for example a mail robbery; and (2) where the indorsement was forged by an agent of the drawer. This difference in situations would determine the effect of the drawer's negligence with respect to forged indorsements. While there is no duty resting on the depositor to look for forged indorsements on his cancelled checks in contrast to a duty imposed upon him to look for forgeries of his own name, a depositor is under a duty to set up an accounting system and a business procedure as are reasonably calculated to prevent or render difficult the forgery of indorsements, particularly by the depositor's own employees. And if the drawer (depositor) learns that a check drawn by him has been paid under a forged indorsement, the drawer is under duty promptly to report such fact to the drawee bank. 5 For his negligence or failure either to discover or to report promptly the fact of such forgery to the drawee, the drawer loses his right against the drawee who has debited his account under a forged indorsement. 6 In other words, he is precluded from using forgery as a basis for his claim for re-crediting of his account.

In the case at bar, petitioner admitted that the checks were filled up and completed by her trusted employee, Alicia Galang, and were given to her for her signature. Her signing the checks made the negotiable instrument complete. Prior to signing the checks, there was no valid contract yet.

Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument to the payee for the purpose of giving effect thereto.  7 The first delivery of the instrument, complete in form, to the payee who takes it as a holder, is called issuance of the instrument. 8 Without the initial delivery of the instrument from the drawer of the check to the payee, there can be no valid and binding contract and no liability on the instrument.

Petitioner completed the checks by signing them as drawer and thereafter authorized her employee Alicia Galang to deliver the eighty-two (82) checks to their respective payees. Instead of issuing the checks to the payees as named in the checks, Alicia Galang delivered them to the Chief Accountant of the Buendia branch of the respondent drawee Bank, a certain Ernest L. Boon. It was established that the signatures of the payees as first indorsers were forged. The record fails to show the identity of the party who made the forged signatures. The checks were then indorsed for the second time with the names of Alfredo Y. Romero and Benito Lam, and were deposited in the latter's accounts as earlier noted. The second indorsements were all genuine signatures of the alleged holders. All the eighty-two (82) checks bearing the forged indorsements of the payees and the genuine second indorsements of Alfredo Y. Romero and Benito Lam were accepted for deposit at the Buendia branch of respondent drawee Bank to the

credit of their respective savings accounts in the Buendia, Ongpin and Elcaño branches of the same bank. The total amount of P1,208,606.89, represented by eighty-two (82) checks, were credited and paid out by respondent drawee Bank to Alfredo Y. Romero and Benito Lam, and debited against petitioner's checking account No. 13-00038-1, Caloocan branch.

As a rule, a drawee bank who has paid a check on which an indorsement has been forged cannot charge the drawer's account for the amount of said check. An exception to this rule is where the drawer is guilty of such negligence which causes the bank to honor such a check or checks. If a check is stolen from the payee, it is quite obvious that the drawer cannot possibly discover the forged indorsement by mere examination of his cancelled check. This accounts for the rule that although a depositor owes a duty to his drawee bank to examine his cancelled checks for forgery of his own signature, he has no similar duty as to forged indorsements. A different situation arises where the indorsement was forged by an employee or agent of the drawer, or done with the active participation of the latter. Most of the cases involving forgery by an agent or employee deal with the payee's indorsement. The drawer and the payee often time shave business relations of long standing. The continued occurrence of business transactions of the same nature provides the opportunity for the agent/employee to commit the fraud after having developed familiarity with the signatures of the parties. However, sooner or later, some leak will show on the drawer's books. It will then be just a question of time until the fraud is discovered. This is specially true when the agent perpetrates a series of forgeries as in the case at bar.

The negligence of a depositor which will prevent recovery of an unauthorized payment is based on failure of the depositor to act as a prudent businessman would under the circumstances. In the case at bar, the petitioner relied implicitly upon the honesty and loyalty of her bookkeeper, and did not even verify the accuracy of amounts of the checks she signed against the invoices attached thereto. Furthermore, although she regularly received her bank statements, she apparently did not carefully examine the same nor the check stubs and the returned checks, and did not compare them with the same invoices. Otherwise, she could have easily discovered the discrepancies between the checks and the documents serving as bases for the checks. With such discovery, the subsequent forgeries would not have been accomplished. It was not until two years after the bookkeeper commenced her fraudulent scheme that petitioner discovered that eighty-two (82) checks were wrongfully charged to her account, at which she notified the respondent drawee bank.

It is highly improbable that in a period of two years, not one of Petitioner's suppliers complained of non-payment. Assuming that even one single complaint had been made, petitioner would have been duty-bound, as far as the respondent drawee Bank was concerned, to make an adequate investigation on the matter. Had this been done, the discrepancies would have been discovered, sooner or later. Petitioner's failure to make such adequate inquiry constituted negligence which resulted in the bank's honoring of the subsequent checks with forged indorsements. On the other hand, since the record mentions nothing about such a complaint, the possibility exists that the checks in question covered inexistent sales. But even in such a case, considering the length of a

period of two (2) years, it is hard to believe that petitioner did not know or realize that she was paying more than she should for the supplies she was actually getting. A depositor may not sit idly by, after knowledge has come to her that her funds seem to be disappearing or that there may be a leak in her business, and refrain from taking the steps that a careful and prudent businessman would take in such circumstances and if taken, would result in stopping the continuance of the fraudulent scheme. If she fails to take steps, the facts may establish her negligence, and in that event, she would be estopped from recovering from the bank. 9

One thing is clear from the records — that the petitioner failed to examine her records with reasonable diligence whether before she signed the checks or after receiving her bank statements. Had the petitioner examined her records more carefully, particularly the invoice receipts, cancelled checks, check book stubs, and had she compared the sums written as amounts payable in the eighty-two (82) checks with the pertinent sales invoices, she would have easily discovered that in some checks, the amounts did not tally with those appearing in the sales invoices. Had she noticed these discrepancies, she should not have signed those checks, and should have conducted an inquiry as to the reason for the irregular entries. Likewise had petitioner been more vigilant in going over her current account by taking careful note of the daily reports made by respondent drawee Bank in her issued checks, or at least made random scrutiny of cancelled checks returned by respondent drawee Bank at the close of each month, she could have easily discovered the fraud being perpetrated by Alicia Galang, and could have reported the matter to the respondent drawee Bank. The respondent drawee Bank then could have taken immediate steps to prevent further commission of such fraud. Thus, petitioner's negligence was the proximate cause of her loss. And since it was her negligence which caused the respondent drawee Bank to honor the forged checks or prevented it from recovering the amount it had already paid on the checks, petitioner cannot now complain should the bank refuse to recredit her account with the amount of such checks. 10 Under Section 23 of the NIL, she is now precluded from using the forgery to prevent the bank's debiting of her account.

The doctrine in the case of Great Eastern Life Insurance Co. vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Bank 11 is not applicable to the case at bar because in said case, the check was fraudulently taken and the signature of the payee was forged not by an agent or employee of the drawer. The drawer was not found to be negligent in the handling of its business affairs and the theft of the check by a total stranger was not attributable to negligence of the drawer; neither was the forging of the payee's indorsement due to the drawer's negligence. Since the drawer was not negligent, the drawee was duty-bound to restore to the drawer's account the amount theretofore paid under the check with a forged payee's indorsement because the drawee did not pay as ordered by the drawer.

Petitioner argues that respondent drawee Bank should not have honored the checks because they were crossed checks. Issuing a crossed check imposes no legal obligation on the drawee not to honor such a check. It is more of a warning to the holder that the 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 transactions between banks.

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.

Petitioner likewise contends that banking rules prohibit the drawee bank from having checks with more than one indorsement. The banking rule banning acceptance of checks for deposit or cash payment with more than one indorsement unless cleared by some bank officials does not invalidate the instrument; neither does it invalidate the negotiation or transfer of the said check. In effect, this rule destroys the negotiability of bills/checks by limiting their negotiation by indorsement of only the payee. Under the NIL, the only kind of indorsement which stops the further negotiation of an instrument is a restrictive indorsement which prohibits the further negotiation thereof.

Sec. 36. When indorsement restrictive. — An indorsement is restrictive which either

(a) Prohibits further negotiation of the instrument; or

xxx xxx xxx

In this kind of restrictive indorsement, the prohibition to transfer or negotiate must be written in express words at the back of the instrument, so that any subsequent party may be forewarned that ceases to be negotiable. However, the restrictive indorsee acquires the right to receive payment and bring any action thereon as any indorser, but he can no longer transfer his rights as such indorsee where the form of the indorsement does not authorize him to do so. 12

Although the holder of a check cannot compel a drawee bank to honor it because there is no privity between them, as far as the drawer-depositor is concerned, such bank may not legally refuse to honor a negotiable bill of exchange or a check drawn against it with more than one indorsement if there is nothing irregular with the bill or check and the drawer has sufficient funds. The drawee cannot be compelled to accept or pay the check by the drawer or any holder because as a drawee, he incurs no liability on the check unless he accepts it. But the drawee will make itself liable to a suit for damages at the instance of the drawer for wrongful dishonor of the bill or check.

Thus, it is clear that under the NIL, petitioner is precluded from raising the defense of forgery by reason of her gross negligence. But under Section 196 of the NIL, any case not provided for in the Act shall be governed by the provisions of existing legislation. Under the laws of quasi-delict, she cannot point to the negligence of the respondent drawee Bank in the selection and supervision of its employees as being the cause of the loss because negligence is the proximate cause thereof and under Article 2179 of the Civil Code, she may not be awarded damages. However, under Article 1170 of the same Code the respondent drawee Bank may be held liable for damages. The article provides —

Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.

There is no question that there is a contractual relation between petitioner as depositor (obligee) and the respondent drawee bank as the obligor. In the performance of its obligation, the drawee bank is bound by its internal banking rules and regulations which form part of any contract it enters into with any of its depositors. When it violated its internal rules that second endorsements are not to be accepted without the approval of its branch managers and it did accept the same upon the mere approval of Boon, a chief accountant, it contravened the tenor of its obligation at the very least, if it were not actually guilty of fraud or negligence.

Furthermore, the fact that the respondent drawee Bank did not discover the irregularity with respect to the acceptance of checks with second indorsement for deposit even without the approval of the branch manager despite periodic inspection conducted by a team of auditors from the main office constitutes negligence on the part of the bank in carrying out its obligations to its depositors. Article 1173 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 circumstance of the persons, of the time and of the place. . . .

We hold that banking business is so impressed with public interest where the trust and confidence of the public in general is of paramount importance such that the appropriate standard of diligence must be a high degree of diligence, if not the utmost diligence. Surely, respondent drawee Bank cannot claim it exercised such a degree of diligence that is required of it. There is no way We can allow it now to escape liability for such negligence. Its liability as obligor is not merely vicarious but primary wherein the defense of exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees is of no moment.

Premises considered, respondent drawee Bank is adjudged liable to share the loss with the petitioner on a fifty-fifty ratio in accordance with Article 172 which provides:

Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts according to the circumstances.

With the foregoing provisions of the Civil Code being relied upon, it is being made clear that the decision to hold the drawee bank liable is based on law and substantial justice and not on mere equity. And although the case was brought before the court not on breach of contractual obligations, the courts are not precluded from applying to the circumstances of the case the laws pertinent thereto. Thus, the fact that petitioner's negligence was found to be the proximate cause of her loss does not preclude her from recovering damages. The reason why the decision dealt on a discussion on proximate cause is due to the error pointed out by petitioner as allegedly committed by the respondent court. And in breaches of contract under Article 1173, due diligence on the part of the defendant is not a defense.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the case is hereby ordered REMANDED to the trial court for the reception of evidence to determine the exact amount of loss suffered by the petitioner, considering that she partly benefited from the issuance of the questioned checks since the obligation for which she issued them were apparently extinguished, such that only the excess amount over and above the total of these actual obligations must be considered as loss of which one half must be paid by respondent drawee bank to herein petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 93073. December 21, 1992.*

7.) REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FERMIN CANLAS, respondents.

Commercial Law; Negotiable Instruments Law; Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes are makers and are liable as such.—Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes are makers and are liable as such. By signing the notes, the maker promises to pay to the order of the payee or any holder according to the tenor thereof. Based on the above provisions of law, there is no denying that private respondent Fermin Canlas is one of the co-makers of the promissory notes. As such, he cannot escape liability arising therefrom.

Same; Same; Same; An instrument which begins with “I” ,”WE” or “Either of us” promise to pay, when signed by two or more persons, makes them solidarily liable.—Where an instrument containing the words “I promise to pay” is signed by two or more persons, they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable thereon. An instrument which begins with “I”, “We”, or “Either of us” promise to pay, when signed by two or more persons, makes them solidarily liable. The fact that the singular pronoun is used indicates that the promise is individual as to each other; meaning that each of the co-signers is deemed to have made an independent singular promise to pay the notes in full.

Same; Same; Same; Same; A joint and several note is one in which the makers bind themselves both jointly and individually to the payee so that all may be sued together for its enforcement or the creditor may select one or more as the object of the suit.—In the case at bar, the solidary liability of private respondent Fermin Canlas is made clearer and certain, without reason for ambiguity, by the presence of the phrase “joint and several” as describing the unconditional promise to pay to the order of Republic Planters Bank. A joint and several note is one in which the makers bind themselves both jointly and individually to the payee so that all may be sued together for its enforcement, or the creditor may select one or more as the object of the suit. A joint and several obligation in common law corresponds to a civil law solidary obligation; that is, one of several debtors bound in such wise that each is liable for the entire amount, and not merely for his proportionate share.

Corporation Law; The corporation, upon such change in its name, is in no sense a new corporation, nor the successor of the original corporation.—The corporation, upon such change in its name, is in no sense a new corporation, nor the successor of the original corporation. It is the same corporation with a different name, and its character is in no respect changed.

Same; Same; A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation and whether affected by special act or under a general law has no effect on the identity of the corporation or on its property, rights or liabilities.—A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation, and whether effected by special act or under a general law, has no effect on the identity of the corporation, or on its property, rights, or liabilities.

Same; Same; Same; The corporation continues as before responsible in its new name for all debts or other liabilities which it had previously contracted or incurred.—The corporation continues, as before, responsible in its new name for all debts or other liabilities which it had previously contracted or incurred.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Generally, officers or directors under the old corporate name bear no personal liability for acts done or contracts entered into by officers of the corporation if duly authorized.—As a general rule, officers or directors under the old corporate name bear no personal liability for acts done or contracts entered into by officers of the corporation, if duly authorized. Inasmuch as such officers acted in their capacity as agent of the old corporation and the change of name meant only the continuation of the old juridical entity, the corporation bearing the same name is still bound by the acts of its agents if authorized by the Board.

Usury Law; Interest; The rates under the Usury Law, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 116, are applicable only to interests by way of compensation for the use or forbearance of money.—This Courthas held that the rates under the Usury Law, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 116, are applicable only to interests by way of compensation for the use or forbearance of money. Article 2209 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, governs interests by way of damages. This fine distinction was not taken into consideration by the appellate court, which instead made a general statement that the interest rate be at 12% per annum.

Same; Same; Same; Central Bank Circular No. 905, Series of 1982 removed the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates.—Inasmuch as this Court had declared that increases in interest rates are not subject to any ceiling prescribed by the Usury Law, the appellate court erred in limiting the interest rate at 12% per annum. Central Bank Circular No. 905, Series of 1982 removed the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates.

CAMPOS, JR., J.:

This is an appeal by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari from the decision * of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 07302, entitled "Republic Planters Bank.Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Pinch Manufacturing Corporation, et al., Defendants, and Fermin Canlas,

Defendant-Appellant", which affirmed the decision ** in Civil Case No. 82-5448 except that it completely absolved Fermin Canlas from liability under the promissory notes and reduced the award for damages and attorney's fees. The RTC decision, rendered on June 20, 1985, is quoted hereunder:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Republic Planters Bank, ordering defendant Pinch Manufacturing Corporation (formerly Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.) and defendants Shozo Yamaguchi and Fermin Canlas to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff bank the following sums with interest thereon at 16% per annum from the dates indicated, to wit:

Under the promissory note (Exhibit "A"), the sum of P300,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981 until fully paid; under promissory note (Exhibit "B"), the sum of P40,000.00 with interest from November 27, 1980; under the promissory note (Exhibit "C"), the sum of P166,466.00 which interest from January 29, 1981; under the promissory note (Exhibit "E"), the sum of P86,130.31 with interest from January 29, 1981; under the promissory note (Exhibit "G"), the sum of P12,703.70 with interest from November 27, 1980; under the promissory note (Exhibit "H"), the sum of P281,875.91 with interest from January 29, 1981; and under the promissory note (Exhibit "I"), the sum of P200,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981.

Under the promissory note (Exhibit "D") defendants Pinch Manufacturing Corporation (formerly named Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.), and Shozo Yamaguchi are ordered to pay jointly and severally, the plaintiff bank the sum of P367,000.00 with interest of 16% per annum from January 29, 1980 until fully paid

Under the promissory note (Exhibit "F") defendant corporation Pinch (formerly Worldwide) is ordered to pay the plaintiff bank the sum of P140,000.00 with interest at 16% per annum from November 27, 1980 until fully paid.

Defendant Pinch (formely Worldwide) is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P231,120.81 with interest at 12% per annum from July 1, 1981, until fully paid and the sum of P331,870.97 with interest from March 28, 1981, until fully paid.

All the defendants are also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00 as and for reasonable attorney's fee and the further sum equivalent to 3% per annum of the respective principal sums from the dates above stated as penalty charge until fully paid, plus one percent (1%) of the principal sums as service charge.

With costs against the defendants.

SO ORDERED. 1

From the above decision only defendant Fermin Canlas appealed to the then Intermediate Court (now the Court Appeals). His contention was that inasmuch as he signed the promissory notes in his capacity as officer of the defunct Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc, he should not be held personally liable for such authorized corporate acts that he performed. It is now the contention of the petitioner Republic Planters Bank that having unconditionally signed the nine (9) promissory notes with Shozo Yamaguchi, jointly and severally, defendant Fermin Canlas is solidarity liable with Shozo Yamaguchi on each of the nine notes.

We find merit in this appeal.

From the records, these facts are established: Defendant Shozo Yamaguchi and private respondent Fermin Canlas were President/Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer respectively, of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.. By virtue of Board Resolution No.1 dated August 1, 1979, defendant Shozo Yamaguchi and private respondent Fermin Canlas were authorized to apply for credit facilities with the petitioner Republic Planters Bank in the forms of export advances and letters of credit/trust receipts accommodations. Petitioner bank issued nine promissory notes, marked as Exhibits A to I inclusive, each of which were uniformly worded in the following manner:

___________, after date, for value received, I/we, jointly and severaIly promise to pay to the ORDER of the REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, at its office in Manila, Philippines, the sum of ___________ PESOS(....) Philippine Currency...

On the right bottom margin of the promissory notes appeared the signatures of Shozo Yamaguchi and Fermin Canlas above their printed names with the phrase "and (in) his personal capacity" typewritten below. At the bottom of the promissory notes appeared: "Please credit proceeds of this note to:

________ Savings Account ______XX Current Account

No. 1372-00257-6

of WORLDWIDE GARMENT MFG. CORP.

These entries were separated from the text of the notes with a bold line which ran horizontally across the pages.

In the promissory notes marked as Exhibits C, D and F, the name Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc. was apparently rubber stamped above the signatures of defendant and private respondent.

On December 20, 1982, Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc. noted to change its corporate name to Pinch Manufacturing Corporation.

On February 5, 1982, petitioner bank filed a complaint for the recovery of sums of money covered among others, by the nine promissory notes with interest thereon, plus attorney's fees and penalty charges. The complainant was originally brought against Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc. inter alia, but it was later amended to drop Worldwide Manufacturing, Inc. as defendant and substitute Pinch Manufacturing Corporation it its place. Defendants Pinch Manufacturing Corporation and Shozo Yamaguchi did not file an Amended Answer and failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference despite due notice. Only private respondent Fermin Canlas filed an Amended Answer wherein he, denied having issued the promissory notes in question since according to him, he was not an officer of Pinch Manufacturing Corporation, but instead of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc., and that when he issued said promissory notes in behalf of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc., the same were in blank, the typewritten entries not appearing therein prior to the time he affixed his signature.

In the mind of this Court, the only issue material to the resolution of this appeal is whether private respondent Fermin Canlas is solidarily liable with the other defendants, namely Pinch Manufacturing Corporation and Shozo Yamaguchi, on the nine promissory notes.

We hold that private respondent Fermin Canlas is solidarily liable on each of the promissory notes bearing his signature for the following reasons:

The promissory motes are negotiable instruments and must be governed by the Negotiable Instruments Law. 2

Under the Negotiable lnstruments Law, persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes are makers and are liable as such. 3 By signing the notes, the maker promises to pay to the order of the payee or any holder4 according to the tenor thereof. 5 Based on the above provisions of law, there is no denying that private respondent Fermin Canlas is one of the co-makers of the promissory notes. As such, he cannot escape liability arising therefrom.

Where an instrument containing the words "I promise to pay" is signed by two or more persons, they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable thereon.  6 An instrument which begins" with "I" ,We" , or "Either of us" promise to, pay, when signed by two or more persons, makes them solidarily liable. 7 The fact that the singular pronoun is used indicates that the promise is individual as to each other; meaning that each of the co-signers is deemed to have made an independent singular promise to pay the notes in full.

In the case at bar, the solidary liability of private respondent Fermin Canlas is made clearer and certain, without reason for ambiguity, by the presence of the phrase "joint and several" as describing the unconditional promise to pay to the order of Republic Planters Bank. A joint and several note is one in which the makers bind themselves both jointly and individually to the payee so that all may be sued together for its enforcement, or the creditor may select one or more as the object of the suit. 8 A joint

and several obligation in common law corresponds to a civil law solidary obligation; that is, one of several debtors bound in such wise that each is liable for the entire amount, and not merely for his proportionate share. 9 By making a joint and several promise to pay to the order of Republic Planters Bank, private respondent Fermin Canlas assumed the solidary liability of a debtor and the payee may choose to enforce the notes against him alone or jointly with Yamaguchi and Pinch Manufacturing Corporation as solidary debtors.

As to whether the interpolation of the phrase "and (in) his personal capacity" below the signatures of the makers in the notes will affect the liability of the makers, We do not find it necessary to resolve and decide, because it is immaterial and will not affect to the liability of private respondent Fermin Canlas as a joint and several debtor of the notes. With or without the presence of said phrase, private respondent Fermin Canlas is primarily liable as a co-maker of each of the notes and his liability is that of a solidary debtor.

Finally, the respondent Court made a grave error in holding that an amendment in a corporation's Articles of Incorporation effecting a change of corporate name, in this case from Worldwide Garment manufacturing Inc to Pinch Manufacturing Corporation extinguished the personality of the original corporation.

The corporation, upon such change in its name, is in no sense a new corporation, nor the successor of the original corporation. It is the same corporation with a different name, and its character is in no respect changed.10

A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation, and whether effected by special act or under a general law, has no affect on the identity of the corporation, or on its property, rights, or liabilities. 11

The corporation continues, as before, responsible in its new name for all debts or other liabilities which it had previously contracted or incurred. 12

As a general rule, officers or directors under the old corporate name bear no personal liability for acts done or contracts entered into by officers of the corporation, if duly authorized. Inasmuch as such officers acted in their capacity as agent of the old corporation and the change of name meant only the continuation of the old juridical entity, the corporation bearing the same name is still bound by the acts of its agents if authorized by the Board. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, the liability of a person signing as an agent is specifically provided for as follows:

Sec. 20. Liability of a person signing as agent and so forth. 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 filling a representative character, without disclosing his principal, does not exempt him from personal liability.

Where the agent signs his name but nowhere in the instrument has he disclosed the fact that he is acting in a representative capacity or the name of the third party for whom he might have acted as agent, the agent is personally liable to take holder of the instrument and cannot be permitted to prove that he was merely acting as agent of another and parol or extrinsic evidence is not admissible to avoid the agent's personal liability. 13

On the private respondent's contention that the promissory notes were delivered to him in blank for his signature, we rule otherwise. A careful examination of the notes in question shows that they are the stereotype printed form of promissory notes generally used by commercial banking institutions to be signed by their clients in obtaining loans. Such printed notes are incomplete because there are blank spaces to be filled up on material particulars such as payee's name, amount of the loan, rate of interest, date of issue and the maturity date. The terms and conditions of the loan are printed on the note for the borrower-debtor 's perusal. An incomplete instrument which has been delivered to the borrower for his signature is governed by Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides, in so far as relevant to this case, thus:

Sec. 14. Blanks: when may be filled. — Where the instrument is wanting in any material particular, the person in possesion thereof has a prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. ... In order, however, that any such instrument when completed may be enforced against any person who became a party thereto prior to its completion, it must be filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and within a reasonable time...

Proof that the notes were signed in blank was only the self-serving testimony of private respondent Fermin Canlas, as determined by the trial court, so that the trial court ''doubts the defendant (Canlas) signed in blank the promissory notes". We chose to believe the bank's testimony that the notes were filled up before they were given to private respondent Fermin Canlas and defendant Shozo Yamaguchi for their signatures as joint and several promissors. For signing the notes above their typewritten names, they bound themselves as unconditional makers. We take judicial notice of the customary procedure of commercial banks of requiring their clientele to sign promissory notes prepared by the banks in printed form with blank spaces already filled up as per agreed terms of the loan, leaving the borrowers-debtors to do nothing but read the terms and conditions therein printed and to sign as makers or co-makers. When the notes were given to private respondent Fermin Canlas for his signature, the notes were complete in the sense that the spaces for the material particular had been filled up by the bank as per agreement. The notes were not incomplete instruments; neither were they given to private respondent Fermin Canlas in blank as he claims. Thus, Section 14 of the NegotiabIe Instruments Law is not applicable.

The ruling in case of Reformina vs. Tomol relied upon by the appellate court in reducing the interest rate on the promissory notes from 16% to 12% per annum does not squarely apply to the instant petition. In the abovecited case, the rate of 12% was

applied to forebearances of money, goods or credit and court judgemets thereon, only in the absence of any stipulation between the parties.

In the case at bar however , it was found by the trial court that the rate of interest is 9% per annum, which interest rate the plaintiff may at any time without notice, raise within the limits allowed law. And so, as of February 16, 1984 , the plaintiff had fixed the interest at 16% per annum.

This Court has held that the rates under the Usury Law, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 116, are applicable only to interests by way of compensation for the use or forebearance of money. Article 2209 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, governs interests by way of damages. 15 This fine distinction was not taken into consideration by the appellate court, which instead made a general statement that the interest rate be at 12% per annum.

Inasmuch as this Court had declared that increases in interest rates are not subject to any ceiling prescribed by the Usury Law, the appellate court erred in limiting the interest rates at 12% per annum. Central Bank Circular No. 905, Series of 1982 removed the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates. 16

In the 1ight of the foregoing analysis and under the plain language of the statute and jurisprudence on the matter, the decision of the respondent: Court of Appeals absolving private respondent Fermin Canlas is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgement is hereby rendered declaring private respondent Fermin Canlas jointly and severally liable on all the nine promissory notes with the following sums and at 16% interest per annum from the dates indicated, to wit:

Under the promissory note marked as exhibit A, the sum of P300,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981 until fully paid; under promissory note marked as Exhibit B, the sum of P40,000.00 with interest from November 27, 1980: under the promissory note denominated as Exhibit C, the amount of P166,466.00 with interest from January 29, 1981; under the promissory note denominated as Exhibit D, the amount of P367,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981 until fully paid; under the promissory note marked as Exhibit E, the amount of P86,130.31 with interest from January 29, 1981; under the promissory note marked as Exhibit F, the sum of P140,000.00 with interest from November 27, 1980 until fully paid; under the promissory note marked as Exhibit G, the amount of P12,703.70 with interest from November 27, 1980; the promissory note marked as Exhibit H, the sum of P281,875.91 with interest from January 29, 1981; and the promissory note marked as Exhibit I, the sum of P200,000.00 with interest on January 29, 1981.

The liabilities of defendants Pinch Manufacturing Corporation (formerly Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.) and Shozo Yamaguchi, for not having appealed from the decision of the trial court, shall be adjudged in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Court a quo.

With respect to attorney's fees, and penalty and service charges, the private respondent Fermin Canlas is hereby held jointly and solidarity liable with defendants for the amounts found, by the Court a quo. With costs against private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Nos. L-25836-37. January 31, 1981.*

8.) THE PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE M. ARUEGO, defendant-appellant.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Defaults; Requirements for setting aside an order of default.—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. 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.

Same; Same; Pleadings; Failure of defendant to file an answer on the last day for pleading, excusable; Reason.—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.

Same; Appeals; New Trial; New trial not to be granted if it will serve no purpose, and defense is ineffective.—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.

Mercantile Law; Negotiable Instruments; Bills of Exchange; A party who signs a bill of exchange as an agent, but failed to disclose his principal becomes personally liable for the drafts he accepted.—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. He merely signed as follows. “JOSE ARUEGO (Acceptor) (SGD) JOSE ARUEGO.” For failure to disclose his principal, Aruego is personally liable for the drafts he accepted.

Same; Same; Same; Accommodation party; Liability of an accommodation party.—In lending his name to be 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.

Same; Same; Same; Liability of an acceptor or drawee is primary; A party, a lawyer, who intends to be secondarily liable should not have signed as an acceptor or drawee.—In the instant case, the defendant signed as a drawee/acceptor. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a drawee is primarily liable. Thus, if the defendant who is a lawyer, really intended to be secondarily liable only, he should not have signed as an acceptor/drawee. In doing so, he became primarily and personally liable for the drafts.

Same; Same; Same; A commercial paper which conforms under the definition of a bill of exchange is a bill of exchange; Acceptance;

Nature of acceptance is important only in the determination of liability of the parties, hut not to determine whether a commercial paper is a bill of exchange or not.—Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, 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 a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to order or to bearer. 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.

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, 1and 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.

No. L-62943. July 14, 1986.*

9.) METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Now INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT) and THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondents.

Negotiable Instruments Law; Evidence; There is no clear evidence in this case that the signatures on the checks are forgeries. The NBI reports indicate that the anomalous encashment of the checks were an “inside job” or due to negligence of MWSS.—We have carefully reviewed the documents cited by the petitioner. There is no express and categorical finding in these documents that the twenty-three (23) questioned checks were indeed signed by persons other than the authorized MWSS signatories. On the contrary, the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation in its Report dated November 2, 1970 show that the MWSS fraud was an “inside job” and that the petitioner’s delay in the reconciliation of bank statements and the laxity and loose records control in the printing of its personalized checks facilitated the fraud. Likewise, the questioned Documents Report No, 159-1074 dated November 21, 1974 of the National Bureau of Investigation does not declare or prove that the signatures appearing on the questioned checks are forgeries. The report merely mentions the alleged differences in the typeface, checkwriting, and printing characteristics appearing in the standard or submitted models and the questioned typewritings. The NBI Chemistry Report No. C-74-891 merely describes the inks and pens used in writing the alleged forged signatures. It is clear that these three (3) NBI Reports relied upon by the petitioner are inadequate to sustain its allegations of forgery. These reports did not

touch on the inherent qualities of the signatures which are indispensable in the determination of the existence of forgery. There must be conclusive findings that there is a variance in the inherent characteristics of the signatures and that they were written by two or more different persons.

Same; Same; MWSS officials admitted that the checks in question can be easily passed on as genuine.—Considering the absence of sufficient security in the printing of the checks coupled with the very close similarities between the genuine signatures and the alleged forgeries, the twenty-three (23) checks in question could have been presented to the petitioner’s signatories without their knowing that they were bogus checks. Indeed, the cashier of the petitioner whose signatures were allegedly forged was unable to tell the difference between the allegedly forged signature and his own genuine signature. On the other hand, the MWSS officials admitted that these checks could easily be passed on as genuine. The memorandum of Mr. A. T. Tolentino, Assistant Chief Accountant of the drawee Philippine National Bank to Mr. E. Villatuya, Executive Vice-President of the petitioner dated June 9, 1969 cites an instance where even the concerned NWSA officials could not tell the differences between the genuine checks and the alleged forged checks.

Same; Where a depositor is using its own personalized checks, its failure to provide adequate security measures to prevent forgeries of its checks constitutes gross negligence and bars it from setting up the defense of forgery.—The records show that at the time the twenty-three (23) checks were prepared, negotiated, and encashed, the petitioner was using its own personalized checks, instead of the official PNB Commercial blank checks. In the exercise of this special privilege, however, the petitioner failed to provide the needed security measures. That there was gross negligence in the printing of its personalized checks is shown by the following uncontroverted facts, to wit: (1) The petitioner failed to give its printer, Mesina Enterprises, specific instructions relative to the safekeeping and disposition of excess forms, check vouchers, and safety papers; (2) The petitioner failed to retrieve from its printer all spoiled check forms; (3) The petitioner failed to provide any control regarding the paper used in the printing of said checks; x xxx.

Same; Failure of depositor to make prompt reconciliation of the monthly bank statements furnished by the bank constitutes negligence for which the bank cannot be blamed in case depositor’s checks are forged.—It is accepted banking procedure for the depository bank to furnish its depositors bank statements and debt and credit memos through the mail. The records show that the petitioner requested the respondent drawee bank to discontinue the practice of mailing the bank statements, but instead to deliver the same to a certain Mr. Emiliano Zaporteza. For reasons known only to Mr. Zaporteza however, he was unreasonably delayed in taking prompt deliveries of the said bank statements and credit and debit memos. As a consequence, Mr. Zaporteza failed to reconcile the bank statements with the petitioner’s records. If Mr. Zaporteza had not been remiss in his duty of taking the bank statements and reconciling them with the petitioner’s records, the fraudulent encashments of the first checks should have been discovered, and further frauds prevented. This negligence was, therefore, the proximate cause of the failure to discover the fraud.

Same; Depository bank cannot be blamed for not detecting fraudulent encashment of checks where depositor uses its own personalized checks.—We cannot fault the respondent drawee Bank for not having detected the fraudulent encashment of the checks because the printing of the petitioner’s personalized checks was not done under the supervision and control of the Bank. There is no evidence on record indicating that because of this private printing, the petitioner furnished the respondent Bank with samples of checks, pens, and inks or took other precautionary measures with the PNB to safeguard its interests. Under the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner was in a better position to detect and prevent the fraudulent encashment of its checks.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

This petition for review asks us to set aside the October 29, 1982 decision of the respondent Court of Appeals, now Intermediate Appellate Court which reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XL, and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, the third party complaint, as well as the defendant's counterclaim.

The background facts which led to the filing of the instant petition are summarized in the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals:

Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (hereinafter referred to as MWSS) is a government owned and controlled corporation created under Republic Act No. 6234 as the successor-in- interest of the defunct NWSA. The Philippine National Bank (PNB for short), on the other hand, is the depository bank of MWSS and its predecessor-in-interest NWSA. Among the several accounts of NWSA with PNB is NWSA Account No. 6, otherwise known as Account No. 381-777 and which is presently allocated No. 010-500281. The authorized signature for said Account No. 6 were those of MWSS treasurer Jose Sanchez, its auditor Pedro Aguilar, and its acting General Manager Victor L. Recio. Their respective specimen signatures were submitted by the MWSS to and on file with the PNB. By special arrangement with the PNB, the MWSS used personalized checks in drawing from this account. These checks were printed for MWSS by its printer, F. Mesina Enterprises, located at 1775 Rizal Extension, Caloocan City.

During the months of March, April and May 1969, twenty-three (23) checks were prepared, processed, issued and released by NWSA, all of which were paid and cleared by PNB and debited by PNB against NWSA Account No. 6, to wit:

Check No. Date Payee Amount Date Paid

By PNB

1. 59546 8-21-69 Deogracias P 3,187.79 4-2-69

Estrella

2. 59548 3-31-69 Natividad 2,848.86 4-23 69

Rosario

3. 59547 3-31-69 Pangilinan 195.00 Unreleased

Enterprises

4. 59549 3-31-69 Natividad 3,239.88 4-23-69

Rosario

5. 59552 4-1-69 Villarama 987.59 5-6-69

& Sons

6. 59554 4-1-69 Gascom 6,057.60 4-16 69

Engineering

7. 59558 4-2-69 The Evening 112.00 Unreleased

News

8. 59544 3-27-69 Progressive 18,391.20 4-18 69

Const.

9. 59564 4-2-69 Ind. Insp. 594.06 4-18 69

Int. Inc.

10. 59568 4-7-69 Roberto 800.00 4-22-69

Marsan

11. 59570 4-7-69 Paz Andres 200.00 4-22-69

12. 59574 4-8-69 Florentino 100,000.00 4-11-69

Santos

13. 59578 4-8-69 Mla. Daily 95.00 Unreleased

Bulletin

14. 59580 4-8-69 Phil. Herald 100.00 5-9-69

15. 59582 4-8-69 Galauran 7,729.09 5-6-69

& Pilar

16. 59581 4-8-69 Manila 110.00 5-12 69

Chronicle

17. 59588 4-8-69 Treago 21,583.00 4-11 69

Tunnel

18. 59587 4-8-69 Delfin 120,000.00 4-11-69

Santiago

19. 59589 4-10-69 Deogracias 1,257.49 4-16 69

Estrella

20. 59594 4-14-69 Philam Ac- 33.03 4-29 69

cident Inc.

21. 59577 4-8-69 Esla 9,429.78 4-29 69

22. 59601 4-16-69 Justino 20,000.00 4-18-69

Torres

23. 59595 4-14-69 Neris Phil. 4,274.00 5-20-69

Inc. --------------------

P 320,636.26

During the same months of March, April and May 1969, twenty-three (23) checks bearing the same numbers as the aforementioned NWSA checks were likewise paid and cleared by PNB and debited against NWSA Account No. 6, to wit:

Check Date Payee Amount Date Paid

No. Issued By PNB

1. 59546 3-6-69 Raul Dizon P 84,401.00 3-16-69

2. 59548 3-11-69 Raul Dizon 104,790.00 4-1-69

3. 59547 3-14-69 Arturo Sison 56,903.00 4-11-69

4. 59549 3-20-69 Arturo Sison 48,903.00 4-15-69

5. 59552 3-24-69 Arturo Sison 63,845.00 4-16-69

6. 59544 3-26-69 Arturo Sison 98,450.00 4-17-69

7. 59558 3-28-69 Arturo Sison 114,840.00 4-21-69

8. 59544 3-16-69 Antonio 38,490.00 4-22-69 Mendoza

9. 59564 3-31-69 Arturo Sison 180,900.00 4-23-69

10.59568 4-2-69 Arturo Sison 134,940.00 4- 5-69

11.59570 4-1-69 Arturo Sison 64,550.00 4-28-69

12.59574 4-2-69 Arturo Sison 148,610.00 4-29-69

13.59578 4-10-69 Antonio 93,950.00 4-29-69Mendoza

14.59580 4-8-69 Arturo Sison 160,000.00 5-2-69

15.59582 4-10-69 Arturo Sison 155,400.00 5-5-69

16.59581 4-8-69 Antonio 176,580.00 5-6-69

Mendoza

17.59588 4-16-69 Arturo Sison 176,000.00 5-8-69

18.59587 4-16-69 Arturo Sison 300,000.00 5-12-69

19.59589 4-18-69 Arturo Sison 122,000.00 5-14-69

20.59594 4-18-69 Arturo Sison 280,000.00 5-15-69

21.59577 4-14-69 Antonio 260,000.00 5-16-69

Mendoza

22.59601 4-18-69 Arturo Sison 400,000.00 5-19-69

23.59595 4-28-69 Arturo Sison 190,800.00 5-21-69

---------------

P3,457,903.00

The foregoing checks were deposited by the payees Raul Dizon, Arturo Sison and Antonio Mendoza in their respective current accounts with the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) and Philippine Bank of

Commerce (PBC) in the months of March, April and May 1969. Thru the Central Bank Clearing, these checks were presented for payment by PBC and PCIB to the defendant PNB, and paid, also in the months of March, April and May 1969. At the time of their presentation to PNB these checks bear the standard indorsement which reads 'all prior indorsement and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed.'

Subsequent investigation however, conducted by the NBI showed that Raul Dizon, Arturo Sison and Antonio Mendoza were all fictitious persons. The respective balances in their current account with the PBC and/or PCIB stood as follows: Raul Dizon P3,455.00 as of April 30, 1969; Antonio Mendoza P18,182.00 as of May 23, 1969; and Arturo Sison Pl,398.92 as of June 30, 1969.

On June 11, 1969, NWSA addressed a letter to PNB requesting the immediate restoration to its Account No. 6, of the total sum of P3,457,903.00 corresponding to the total amount of these twenty-three (23) checks claimed by NWSA to be forged and/or spurious checks. "In view of the refusal of PNB to credit back to Account No. 6 the said total sum of P3,457,903.00 MWSS filed the instant complaint on November 10, 1972 before the Court of First Instance of Manila and docketed thereat as Civil Case No. 88950.

In its answer, PNB contended among others, that the checks in question were regular on its face in all respects, including the genuineness of the signatures of authorized NWSA signing officers and there was nothing on its face that could have aroused any suspicion as to its genuineness and due execution and; that NWSA was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the loss.

PNB also filed a third party complaint against the negotiating banks PBC and PCIB on the ground that they failed to ascertain the Identity of the payees and their title to the checks which were deposited in the respective new accounts of the payees with them.

xxx xxx xxx

On February 6, 1976, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in favor of the MWSS. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, on the COMPLAINT by a clear preponderance of evidence and in accordance with Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) by ordering the defendant Philippine National Bank (PNB) to restore the total sum of THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THREE PESOS (P3,457,903.00) to plaintiff's Account No. 6, otherwise known as Account

No. 010-50030-3, with legal interest thereon computed from the date of the filing of the complaint and until as restored in the said Account No. 6.

On the THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT, the Court, for lack of evidence, hereby renders judgment in favor of the third party defendants Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC) and Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) by dismissing the Third Party Complaint.

The counterclaims of the third party defendants are likewise dismissed for lack of evidence.

No pronouncement as to costs.

As earlier stated, the respondent court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila and rendered judgment in favor of the respondent Philippine National Bank.

A motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner MWSS was denied by the respondent court in a resolution dated January 3, 1983.

The petitioner now raises the following assignments of errors for the grant of this petition:

I. IN NOT HOLDING THAT AS THE SIGNATURES ON THE CHECKS WERE FORGED, THE DRAWEE BANK WAS LIABLE FOR THE LOSS UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW.

II. IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE PROXIMATE NEGLIGENCE OF PNB IN ACCEPTING THE SPURIOUS CHECKS DESPITE THE OBVIOUS IRREGULARITY OF TWO SETS OF CHECKS BEARING IdENTICAL NUMBER BEING ENCASHED WITHIN DAYS OF EACH OTHER.

III. IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE SIGNATURES OF THE DRAWEE MWSS BEING CLEARLY FORGED, AND THE CHECKS SPURIOUS, SAME ARE INOPERATIVE AS AGAINST THE ALLEGED DRAWEE.

The appellate court applied Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides:

Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for valuable consideration and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party thereto for value.

The petitioner submits that the above provision does not apply to the facts of the instant case because the questioned checks were not those of the MWSS and neither were they drawn by its authorized signatories. The petitioner states that granting that Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is applicable, the same creates only a prima facie presumption which was overcome by the following documents, to wit: (1)

the NBI Report of November 2, 1970; (2) the NBI Report of November 21, 1974; (3) the NBI Chemistry Report No. C-74891; (4) the Memorandum of Mr. Juan Dino, 3rd Assistant Auditor of the respondent drawee bank addressed to the Chief Auditor of the petitioner; (5) the admission of the respondent bank's counsel in open court that the National Bureau of Investigation found the signature on the twenty-three (23) checks in question to be forgeries; and (6) the admission of the respondent bank's witness, Mr. Faustino Mesina, Jr. that the checks in question were not printed by his printing press. The petitioner contends that since the signatures of the checks were forgeries, the respondent drawee bank must bear the loss under the rulings of this Court.

A bank is bound to know the signatures of its customers; and if it pays a forged check it must be considered as making the payment out of its obligation funds, and cannot ordinarily charge the amount so paid to the account of the depositor whose name was forged.

xxx xxx xxx

The signatures to the checks being forged, under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law they are not a charge against plaintiff nor are the checks of any value to the defendant.

It must therefore be held that the proximate cause of loss was due to the negligence of the Bank of the Philippine Islands in honoring and cashing the two forged checks. (San Carlos Milling Co. v. Bank of the P. I., 59 Phil. 59)

It is admitted that the Philippine National Bank cashed the check upon a forged signature, and placed the money to the credit of Maasim, who was the forger. That the Philippine National Bank then endorsed the chock and forwarded it to the Shanghai Bank by whom it was paid. The Philippine National Bank had no license or authority to pay the money to Maasim or anyone else upon a forged signature. It was its legal duty to know that Malicor's endorsement was genuine before cashing the check. Its remedy is against Maasim to whom it paid the money. (Great Eastern Life Ins. Co. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, 43 Phil. 678).

We have carefully reviewed the documents cited by the petitioner. There is no express and categorical finding in these documents that the twenty-three (23) questioned checks were indeed signed by persons other than the authorized MWSS signatories. On the contrary, the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation in its Report dated November 2, 1970 show that the MWSS fraud was an "inside job" and that the petitioner's delay in the reconciliation of bank statements and the laxity and loose records control in the printing of its personalized checks facilitated the fraud. Likewise, the questioned Documents Report No. 159-1074 dated November 21, 1974 of the National Bureau of Investigation does not declare or prove that the signatures appearing on the questioned checks are forgeries. The report merely mentions the alleged differences in the type face, checkwriting, and printing characteristics appearing in the standard or submitted models and the questioned typewritings. The

NBI Chemistry Report No. C-74-891 merely describes the inks and pens used in writing the alleged forged signatures.

It is clear that these three (3) NBI Reports relied upon by the petitioner are inadequate to sustain its allegations of forgery. These reports did not touch on the inherent qualities of the signatures which are indispensable in the determination of the existence of forgery. There must be conclusive findings that there is a variance in the inherent characteristics of the signatures and that they were written by two or more different persons.

Forgery cannot be presumed (Siasat, et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al, 139 SCRA 238). It must be established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. This was not done in the present case.

The cases of San Carlos Milling Co. Ltd. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, et al. (59 Phil. 59) and Great Eastern Life Ins., Co. v. Hongkong and Shanghai Bank (43 Phil. 678) relied upon by the petitioner are inapplicable in this case because the forgeries in those cases were either clearly established or admitted while in the instant case, the allegations of forgery were not clearly established during trial.

Considering the absence of sufficient security in the printing of the checks coupled with the very close similarities between the genuine signatures and the alleged forgeries, the twenty-three (23) checks in question could have been presented to the petitioner's signatories without their knowing that they were bogus checks. Indeed, the cashier of the petitioner whose signatures were allegedly forged was unable to ten the difference between the allegedly forged signature and his own genuine signature. On the other hand, the MWSS officials admitted that these checks could easily be passed on as genuine.

The memorandum of Mr. A. T. Tolentino, no, Assistant Chief Accountant of the drawee Philippine National Bank to Mr. E. Villatuya, Executive Vice-President of the petitioner dated June 9, 1969 cites an instance where even the concerned NWSA officials could not ten the differences between the genuine checks and the alleged forged checks.

At about 12:00 o'clock on June 6, 1969, VP Maramag requested me to see him in his office at the Cashier's Dept. where Messrs. Jose M. Sanchez, treasurer of NAWASA and Romeo Oliva of the same office were present. Upon my arrival I observed the NAWASA officials questioning the issue of the NAWASA checks appearing in their own list, xerox copy attached.

For verification purposes, therefore, the checks were taken from our file. To everybody there present namely VIP Maramag, the two abovementioned NAWASA officials, AVP, Buhain, Asst. Cashier Castelo, Asst. Cashier Tejada and Messrs. A. Lopez and L. Lechuga, both C/A bookkeepers, no one was able to point out any difference on the signatures of the NAWASA officials appearing on the checks compared to their official signatures on file. In fact 3 checks, one of those under question, were

presented to the NAWASA treasurer for verification but he could not point out which was his genuine signature. After intent comparison, he pointed on the questioned check as bearing his correct signature.

xxx xxx xxx

Moreover, the petitioner is barred from setting up the defense of forgery under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides that:

SEC. 23. FORGED SIGNATURE; EFFECT OF.- When the signature is forged or made without authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment 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.

because it was guilty of negligence not only before the questioned checks were negotiated but even after the same had already been negotiated. (See Republic v. Equitable Banking Corporation, 10 SCRA 8) The records show that at the time the twenty-three (23) checks were prepared, negotiated, and encashed, the petitioner was using its own personalized checks, instead of the official PNB Commercial blank checks. In the exercise of this special privilege, however, the petitioner failed to provide the needed security measures. That there was gross negligence in the printing of its personalized checks is shown by the following uncontroverted facts, to wit:

(1) The petitioner failed to give its printer, Mesina Enterprises, specific instructions relative to the safekeeping and disposition of excess forms, check vouchers, and safety papers;

(2) The petitioner failed to retrieve from its printer all spoiled check forms;

(3) The petitioner failed to provide any control regarding the paper used in the printing of said checks;

(4) The petitioner failed to furnish the respondent drawee bank with samples of typewriting, cheek writing, and print used by its printer in the printing of its checks and of the inks and pens used in signing the same; and

(5) The petitioner failed to send a representative to the printing office during the printing of said checks.

This gross negligence of the petitioner is very evident from the sworn statement dated June 19, 1969 of Faustino Mesina, Jr., the owner of the printing press which printed the petitioner's personalized checks:

xxx xxx xxx

7. Q: Do you have any business transaction with the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA)?

A: Yes, sir. I have a contract with the NAWASA in printing NAWASA Forms such as NAWASA Check

xxx xxx xxx

15. Q: Were you given any ingtruction by the NAWASA in connection with the printing of these check vouchers?

A: There is none, sir. No instruction whatsoever was given to me.

16. Q: Were you not advised as to what kind of paper would be used in the check vouchers?

A: Only as per sample, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

20. Q: Where did you buy this Hammermill Safety check paper?

A: From Tan Chiong, a paper dealer with store located at Juan Luna, Binondo, Manila. (In front of the Metropolitan Bank).

xxx xxx xxx

24. Q: Were all these check vouchers printed by you submitted to NAWASA?

A: Not all, sir. Because we have to make reservations or allowances for spoilage.

25. Q: Out of these vouchers printed by you, how many were spoiled and how many were the excess printed check vouchers?

A: Approximately four hundred (400) sheets, sir. I cannot determine the proportion of the excess and spoiled because the final act of perforating these check vouchers has not yet been done and spoilage can only be determined after this final act of printing.

26. Q: What did you do with these excess check vouchers?

A: I keep it under lock and key in my firing cabinet.

xxx xxx xxx

28. Q: Were you not instructed by the NAWASA authorities to bum these excess check vouchers?

A: No, sir. I was not instructed.

29. Q: What do you intend to do with these excess printed check vouchers?

A: I intend to use them for future orders from the

xxx xxx xxx

32. Q: In the process of printing the check vouchers ordered by the NAWASA, how many sheets were actually spoiled?

A: I cannot approximate, sir. But there are spoilage in the process of printing and perforating.

33. Q: What did you do with these spoilages?

A: Spoiled printed materials are usually thrown out, in the garbage can.

34. Q: Was there any representative of the NAWASA to supervise the printing or watch the printing of these check vouchers?

A: None, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

39. Q: During the period of printing after the days work, what measures do you undertake to safeguard the mold and other paraphernalia used in the printing of these particular orders of NAWASA?

A: Inasmuch as I have an employee who sleeps in the printing shop and at the same time do the guarding, we just leave the mold attached to the machine and the other finished or unfinished work check vouchers are left in the rack so that the work could be continued the following day.

The National Bureau of Investigation Report dated November 2, 1970 is even more explicit. Thus—

xxx xxx xxx

60. We observed also that there is some laxity and loose control in the printing of NAWASA cheeks. We gathered from

MESINA ENTERPRISES, the printing firm that undertook the printing of the check vouchers of NAWASA that NAWASA had no representative at the printing press during the process of the printing and no particular security measure instructions adopted to safeguard the interest of the government in connection with printing of this accountable form.

Another factor which facilitated the fraudulent encashment of the twenty-three (23) checks in question was the failure of the petitioner to reconcile the bank statements with its own records.

It is accepted banking procedure for the depository bank to furnish its depositors bank statements and debt and credit memos through the mail. The records show that the petitioner requested the respondent drawee bank to discontinue the practice of mailing the bank statements, but instead to deliver the same to a certain Mr. Emiliano Zaporteza. For reasons known only to Mr. Zaporteza however, he was unreasonably delayed in taking prompt deliveries of the said bank statements and credit and debit memos. As a consequence, Mr. Zaporteza failed to reconcile the bank statements with the petitioner's records. If Mr. Zaporteza had not been remiss in his duty of taking the bank statements and reconciling them with the petitioner's records, the fraudulent encashments of the first checks should have been discovered, and further frauds prevented. This negligence was, therefore, the proximate cause of the failure to discover the fraud. Thus,

When a person opens a checking account with a bank, he is given blank checks which he may fill out and use whenever he wishes. Each time he issues a check, he should also fill out the check stub to which the check is usually attached. This stub, if properly kept, will contain the number of the check, the date of its issue, the name of the payee and the amount thereof. The drawer would therefore have a complete record of the checks he issues. It is the custom of banks to send to its depositors a monthly statement of the status of their accounts, together with all the cancelled checks which have been cashed by their respective holders. If the depositor has filled out his check stubs properly, a comparison between them and the cancelled checks will reveal any forged check not taken from his checkbook. It is the duty of a depositor to carefully examine the bank's statement, his cancelled checks, his check stubs and other pertinent records within a reasonable time, and to report any errors without unreasonable delay. If his negligence should cause the bank to honor a forged check or prevent it from recovering the amount it may have already paid on such check, he cannot later complain should the bank refuse to recredit his account with the amount of such check. (First Nat. Bank of Richmond v. Richmond Electric Co., 106 Va. 347, 56 SE 152, 7 LRA, NS 744 [1907]. See also Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. Morgan, 117 US 96, 6 S. Ct. 657 [1886]; Deer Island Fish and Oyster Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Biloxi, 166 Miss. 162, 146 So. 116 [1933]). Campos and Campos, Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable Instruments Law, 1971, pp. 267-268).

This failure of the petitioner to reconcile the bank statements with its cancelled checks was noted by the National Bureau of Investigation in its report dated November 2, 1970:

58. One factor which facilitate this fraud was the delay in the reconciliation of bank (PNB) statements with the NAWASA bank accounts. x x x. Had the NAWASA representative come to the PNB early for the statements and had the bank been advised promptly of the reported bogus check, the negotiation of practically all of the remaining checks on May, 1969, totalling P2,224,736.00 could have been prevented.

The records likewise show that the petitioner failed to provide appropriate security measures over its own records thereby laying confidential records open to unauthorized persons. The petitioner's own Fact Finding Committee, in its report submitted to their General manager underscored this laxity of records control. It observed that the "office of Mr. Ongtengco (Cashier No. VI of the Treasury Department at the NAWASA) is quite open to any person known to him or his staff members and that the check writer is merely on top of his table."

When confronted with this report at the Anti-Fraud Action Section of the National Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Ongtengco could only state that:

A. Generally my order is not to allow anybody to enter my office. Only authorized persons are allowed to enter my office. There are some cases, however, where some persons enter my office because they are following up their checks. Maybe, these persons may have been authorized by Mr. Pantig. Most of the people entering my office are changing checks as allowed by the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the NAWASA and the Treasurer. The check writer was never placed on my table. There is a place for the check write which is also under lock and key.

Q. Is Mr. Pantig authorized to allow unauthorized persons to enter your office?

A. No, sir.

Q. Why are you tolerating Mr. Pantig admitting unauthorized persons in your office?

A. I do not want to embarrass Mr. Pantig. Most of the people following up checks are employees of the NAWASA.

Q. Was the authority given by the Board of Directors and the approval by the Treasurer for employees, and other persons to encash their checks carry with it their authority to enter your office?

A. No, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. From the answers that you have given to us we observed that actually there is laxity and poor control on your part with regards to the preparations of check payments inasmuch as you allow unauthorized persons to follow up their vouchers inside your office which may leakout confidential informations or your books of account. After being apprised of all the shortcomings in your office, as head of the Cashiers' Office of the Treasury Department what remedial measures do you intend to undertake?

A. Time and again the Treasurer has been calling our attention not to allow interested persons to hand carry their voucher checks and we are trying our best and if I can do it to follow the instructions to the letter, I will do it but unfortunately the persons who are allowed to enter my office are my co-employees and persons who have connections with our higher ups and I can not possibly antagonize them. Rest assured that even though that everybody will get hurt, I win do my best not to allow unauthorized persons to enter my office.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Is it not possible inasmuch as your office is in charge of the posting of check payments in your books that leakage of payments to the banks came from your office?

A. I am not aware of it but it only takes us a couple of minutes to process the checks. And there are cases wherein every information about the checks may be obtained from the Accounting Department, Auditing Department, or the Office of the General Manager.

Relying on the foregoing statement of Mr. Ongtengco, the National Bureau of Investigation concluded in its Report dated November 2, 1970 that the fraudulent encashment of the twenty-three (23)cheeks in question was an "inside job". Thus-

We have all the reasons to believe that this fraudulent act was an inside job or one pulled with inside connivance at NAWASA. As pointed earlier in this report, the serial numbers of these checks in question conform with the numbers in current use of NAWASA, aside from the fact that these fraudulent checks were found to be of the same kind and design as that of NAWASA's own checks. While knowledge as to such facts may be obtained through the possession of a NAWASA check of current issue, an outsider without information from the inside can not possibly pinpoint which of

NAWASA's various accounts has sufficient balance to cover all these fraudulent checks. None of these checks, it should be noted, was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. . .

Even if the twenty-three (23) checks in question are considered forgeries, considering the petitioner's gross negligence, it is barred from setting up the defense of forgery under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

Nonetheless, the petitioner claims that it was the negligence of the respondent Philippine National Bank that was the proximate cause of the loss. The petitioner relies on our ruling in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals(25 SCRA 693) that.

Thus, by not returning the cheek to the PCIB, by thereby indicating that the PNB had found nothing wrong with the check and would honor the same, and by actually paying its amount to the PCIB, the PNB induced the latter, not only to believe that the check was genuine and good in every respect, but, also, to pay its amount to Augusto Lim. In other words, the PNB was the primary or proximate cause of the loss, and, hence, may not recover from the PCIB.

The argument has no merit. The records show that the respondent drawee bank, had taken the necessary measures in the detection of forged checks and the prevention of their fraudulent encashment. In fact, long before the encashment of the twenty-three (23) checks in question, the respondent Bank had issued constant reminders to all Current Account Bookkeepers informing them of the activities of forgery syndicates. The Memorandum of the Assistant Vice-President and Chief Accountant of the Philippine National Bank dated February 17, 1966 reads in part:

SUBJECT: ACTIVITIES OF FORGERY SYNDICATE

From reliable information we have gathered that personalized checks of current account depositors are now the target of the forgery syndicate. To protect the interest of the bank, you are hereby enjoined to be more careful in examining said checks especially those coming from the clearing, mails and window transactions. As a reminder please be guided with the following:

1. Signatures of drawers should be properly scrutinized and compared with those we have on file.

2. The serial numbers of the checks should be compared with the serial numbers registered with the Cashier's Dept.

3. The texture of the paper used and the printing of the checks should be compared with the sample we have on file with the Cashier's Dept.

4. Checks bearing several indorsements should be given a special attention.

5. Alteration in amount both in figures and words should be carefully examined even if signed by the drawer.

6. Checks issued in substantial amounts particularly by depositors who do not usually issue checks in big amounts should be brought to the attention of the drawer by telephone or any fastest means of communication for purposes of confirmation.

and your attention is also invited to keep abreast of previous circulars and memo instructions issued to bookkeepers.

We cannot fault the respondent drawee Bank for not having detected the fraudulent encashment of the checks because the printing of the petitioner's personalized checks was not done under the supervision and control of the Bank. There is no evidence on record indicating that because of this private printing the petitioner furnished the respondent Bank with samples of checks, pens, and inks or took other precautionary measures with the PNB to safeguard its interests.

Under the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner was in a better position to detect and prevent the fraudulent encashment of its checks.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated October 29, 1982 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 139130. November 27, 2002.*

10.) RAMON K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.

Civil Law; Damages; Negligence; To be entitled to damages, petitioner has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the bank for failure to detect the discrepancy in the signatures on the checks.—On the first issue, we find that petitioner has no cause of action against Manila Bank. To be entitled to damages, petitioner has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the bank for failure to detect the discrepancy in the signatures on the checks. It is incumbent upon petitioner to establish the fact of forgery, i.e., by submitting his specimen signatures and comparing them with those on the questioned checks. Curiously though, petitioner failed to submit additional specimen

signatures as requested by the National Bureau of Investigation from which to draw a conclusive finding regarding forgery. The Court of Appeals found that petitioner, by his own inaction, was precluded from setting up forgery.

Same; Same; Same; Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do.—As borne by the records, it was petitioner, not the bank, who was negligent. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do.In the present case, it appears that petitioner accorded his secretary unusual degree of trust and unrestricted access to his credit cards, passbooks, check books, bank statements, including custody and possession of cancelled checks and reconciliation of accounts.

Same; Same; Same; Petitioner’s failure to examine his bank statements appears as the proximate cause of his own damage; Proximate Cause Defined.—Petitioner’s failure to examine his bank statements appears as the proximate cause of his own damage. Proximate cause is 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. In the instant case, the bank was not shown to statements to petitioner so that any error or discrepancy in the entries therein could be brought to the bank’s attention at the earliest opportunity. But, petitioner failed to examine these bank statements not because he was prevented by some cause in not doing so, but because he did not pay sufficient attention to the matter. Had he done so, he could have been alerted to any anomaly committed against him.

Same; Criminal Law; Forgery; When a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the check is wholly inoperative unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.—True, it is a rule that when a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the check is wholly inoperative. No right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof against any party, can be acquired through or under such signature. However, the rule does provide for an exception, namely: “unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.” In the instant case, it is the exception that applies. In our view, petitioner is precluded from setting up the forgery, assuming there is forgery, due to his own negligence in entrusting to his secretary his credit cards and checkbook including the verification of his statements of account.

Same; Estoppel; Petitioner cannot hold private respondent in estoppel for the latter is not the actual party to the criminal action.—On the second issue, the fact that Manila Bank had filed a case for estafa against Eugenio would not estop it from asserting the fact that forgery has not been clearly established. Petitioner cannot hold private respondent in estoppel for the latter is not the actual party to the criminal action. In a criminal action, the State is the plaintiff, for the commission of a felony is an offense

against the State. Thus, under Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court the complaint or information filed in court is required to be brought in the name of the “People of the Philippines.”

QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for review seeks to reverse the decision[1] promulgated on January 28, 1999 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47942, affirming the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XV (now the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 138) dismissing Civil Case No. 43907, for damages.

The facts as summarized by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

Petitioner is a prominent businessman who, at the time material to this case, was the Managing Director of Multinational Investment Bancorporation and the Chairman and/or President of several other corporations. He was a depositor in good standing of respondent bank, the Manila Banking Corporation, under current Checking Account No. 06-09037-0. As he was then running about 20 corporations, and was going out of the country a number of times, petitioner entrusted to his secretary, Katherine[2] E. Eugenio, his credit cards and his checkbook with blank checks. It was also Eugenio who verified and reconciled the statements of said checking account.[3]

Between the dates September 5, 1980 and January 23, 1981, Eugenio was able to encash and deposit to her personal account about seventeen (17) checks drawn against the account of the petitioner at the respondent bank, with an aggregate amount of P119,634.34. Petitioner did not bother to check his statement of account until a business partner apprised him that he saw Eugenio use his credit cards. Petitioner fired Eugenio immediately, and instituted a criminal action against her for estafa thru falsification before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. Private respondent, through an affidavit executed by its employee, Mr. Dante Razon, also lodged a complaint for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents against Eugenio on the basis of petitioners statement that his signatures in the checks were forged.[4] Mr. Razons affidavit states:

That I have examined and scrutinized the following checks in accordance with prescribed verification procedures with utmost care and diligence by comparing the signatures affixed thereat against the specimen signatures of Mr. Ramon K. Ilusorio which we have on file at our said office on such dates,

x x x

That the aforementioned checks were among those issued by Manilabank in favor of its client MR. RAMON K. ILUSORIO,That the same were personally encashed by KATHERINE E. ESTEBAN, an executive secretary of MR. RAMON K. ILUSORIO in said Investment Corporation;That I have met and known her as KATHERINE E. ESTEBAN the attending verifier when she personally encashed the above-mentioned checks at our said office;That MR. RAMON K. ILUSORIO executed an affidavit expressly disowning his signature appearing on the checks further alleged to have not authorized the issuance and encashment of the same.[5]

Petitioner then requested the respondent bank to credit back and restore to its account the value of the checks which were wrongfully encashed but respondent bank refused. Hence, petitioner filed the instant case.[6]

At the trial, petitioner testified on his own behalf, attesting to the truth of the circumstances as narrated above, and how he discovered the alleged forgeries. Several employees of Manila Bank were also called to the witness stand as hostile witnesses. They testified that it is the banks standard operating procedure that whenever a check is presented for encashment or clearing, the signature on the check is first verified against the specimen signature cards on file with the bank.

Manila Bank also sought the expertise of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in determining the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the checks. However, in a letter dated March 25, 1987, the NBI informed the trial court that they could not conduct the desired examination for the reason that the standard specimens submitted were not sufficient for purposes of rendering a definitive opinion. The NBI then suggested that petitioner be asked to submit seven (7) or more additional standard signatures executed before or about, and immediately after the dates of the questioned checks. Petitioner, however, failed to comply with this request.

After evaluating the evidence on both sides, the court a quo rendered judgment on May 12, 1994 with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, finding no sufficient basis for plaintiff's cause herein against defendant bank, in the light of the foregoing considerations and established facts, this case would have to be, as it is hereby DISMISSED.Defendants counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED for lack of sufficient basis.SO ORDERED.[7]

Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review but without success. The appellate court held that petitioners own negligence was the proximate cause of his loss. The appellate court disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED. Costs against the appellant.SO ORDERED.[8]

Before us, petitioner ascribes the following errors to the Court of Appeals:

A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT BANK IS ESTOPPED FROM RAISING THE DEFENSE THAT THERE WAS NO FORGERY OF THE SIGNATURES OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CHECK BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT FILED A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS AGAINST KATHERINE EUGENIO USING THE AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER STATING THAT HIS SIGNATURES WERE FORGED AS PART OF THE AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT.[9]

B. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING SEC. 23, NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW.[10]

C. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS WITH THE RESPONDENT BANK TO PROVE THE DUE DILIGENCE TO

PREVENT DAMAGE, TO THE PETITIONER, AND THAT IT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF ITS EMPLOYEES.[11]

D. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT BANK SHOULD BEAR THE LOSS, AND SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY PETITIONER, WITH RECOURSE AGAINST KATHERINE EUGENIO ESTEBAN.[12]

Essentially the issues in this case are: (1) whether or not petitioner has a cause of action against private respondent; and (2) whether or not private respondent, in filing an estafa case against petitioners secretary, is barred from raising the defense that the fact of forgery was not established.

Petitioner contends that Manila Bank is liable for damages for its negligence in failing to detect the discrepant checks. He adds that as a general rule a bank which has obtained possession of a check upon an unauthorized or forged endorsement of the payees signature and which collects the amount of the check from the drawee is liable for the proceeds thereof to the payee. Petitioner invokes the doctrine of estoppel, saying that having itself instituted a forgery case against Eugenio, Manila Bank is now estopped from asserting that the fact of forgery was never proven.

For its part, Manila Bank contends that respondent appellate court did not depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, hence there is no reason for the reversal of its ruling. Manila Bank additionally points out that Section 23[13] of the Negotiable Instruments Law is inapplicable, considering that the fact of forgery was never proven. Lastly, the bank negates petitioners claim of estoppel.[14]

On the first issue, we find that petitioner has no cause of action against Manila Bank. To be entitled to damages, petitioner has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the bank for failure to detect the discrepancy in the signatures on the checks. It is incumbent upon petitioner to establish the fact of forgery, i.e., by submitting his specimen signatures and comparing them with those on the questioned checks. Curiously though, petitioner failed to submit additional specimen signatures as requested by the National Bureau of Investigation from which to draw a conclusive finding regarding forgery. The Court of Appeals found that petitioner, by his own inaction, was precluded from setting up forgery. Said the appellate court:

We cannot fault the court a quo for such declaration, considering that the plaintiffs evidence on the alleged forgery is not convincing enough. The burden to prove forgery was upon the plaintiff, which burden he failed to discharge. Aside from his own testimony, the appellant presented no other evidence to prove the fact of forgery. He did not even submit his own specimen signatures, taken on or about the date of the questioned checks, for examination and comparison with those of the subject checks. On the other hand, the appellee presented specimen signature cards of the appellant, taken at various years, namely, in 1976, 1979 and 1981 (Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 7), showing variances in the appellants unquestioned signatures.The evidence further shows that the appellee, as soon as it was informed by the appellant about his questioned signatures, sought to borrow the questioned checks from the appellant for purposes of analysis and examination (Exhibit 9), but the same was denied by the appellant. It was also the former which sought the assistance of the NBI for an expert

analysis of the signatures on the questioned checks, but the same was unsuccessful for lack of sufficient specimen signatures.[15]

Moreover, petitioners contention that Manila Bank was remiss in the exercise of its duty as drawee lacks factual basis. Consistently, the CA and the RTC found that Manila Bank employees exercised due diligence in cashing the checks. The banks employees in the present case did not have a hint as to Eugenios modus operandi because she was a regular customer of the bank, having been designated by petitioner himself to transact in his behalf. According to the appellate court, the employees of the bank exercised due diligence in the performance of their duties. Thus, it found that:

The evidence on both sides indicates that TMBCs employees exercised due diligence before encashing the checks. Its verifiers first verified the drawers signatures thereon as against his specimen signature cards, and when in doubt, the verifier went further, such as by referring to a more experienced verifier for further verification. In some instances the verifier made a confirmation by calling the depositor by phone. It is only after taking such precautionary measures that the subject checks were given to the teller for payment.Of course it is possible that the verifiers of TMBC might have made a mistake in failing to detect any forgery -- if indeed there was. However, a mistake is not equivalent to negligence if they were honest mistakes. In the instant case, we believe and so hold that if there were mistakes, the same were not deliberate, since the bank took all the precautions.[16]

As borne by the records, it was petitioner, not the bank, who was negligent. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do. [17] In the present case, it appears that petitioner accorded his secretary unusual degree of trust and unrestricted access to his credit cards, passbooks, check books, bank statements, including custody and possession of cancelled checks and reconciliation of accounts. Said the Court of Appeals on this matter:

Moreover, the appellant had introduced his secretary to the bank for purposes of reconciliation of his account, through a letter dated July 14, 1980 (Exhibit 8). Thus, the said secretary became a familiar figure in the bank. What is worse, whenever the bank verifiers call the office of the appellant, it is the same secretary who answers and confirms the checks.The trouble is, the appellant had put so much trust and confidence in the said secretary, by entrusting not only his credit cards with her but also his checkbook with blank checks. He also entrusted to her the verification and reconciliation of his account. Further adding to his injury was the fact that while the bank was sending him the monthly Statements of Accounts, he was not personally checking the same. His testimony did not indicate that he was out of the country during the period covered by the checks. Thus, he had all the opportunities to verify his account as well as the cancelled checks issued thereunder -- month after month. But he did not, until his partner asked him whether he had entrusted his credit card to his secretary because the said partner had seen her use the same. It was only then that he was minded to verify the records of his account. [18]

The abovecited findings are binding upon the reviewing court. We stress the rule that the factual findings of a trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding upon us[19] and entitled to utmost respect[20] and even finality. We find no palpable error that would warrant a reversal of the appellate courts assessment of facts anchored upon the evidence on record.

Petitioners failure to examine his bank statements appears as the proximate cause of his own damage. Proximate cause is 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.[21] In the instant case, the bank was not shown to be remiss in its duty of sending monthly bank statements to petitioner so that any error or discrepancy in the entries therein could be brought to the banks attention at the earliest opportunity. But, petitioner failed to examine these bank statements not because he was prevented by some cause in not doing so, but because he did not pay sufficient attention to the matter. Had he done so, he could have been alerted to any anomaly committed against him. In other words, petitioner had sufficient opportunity to prevent or detect any misappropriation by his secretary had he only reviewed the status of his accounts based on the bank statements sent to him regularly. In view of Article 2179 of the New Civil Code,[22] when the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, no recovery could be had for damages.

Petitioner further contends that under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law a forged check is inoperative, and that Manila Bank had no authority to pay the forged checks.True, it is a rule that when a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the check is wholly inoperative. No right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof against any party, can be acquired through or under such signature. However, the rule does provide for an exception, namely: unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority. In the instant case, it is the exception that applies. In our view, petitioner is precluded from setting up the forgery, assuming there is forgery, due to his own negligence in entrusting to his secretary his credit cards and checkbook including the verification of his statements of account.

Petitioners reliance on Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals[23] and Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA[24] to buttress his contention that respondent Manila Bank as the collecting or last endorser generally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior endorsements is misplaced. In the cited cases, the fact of forgery was not in issue.In the present case, the fact of forgery was not established with certainty. In those cited cases, the collecting banks were held to be negligent for failing to observe precautionary measures to detect the forgery. In the case before us, both courts below uniformly found that Manila Banks personnel diligently performed their duties, having compared the signature in the checks from the specimen signatures on record and satisfied themselves that it was petitioners.

On the second issue, the fact that Manila Bank had filed a case for estafa against Eugenio would not estop it from asserting the fact that forgery has not been clearly established.Petitioner cannot hold private respondent in estoppel for the latter is not

the actual party to the criminal action. In a criminal action, the State is the plaintiff, for the commission of a felony is an offense against the State.[25] Thus, under Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court the complaint or information filed in court is required to be brought in the name of the People of the Philippines. [26]

Further, as petitioner himself stated in his petition, respondent bank filed the estafa case against Eugenio on the basis of petitioners own affidavit,[27] but without admitting that he had any personal knowledge of the alleged forgery. It is, therefore, easy to understand that the filing of the estafa case by respondent bank was a last ditch effort to salvage its ties with the petitioner as a valuable client, by bolstering the estafa case which he filed against his secretary.

All told, we find no reversible error that can be ascribed to the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 28, 1999 in CA-G.R. CV No. 47942, is AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.