Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1992. On November 16, 1992, Garin called up Ofelia to inform her that the
check had already been cleared.[9] The following day, PNB Buendia
she could have Filipinas check cleared and encashed for a service fee of
2.5%. The check is Bank of America Check No. 190[6] under the account
next day after having been authorized by Ofelia.[12]Filipina received all the
proceeds.
not have a dollar account in which to deposit the check, she asked Ofelia if
she could accommodate Filipinas request since she has a joint dollar
savings account with her Malaysian husband Cheah Chee Chong (Chee
subject check for insufficient funds.[14] However, the PNB Head Office
Ofelia agreed.
could not ascertain to which branch/office it should forward the same for
proper action. Eventually, PNB Head Office sent Philadelphia National
That same day, Ofelia and Adelina went to PNB Buendia Branch.
Bank a SWIFT message informing the latter that SWIFT message with
They met with Perfecto Mendiola of the Loans Department who referred
them to PNB Division Chief Alberto Garin (Garin). Garin discussed with
but was returned to PNB Head Office as it seemed misrouted. PNB Head
them the process of clearing the subject check and they were told that it
[7]
SWIFT messages proper disposition.[15] After a few days, PNB Head Office
ascertained that the SWIFT message was intended for PNB Buendia
check. PNB then sent it for clearing through its correspondent bank,
Branch.
likewise assured the spouses Cheah that the letter was a mere formality and
that the mortgage will be disregarded once PNB receives its claim for
November 13, 1992 SWIFT message was attached. Informed about the
bounced check and upon demand by PNB Buendia Branch to return the
back. But the latter told her that all the money had already been given to
demand letter to spouses Cheah for the return of the amount of the check,
several people who asked for the checks encashment. In their effort to
[22]
recover the money, spouses Cheah then sought the help of the National
$893.46,[23] and filed a complaint[24] against them for Sum of Money with
check and recover from them $20,000.00. Criminal charges were then filed
around P8,202,220.44, plus interests[25] and attorneys fees, from the spouses
Cheah.
froze their peso and dollar deposits in the amounts of P275,166.80 and
the bank officials to discuss matters regarding the incident and the recovery
of the value of the check while the cases against the alleged perpetrators
remain
PNB
without waiting for the 15-day clearing period, in violation of its bank
practice as mandated by its own bank circular, i.e., PNB General Circular
barred from claiming what it had lost. They further averred that it is unjust
deferred interest while the spouses try to recover the money from those who
for them to pay back the amount disbursed as they never really benefited
defrauded them. Apparently, Chee Chong signed the letter after the Vice
(Asperilla), asked the spouses Cheah to help him and the other bank officers
so far spent in recovering the value of the check, and payment of moral and
as they were in danger of losing their jobs because of the incident. Asperilla
drafted
pending. Chee
[19]
letter
[20]
Chong
in
the
end
signed
Because Ofelia trusted a friends friend whom she did not know and
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
considering the amount of the check made payable to cash, the RTC opined
that Ofelia showed lack of vigilance in her dealings. She should have
exercised due care by investigating the negotiability of the check and the
[27]
identity of the drawer. While the court found that the proximate cause of the
Decision
wrongful payment of the check was PNBs negligence in not observing the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the plaintiff Philippine National Bank
[and] against defendants Mr. Cheah Chee Chong and Ms.
Ofelia Camacho Cheah, ordering the latter to pay jointly
and severally the herein plaintiffs bank the amount:
15-day guarantee period rule, it ruled that spouses Cheah still cannot escape
1.
of US$298,950.25 or its peso
equivalent based on Central Bank Exchange Rate
prevailing at the time the proceeds of the BA Check No.
190 were withdrawn or the prevailing Central Bank Rate
at the time the amount is to be reimbursed by the
defendants to plaintiff or whatever is lower. This is
without prejudice however, to the rights of the defendants
(accommodating parties) to go against the group of
Adelina Guarin, Atty. Eduardo Rosales, Filipina Tuazon,
etc., (Beneficiaries- accommodated parties) who are privy
to the defendants.
regard to the award of other forms of damages, the RTC held that each party
No pronouncement as to costs.
No other award of damages for non[e] has been proven.
SO ORDERED.[28]
The RTC held that spouses Cheah were guilty of contributory negligence.
shoulder the loss. The scam would not have been possible
without the negligence of both parties. As earlier stated,
the complaint of PNB cannot be dismissed because the
Cheah spouses were negligent and Ms. Cheah took an
active part in the deposit of the check and the withdrawal
of the subject amounts. On the other hand, the Cheah
spouses cannot entirely bear the loss because PNB
allowed her to withdraw without waiting for the clearance
of the check. The remedy of the parties is to go after those
who perpetrated, and benefited from, the scam.
WHEREFORE, the May 20, 1999 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila, in Civil Case
No. 94-71022, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE
and another one entered DECLARING both parties
equally negligent and should suffer and shoulder the loss.
latter are accommodation parties under the law as the banks own negligence
Our Ruling
SO ORDERED.[31]
parties
[32]
Reconsideration
filed
their
respective
Motions
[33]
for
dated
The petitions for review lack merit. Hence, we affirm the ruling of the CA.
PNBs act of releasing
the proceeds of the
check prior to the
lapse of the 15-day
clearing period was
the proximate cause
of the loss.
doctrine, the CA held that PNB had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending loss of the money and yet, it glaringly exhibited its negligence in
and without which the result would not have occurred. x x x To determine
PNBs own officers, and as provided in its own General Circular No.
the proximate cause of a controversy, the question that needs to be asked is:
52/101/88. To the CA, PNB cannot claim from spouses Cheah even if the
If the event did not happen, would the injury have resulted? If the answer is
Bank v. Tan,[38] wherein the bank allowed the withdrawal of the value of a
check prior to its clearing, we said that [b]efore the check shall have been
cleared for deposit, the collecting bank can only assume at its own risk x x x
that the check would be cleared and paid out. The delay in the receipt by
strangers check and depositing it to the bank, it remains mum in its release
PNB Buendia Branch of the November 13, 1992 SWIFT message notifying
Buendia Branch waited for the expiration of the clearing period and had
never released during that time the proceeds of the check, it would have
already been duly notified of its dishonor. Clearly, PNBs disregard of its
victimized by bad checks had brought upon itself the injury of losing a
what was unusual in the processing of the check was that the lapse of 15
[35]
dollar checks refers to business/ banking days. Ofelia deposited the subject
check on November 4, 1992. Hence, the 15th banking day from the date of
said deposit should fall on November 25, 1992. However, what happened
was that PNB Buendia Branch, upon calling up Ofelia that the check had
disregard of its own banking policy amounts to gross negligence, which the
17 and 18, 1992, a week before the lapse of the standard 15-day clearing
period.
without previously clearing them with the drawee bank especially so where
the collecting bank the duty to scrutinize diligently the checks deposited
the drawee bank is a foreign bank and the amounts involved were large is
with it for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. The
collecting bank, being primarily engaged in banking, holds itself out to the
public as the expert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a high standard
of conduct.[41] A bank is expected to be an expert in banking procedures and
sufficiently funded.
y,
Incidentally, PNB obliges the spouses Cheah to return the withdrawn
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below
money under the principle of solutio indebiti, which is laid down in Article
CA found
Ofelias
credulousness
blameworthy. We
agree. Indeed, Ofelia failed to observe caution in giving her full trust in
accommodating a complete stranger and this led her and her husband to be
swindled. Considering that Filipina was not personally known to her and
In the case at bench, PNB cannot recover the proceeds of the check
under the principle it invokes. In the first place, the gross negligence of
PNB, as earlier discussed, can never be equated with a mere mistake of fact,
which must be something excusable and which requires the exercise of
prudence.No recovery is due if the mistake done is one of gross negligence.
cleared way earlier than the 15-day clearing period. The fact that the check
was cleared after only eight banking days from the time it was deposited or
contrary to what Garin told her that clearing takes 15 days should have
already put Ofelia on guard. She should have first verified the regularity of
such hasty clearance considering that if something goes wrong with the
transaction, it is she and her husband who would be put at risk and not the
accommodated party. However, Ofelia chose to ignore the same and instead
actively participated in immediately withdrawing the proceeds of the
check. Thus, we are one with the CA in ruling that Ofelias prior
consultation with PNB officers is not enough to totally absolve her of any
liability. In the first place, she should have shunned any participation in that
In any case, the complaint against the spouses Cheah could not be
dismissed. As PNBs client, Ofelia was the one who dealt with PNB and
negotiated the check such that its value was credited in her and her
husbands account. Being the ones in privity with PNB, the spouses Cheah
are therefore the persons who should return to PNB the money released to
them.
All told, the Court concurs with the findings of the CA that PNB
and the spouses Cheah are equally negligent and should therefore equally
suffer the loss. The two must both bear the consequences of their mistakes.
demand letters, the last one sent on July 18, 2000. [7] Respondent,
however, refused to pay the amount.
Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 100,
complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-01-43055.
The
sum
of P1,161,933.27
representing the costs of the elevator
parts used, and for services and
maintenance, with legal rate of interest
from the filing of the complaint;
2.
The sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's
fees;
3.
The costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[9]
IS A
SALE
AND
(7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8)
when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the
petition, as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs, are not
disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
the evidence on record.[17]
The present case falls under the 7th exception, as the RTC and the CA
arrived at conflicting findings of fact.
Having resolved the procedural aspect, this Court shall now address
foregoing rule, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely
on
speculation,
surmises,
or
manifestly
conjectures;
mistaken,
absurd,
(2)
or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the
findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when, in making its findings, the
Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
since the repairs were not authorized, respondent claims that it has no
way of verifying whether the parts were actually delivered and
installed as alleged by petitioner.
Petitioner claims that during the period of April 1997 to July 1998, it
had used parts in the maintenance and repair of the four elevators in
At the outset, this Court observes that the SOP is not embodied in the
account
[19]
however, refuses to pay the said amount arguing that petitioner had
claim that the SOP was not followed upon the behest and request of
respondent.
A perusal of petitioner's petition and evidence in the RTC shows that
the main thrust of its case is premised on the following claims: first,
will notify petitioner's technician; (b) the technician will evaluate the
the elevators are in good running condition at all times; and, second,
problem and if the problem is manageable the repair was done right
there and then; (c) if some parts have to be replaced, petitioner will
It is an age-old rule in civil cases that one who alleges a fact has the
This Court is not unmindful of the fact that petitioner also alleges in
its petition that the non-observance of the SOP was the practice way
back in 1994 when petitioner started servicing respondent's elevators.
The testimony of Sua, at best, only alleges but does not prove the
1994? This Court rules that other than the foregoing allegation,
the documents from 1994 to 1996 for it may have proven that the
receipts.
their assent to the price of the parts to be used in the repair of the
equivalent.
[29]
explained that the fixing of the price can never be left to the decision
that the Service Agreement did not give petitioner the unbridled
license to purchase and install any spare parts and demand, after the
Withal, this Court rules that petitioner's claim must fail for the
the corresponding delivery receipt are too far apart as aptly found by
2.
3.
4.
April 20, 2006 Decision and July 31, 2006 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 80427, are AFFIRMED.
Titan-ikeda construction vs primetown
(MPT)
to
petitioner
Titan-Ikeda
Construction
and
(a)
(b)
5.
[11]
construction manager.
letter.
[20]
[21]
but
qualifiedly admitted that it did not finish the project. [22] Records
showed that respondent did not merely take over the supervision of
[26]
filed
complaint
for
collection
of
sum
of
WHEREFORE,
PREMISES
CONSIDERED,
judgment
is
hereby
rendered
dismissing
[respondent's] [c]omplaint for lack of merit. On the
other hand, finding preponderance of evidence to
sustain [petitioner's] counterclaim, judgment is
hereby rendered in favor of [petitioner] ordering
[respondent] to pay the former:
1.
2.
3.
During trial, the RTC found that because respondent modified the
MPT's architectural design, petitioner had to adjust the scope of
work.[37]Moreover, respondent belatedly informed petitioner of those
modifications. It also failed to deliver the concrete mix and rebars
according to schedule. For this reason, petitioner was not responsible
for the project's delay.[38] The trial court thus allowed petitioner to
set-off respondent's other outstanding liabilities with respondents
excess payment in the project. [39] It concluded that respondent owed
petitionerP2,023,876.25.[40] In addition, because respondent refused
to deliver the keys to the condominium units and the management
petition.
the takeover date. Not only did it incur delay in the performance of
its obligation but petitioner also failed to finish the project. The CA
party.[48]
REVIEW
OF
CONFLIC
TING
FACTUAL
FINDINGS
the RTC and the CA. The trial court found that respondent
render some service.[50] This case involved two contracts entered into
time. The CA, however, found that petitioner incurred delay in the
performance of its obligation. It relied on ITI's report which stated
that petitioner had accomplished only 48.71% of the project as of
October 12, 1995.
The parties first entered into a contract for a piece of work [51] when
they executed the supplemental agreement. Petitioner as contractor
bound
itself
to
execute
the
project
for
respondent,
the
1.
2.
[56]
it
b)
c)
petitioners.
evidence.
The RTC must first determine the percentage of the project petitioner
actually completed and its proportionate cost.
[62]
and the keys to these units that petitioner will be entitled to. The
delay:
remaining
units,
having
been mistakenly
delivered
by
exactly
must
petitioner
give
back
to
respondent?
Article XIV
DELAYS AND ABANDONMENT
15.1. If at any time during the effectivity of this
contract,
[PETITIONER] shall
incur
unreasonable delay or slippages of more than
fifteen percent (15%) of the scheduled work
program,
[RESPONDENT] should
notify [PETITIONER] in writing to accelerate
the work and reduce, if not erase, slippage. If
after the lapse of sixty (60) days from receipt of
If delay had truly been the reason why respondent took over the
[68]
Civil Code.
letter-agreement, respondent took over the project for the sole reason
that such move was part of its (respondent's) long-term plan.
Respondent, on the other hand, relied on ITI's September 7, 1995
report. The construction contract named GEMM, not ITI, as
construction manager.[67] Because petitioner did not consent to the
1.
2.
claim for the cost of additional work arising from changes in the
1.
2.
Furthermore:
Compliance with the two requisites of Article
1724, a specific provision governing additional
works, is a condition precedent of the recovery.
The absence of one or the other bars the recovery of
additional costs. Neither the authority for the
changes made nor the additional price to be paid
therefor may be proved by any other evidence for
purposes of recovery.[71] (emphasis supplied)
(compensatory
damages
or lucrum
cessans).
For
rates submitted by petitioner[75] and on the premise that all those units
would have been leased had respondent only finished the project by
December 31, 1995.[76] However, other than bare assertions,
petitioner submitted no proof that the rental pool was in fact able to
lease out the units. We thus hold that the losses sustained by
petitioner were merely speculative and there was no basis for the
award.
The March 15, 2002 decision and May 29, 2003 resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61353 and the August 5, 1998
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Makati City in Civil
Case No. 97-1501 are hereby SET ASIDE. New judgment is
entered:
1.
ordering
petitioner
Titan-Ikeda
Construction
and
2.
dismissing
petitioner
Titan-Ikeda
Construction
and
have been disallowed, we remand the records of this case to the RTC
The records of this case are remanded to the Regional Trial Court of
SO ORDERED.
the
reception
of
additional
evidence
to
determine
(a) the percentage of the architectural work actually
completed
by
petitioner
Titan-Ikeda
sold
by
petitioner
Titan-Ikeda
the
computation
of
petitioner
Titan-Ikeda