Phil Comml Intl Bank v CA
2
PHIL COMML INTL BANK V CA Negotiable Instruments Law – Rights of the Holder – 350 SCRA 446 – What Constitutes a Holder in Due Course – Negligence of the Collecting Bank and the Drawee Bank There are three cases consolidated here: G.R. No. 121413 (PCIB vs CA and Ford and Citibank), G.R. No. 121479 (Ford vs CA and Citibank and PCIB), and G.R. No. 128604 (Ford vs Citibank and PCIB and CA). G.R. No. 121413/G.R. No. 121479 In October 1977, Ford Philippines drew a Citibank check in the amount of P4,746,114.41 in favor of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue (CIR). The check represents Ford’s tax payment for the third quarter of 1977. On the face of the check was written “Payee’s account only” which means that the check cannot be encashed and can only be deposited with the CIR’s savings account (which is with Metrobank). The said check was however presented to PCIB and PCIB accepted the same. PCIB then indorsed the check for clearing to Citibank. Citibank cleared the check and paid PCIB P4,746,114.41. CIR later informed Ford that it never received the tax payment. An investigation ensued and it was discovered that Ford’s accountant Godofredo Rivera, when the check was deposited with PCIB, recalled the check since there was allegedly an error in the computation of the tax to be paid. PCIB, as instructed by Rivera, replaced the check with two of its manager’s checks. It was further discovered that Rivera was actually a member of a syndicate and the manager’s checks were subsequently deposited with the Pacific Banking Corporation by other members of the syndicate. Thereafter, Rivera and the other members became fugitives of justice. G.R. No. 128604 In July 1978 and in April 1979, Ford drew two checks in the amounts of P5,851,706.37 and P6,311,591.73 respectively. Both checks are again for tax payments. Both checks are for “Payee’s account only” or for the CIR’s bank savings account only with Metrobank. Again, these checks never reached the CIR. In an investigation, it was found that these checks were embezzled by the same syndicate to which Rivera was a member. It was established that an employee of PCIB, also a member of the syndicate, created a PCIB account under a fictitious name upon which the two checks, through high end manipulation, were deposited. PCIB unwittingly endorsed the checks to Citibank which the latter cleared. Upon clearing, the amount was withdrawn from the fictitious account by syndicate members. ISSUE: What are the liabilities of each party? HELD: G.R. No. 121413/G.R. No. 121479 PCIB is liable for the amount of the check (P4,746,114.41). PCIB, as a collecting bank has been negligent in verifying the authority of Rivera to negotiate the check. It failed to ascertain whether or not Rivera can validly recall the check and have them be replaced with PCIB’s manager’s checks as in fact, Ford has no knowledge and did not authorize such. A bank (in this case PCIB) which cashes a check drawn upon another bank (in this case Citibank), without requiring proof as to the identity of persons presenting it, or making inquiries with regard to them, cannot hold the proceeds against the drawee when the proceeds of the checks were afterwards diverted to the hands of a third party. Hence, PCIB is liable for the amount of the embezzled check. G.R. No. 128604 PCIB and Citibank are liable for the amount of the checks on a 50-50 basis. As a general rule, a bank is liable for the negligent or tortuous act of its employees within the course and apparent scope of their employment or authority. Hence, PCIB is liable for the fraudulent act of its employee who set up the savings account under a fictitious name. Citibank is likewise liable because it was negligent in the performance of its obligations with respect to its agreement with Ford. The checks which were drawn against Ford’s account with Citibank clearly states that they are payable to the CIR only yet Citibank delivered said payments to PCIB. Citibank however argues that the checks were indorsed by PCIB to Citibank and that the latter has nothing to do but to pay it. The Supreme Court cited Section 62 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which mandates the Citibank, as an acceptor of the checks, to engage in paying the checks according to the tenor of the acceptance which is to deliver the payment to the “payee’s account only”. But the Supreme Court ruled that in the consolidated cases, that PCIB and Citibank are not the only negligent parties. Ford is also negligent for failing to examine its passbook in a timely manner which could have avoided further loss. But this negligence is not the proximate cause of the loss but is merely contributory. Nevertheless, this mitigates the liability of PCIB and Citibank hence the rate of interest, with which PCIB and Citibank is to pay Ford, is lowered from 12% to 6% per annum. MESINA V IAC Negotiable Instruments Law – Rights of the Holder – 145 SCRA 497 – What Constitutes a Holder in Due Course – Stolen Check
-
Upload
raymond-owens -
Category
Documents
-
view
11 -
download
2
description
Nego case
Transcript of Phil Comml Intl Bank v CA
PHIL COMML INTL BANK V CA
Negotiable Instruments Law – Rights of the Holder – 350 SCRA 446 – What Constitutes a Holder in Due Course – Negligence of the
Collecting Bank and the Drawee Bank
There are three cases consolidated here: G.R. No. 121413 (PCIB vs CA and Ford and Citibank), G.R. No. 121479 (Ford vs CA and Citibank and PCIB), and G.R. No. 128604 (Ford vs Citibank and PCIB and CA).
G.R. No. 121413/G.R. No. 121479
In October 1977, Ford Philippines drew a Citibank check in the amount of P4,746,114.41 in favor of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue (CIR). The check represents Ford’s tax payment for the third quarter of 1977. On the face of the check was written “Payee’s account only” which means that the check cannot be encashed and can only be deposited with the CIR’s savings account (which is with Metrobank). The said check was however presented to PCIB and PCIB accepted the same. PCIB then indorsed the check for clearing to Citibank. Citibank cleared the check and paid PCIB P4,746,114.41. CIR later informed Ford that it never received the tax payment.
An investigation ensued and it was discovered that Ford’s accountant Godofredo Rivera, when the check was deposited with PCIB, recalled the check since there was allegedly an error in the computation of the tax to be paid. PCIB, as instructed by Rivera, replaced the check with two of its manager’s checks.
It was further discovered that Rivera was actually a member of a syndicate and the manager’s checks were subsequently deposited with the Pacific Banking Corporation by other members of the syndicate. Thereafter, Rivera and the other members became fugitives of justice.
G.R. No. 128604
In July 1978 and in April 1979, Ford drew two checks in the amounts of P5,851,706.37 and P6,311,591.73 respectively. Both checks are again for tax payments. Both checks are for “Payee’s account only” or for the CIR’s bank savings account only with Metrobank. Again, these checks never reached the CIR.
In an investigation, it was found that these checks were embezzled by the same syndicate to which Rivera was a member. It was established that an employee of PCIB, also a member of the syndicate, created a PCIB account under a fictitious name upon which the two checks, through high end manipulation, were deposited. PCIB unwittingly endorsed the checks to Citibank which the latter cleared. Upon clearing, the amount was withdrawn from the fictitious account by syndicate members.
ISSUE: What are the liabilities of each party?
HELD: G.R. No. 121413/G.R. No. 121479
PCIB is liable for the amount of the check (P4,746,114.41). PCIB, as a collecting bank has been negligent in verifying the authority of Rivera to negotiate the check. It failed to ascertain whether or not Rivera can validly recall the check and have them be replaced with PCIB’s manager’s checks as in fact, Ford has no knowledge and did not authorize such. A bank (in this case PCIB) which cashes a check drawn upon another bank (in this case Citibank), without requiring proof as to the identity of persons presenting it, or making inquiries with regard to them, cannot hold the proceeds against the drawee when the proceeds of the checks were afterwards diverted to the hands of a third party. Hence, PCIB is liable for the amount of the embezzled check.
G.R. No. 128604
PCIB and Citibank are liable for the amount of the checks on a 50-50 basis.
As a general rule, a bank is liable for the negligent or tortuous act of its employees within the course and apparent scope of their employment or authority. Hence, PCIB is liable for the fraudulent act of its employee who set up the savings account under a fictitious name.
Citibank is likewise liable because it was negligent in the performance of its obligations with respect to its agreement with Ford. The checks which were drawn against Ford’s account with Citibank clearly states that they are payable to the CIR only yet Citibank delivered said payments to PCIB. Citibank however argues that the checks were indorsed by PCIB to Citibank and that the latter has nothing to do but to pay it. The Supreme Court cited Section 62 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which mandates the Citibank, as an acceptor of the checks, to engage in paying the checks according to the tenor of the acceptance which is to deliver the payment to the “payee’s account only”.
But the Supreme Court ruled that in the consolidated cases, that PCIB and Citibank are not the only negligent parties. Ford is also negligent for failing to examine its passbook in a timely manner which could have avoided further loss. But this negligence is not the proximate cause of the loss but is merely contributory. Nevertheless, this mitigates the liability of PCIB and Citibank hence the rate of interest, with which PCIB and Citibank is to pay Ford, is lowered from 12% to 6% per annum.
MESINA V IAC
Negotiable Instruments Law – Rights of the Holder – 145 SCRA 497 – What Constitutes a Holder in Due Course – Stolen CheckJose Go maintains an account with Associated Bank. He needed to transfer P800,000.00 from Associated Bank to another bank but he realized that he does not want to be carrying that cash so he bought a cashier’s check from Associated Bank worth P800,000.00. Associated Bank then issued the check but Jose Go forgot to get the check so it was left on top of the desk of the bank manager. The bank manager, when he found the check, entrusted it to Albert Uy for the later to safe keep it. The check was however stolen from Uy by a certain Alexander Lim.Jose Go learned that the check was stolen son he made a stop payment order against the check. Meanwhile, Associated Bank received the subject check from Prudential Bank for clearing. Apparently, the check was presented by a certain Marcelo Mesina for payment. Associated Bank dishonored the check.When asked how Mesina got hold of the check, he merely stated that Alfredo Lim, who’s already at large, paid the check to him for “a certain transaction”.ISSUE: Whether or not Mesina is a holder in due course.HELD: No. Admittedly, Mesina became the holder of the cashier’s check as endorsed by Alexander Lim who stole the check. Mesina however refused to say how and why it was passed to him. Mesina had therefore notice of the defect of his title over the check from the start. The holder of a cashier’s check who is not a holder in due course cannot enforce such check against the issuing bank which dishonors the same. The check in question suffers from the infirmity of not having been properly negotiated and for value by Jose Go who is the real owner of said instrument.
