Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Associated Bank v.


G.R. No. 156940, December 14, 2004

Facts: Tan is a valued client of Associated Bank. In September 1990, he deposited a

postdated UCPB check with the Bank in the amount of P101,000. The check was duly
entered in his bank record thereby making his balance in the amount of P297,000.00, as
of October 1, 1990, from his original deposit of P196,000.00. Allegedly, upon advice and
instruction of the BANK that the P101,000.00 check was already cleared and backed up by
sufficient funds, TAN, on the same date, withdrew the sum of P240,000.00, leaving a balance
of P57,793.45. A day after, TAN deposited the amount of P50,000.00 making his existing
balance in the amount of P107,793.45. He kept close watch of his available balance.

In and around September to October, Tan has issued several checks in the course of his
business, confident that he has still remaining funds. However, his suppliers and business
partners went back to him alleging that the checks he issued bounced for insufficiency of
funds. Tan informed the bank about the problem, but the bank did not bother regarding the
incident. Thus, Tan filed a complaint for damages with the RTC.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner, as collecting bank, has the right to debit the account of
its client for a check deposit which was dishonored by the drawee bank.

Whether the bank exercised due diligence in managing the respondents account

Held: As a depositary bank, it did not. Petitioner bank allowed the withdrawal of the
deposited check prior to its clearing. That act disregarded the clearance requirement of the
banking system. Such a practice is unusual, because a check is not legal tender or
money and its value can properly be transferred to a depositors account only after the check
has been cleared by the drawee bank. Reasonable business practice and prudence,
moreover, dictated that petitioner should not have authorized the withdrawal by respondent
of P240,000 on October 1, 1990, as this amount was over and above his outstanding cleared
balance of P196,793.45.]Hence, the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence in his

As a collecting agent, it was negligent in failing to inform respondent of the problem in his
account. Also, the manager of the bank, Santiago, admitted that they had breached bank
policies. They admittedly breached those policies when, without clearance from the drawee
bank in Baguio, they allowed respondent to withdraw on October 1, 1990, the amount of the
check deposited. Santiago testified that respondent was not officially informed about the
debiting of the P101,000 from his existing balance of P170,000 on October 2, 1990.

First, notice was proper and ought to be expected. By the bank managers account,
respondent was considered a valued client whose checks had always been sufficiently
funded from 1987 to 1990,[36] until the October imbroglio. Thus, he deserved nothing less
than an official notice of the precarious condition of his account.

Second, under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law regarding the liability of a
general indorser and the procedure for a notice of dishonor, it was incumbent on the bank to
give proper notice to respondent.

Third, regarding the deposit of P50,000 made by respondent on October 2, 1990, we fully
subscribe to the CAs observations that it was not unusual for a well-reputed businessman
like him, who ordinarily takes note of the amount of money he takes and releases, to
immediately deposit money in his current account to answer for the postdated checks he
had issued.

BPI Family Savings Bank v. First Metro Investment Corp.

G.R. No. 132390, May 21, 2004

Facts: FMIC, through its VP Ong, opened an account and deposited a Metrobank check of
P100 million with BPI FM of Quezon. Ong made the deposit with the aim to increase the
deposit level in Branch Manager Sebastians branch.

BPI FB, through Sebastian, guaranteed the payment of P14,667687.01 representing 17% per
annum interest of the amount deposited by FMIC. In turn, FMIC assured the bank that it will
maintain its deposit for a period of one year on condition that the interest of 17% per annum
is paid in advance.

Subsequently, BPI FB paid FMIC the advanced interest.

On end of August 1989, on the basis of an Authority to Debit signed by Ong and David,
Senior manager of FMIC, BPI FB transferred P80 million from FMICs current account to the
savings account of Tevesco Arrastre Stevedoring.

FMIC denied having authorized the transfer of its funds to Tevesco. To recover, FMIC
withdrew P86,057,646.72, however, it was denied as it was drawn against insufficient funds.

To deny liability on the alleged unauthorized transfer of funds, petitioner further contends
that the transaction is not valid as its Branch Manager, Jaime Sebastian, clearly overstepped
his authority in entering into such an agreement with respondents Executive Vice President.

Issue: Whether the transaction between Sebastian and Ong was a valid agreement.

Held: Yes. If a corporation knowingly permits its officer, or any other agent, to perform acts
within the scope of an apparent authority, holding him out to the public as possessing power
to do those acts, the corporation will, as against any person who has dealt in good faith with
the corporation through such agent, be estopped from denying such authority.

Petitioner may not impute negligence on the part of respondents representative in failing to
find out the scope of authority of petitioners Branch Manager. Indeed, the public has the
right to rely on the trustworthiness of bank managers and their acts. Obviously, confidence
in the banking system, which necessarily includes reliance on bank managers, is vital in the
economic life of our society.

Significantly, the transaction was actually acknowledged and ratified by petitioner when it
paid respondent in advance the interest for one year. Thus, petitioner is estopped from
denying that it authorized its Branch Manager to enter into an agreement with respondents
Executive Vice President concerning the deposit with the corresponding 17% interest per

Union Bank v. SEC

G.R. No. 138949, June 6, 2001

Facts: Petitioner is of the belief that since Section 5(a)(3) of the Revised Securities Act
exempts securities issued or guaranteed by banking institutions from the registration
requirement, they are also exempted from the filing of various reports under Rule 11(a),
submission of Proxy Statements under Rule 34(a) and Information Statements under Rule
34(c) of the Implementing Rules of RSA among others.

Commission wrote petitioner, enjoining the latter to show cause why it should not be
penalized for its failure to submit a Proxy/Information Statement in connection with its
annual meeting held on May 23, 1997, in violation of respondent Commissions Full Material
Disclosure Rule.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is required to comply with the respondent SECs full
disclosure rules.

Held: Yes, it is required. Section 5(a)(3) of the RSA exempts from registration the securities
issued by banking or financial institutions mentioned in the law. Nowhere does it state or
even imply that petitioner, as a listed corporation, is exempt from complying with the
reports required by the assailed RSA Implementing Rules. Having confined the exemption
enjoyed by petitioner merely to the initial requirement of registration of securities for public
offering, and not [to] the subsequent filing of various periodic reports, respondent
Commission, as the regulatory agency, is able to exercise its power of supervision and
control over corporations and over the securities market as a whole. Otherwise, the
objectives of the `Full Material Disclosure policy would be defeated since petitioner
corporation and its dealings would be totally beyond the reach of respondent Commission
and the investing public.

It must be emphasized that petitioner is a commercial banking corporation listed in the

stock exchange. Thus, it must adhere not only to banking and other allied special laws, but
also to the rules promulgated by Respondent SEC, the government entity tasked not only
with the enforcement of the Revised Securities Act, but also with the supervision of all
corporations, partnerships or associations which are grantees of government-issued primary
franchises and/or licenses or permits to operate in the Philippines.

Firestone Tire and Rubber v. CA

G.R. No. 113236

Facts: Firestone entered into an agreement with Fojas-Arca, whereby the latter purchased
tires from the former with special withdrawal slips drawn from Fojas-Arcas savings account
with Luzon Development Bank. Firestone in turn deposited these withdrawal slips with

In their first transaction, Fojas-Arca delivered to Firestone 6 special withdrawal slips which all
were honored and paid by the defendant.

Believing that the account is sufficiently funded, Firestone extended credit to Fojas, which
gave another four withdrawal slips. However, only one slip was honored and paid by the
defendant. The rest were refused payment due to insufficiency of funds. That information
came about six months from the time Fojas-Arca purchased tires from petitioner using the
subject withdrawal slips. Citibank then debited the amount of these withdrawal slips from
petitioners account, causing the alleged pecuniary damage subject of petitioners cause of
Issue: Whether Luzon Development Bank is liable for damages suffered by Firestone due to
its late notice of non-payment of the slips.

Held: Luzon Development Bank and Citibank are both liable to petitioner.

At the outset the withdrawal slips were non-negotiable. Hence, the rules governing the
giving of immediate notice of dishonor of negotiable instruments do not apply in this case.
Thus, respondent bank was under no obligation to give immediate notice that it would not
make payment on the subject withdrawal slips. Citibank should have known that withdrawal
slips were not negotiable instruments. Payment or notice of dishonor from respondent bank
could not be expected immediately, in contrast to the situation involving checks.

It appears that Citibank, with the knowledge that respondent Luzon Development Bank, had
honored and paid the previous withdrawal slips, automatically credited petitioners current
account with the amount of the subject withdrawal slips, hence, it presumed that the
withdrawal slips were good. The fact that the other withdrawal slips were honored and paid
by respondent bank was no license for Citibank to presume that subsequent slips would be
honored and paid immediately. By doing so, it failed in its fiduciary duty to treat the
accounts of its clients with the highest degree of care.

The withdrawal slips deposited with petitioners current account with Citibank were not
checks, as petitioner admits. Citibank was not bound to accept the withdrawal slips as a
valid mode of deposit. But having erroneously accepted them as such, Citibank and
petitioner as account-holder must bear the risks attendant to the acceptance of these
instruments. Petitioner and Citibank could not now shift the risk and hold private respondent
liable for their admitted mistake.

Far East Bank v. Querimit

G.R. 148582

Facts: Estrella Querimit opened a dollar savings account with petitioners for a total of
$60,000. She was issued four certificates of deposits, which were to mature in 60 days, and
were payable to bearer at the rate of 4.5% interest per annum. The certificates bore the
word accrued, which meant that if they were not presented for encashment or pre-
terminated prior to maturity, the money deposited with accrued interest would be rolled
over by the bank and annual interest would accumulate automatically. Respondent kept her
dollars in the bank so that they would earn interest and so that she could use the fund after
she retired.

When Querimit went to petitioner to withdrew her deposits, she was informed that her
husband has withdrawn the money in the deposit. Petitioner FEBTC alleged that it had given
respondents late husband Dominador an accommodation to allow him to withdraw Estrellas

Issue: Whether the subject Certificate of Deposits have been paid by the petitioner

Held: Petitioner bank failed to prove that it had already paid Estrella Querimit, the bearer
and lawful holder of the subject certificates of deposit. The finding of the trial court on this
point, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is that petitioner did not pay either respondent
Estrella or her husband the amounts evidenced by the subject certificates of deposit. The
finding of respondent court which shows that the subject certificates of deposit are still in
the possession of Estrella Querimit and have not been indorsed or delivered to petitioner
FEBTC is substantiated by the record and should therefore stand.
The principle that payment, in order to discharge a debt, must be made to someone
authorized to receive it is applicable to the payment of certificates of deposit. Thus, a bank
will be protected in making payment to the holder of a certificate indorsed by the payee,
unless it has notice of the invalidity of the indorsement or the holders want of title.
In this case, the certificates of deposit were clearly marked payable to bearer, which means,
to the person in possession of an instrument, document of title or security payable to bearer
or indorsed in blank. Petitioner should not have paid respondents husband or any third party
without requiring the surrender of the certificates of deposit.

Petitioner FEBTC thus failed to exercise that degree of diligence required by the nature of its

Allied Bank v. Lim Sio Wan

G.R. No. 133179

Facts: On November 1983, Lim Sio Wan deposited with Allied Bank a money market
placement for a term of 31 days.

On December 1983, a person claiming to be Lim Sio Wan called up Cristina So, and
instructed the latter to pre-terminate Lim Sio Wans money market placement, to issue a
managers check for the proceeds of the placement, and to give the managers check to one
Santos, who would pick up the check.

The bank issued a Managers check, with Lim Sio Wan as payee, and cross checked for
Payees Account only, and given to Santos. Thereafter, the managers check was deposited in
the account of Filipinas Cement Corporation (FCC) at respondent Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Co. (Metrobank), with the forged signature of Lim Sio Wan as indorser. Allied check was
deposited with Metrobank in the account of FCC as Producers Banks payment of its
obligation to FCC.

To clear the check and in compliance with the requirements of the Philippine Clearing House
Corporation (PCHC) Rules and Regulations, Metrobank stamped a guaranty on the check,
which reads: All prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed. [if !supportFootnotes][18]

The check was sent to Allied through the PCHC. Upon the presentment of the check, Allied
funded the check even without checking the authenticity of Lim Sio Wans purported
indorsement. Thus, the amount on the face of the check was credited to the account of FCC.

When Lim Sio Wan learned that the placement had been pre-terminated upon her
instructions, she denied having made such instruction. Allied refused to pay Lim Sio Wan,
claiming that the latter had authorized the pre-termination of the placement and its
subsequent release to Santos.

Issue: Whether Allied Bank is liable to the respondent.

Held: Allied is liable to Lim Sio Wan.

Thus, we have ruled in a line of cases that a bank deposit is in the nature of a simple loan or
mutuum. Lim Sio Wan, as creditor of the bank for her money market placement, is entitled
to payment upon her request, or upon maturity of the placement, or until the bank is
released from its obligation as debtor. Until any such event, the obligation of Allied to Lim
Sio Wan remains unextinguished.

From the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts that Lim Sio Wan did not authorize
the release of her money market placement to Santos and the bank had been negligent in
so doing, there is no question that the obligation of Allied to pay Lim Sio Wan had not been
extinguished. Art. 1240 of the Code states that payment shall be made to the person in
whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person
authorized to receive it. Since there was no effective payment of Lim Sio Wans money
market placement, the bank still has an obligation to pay her at six percent (6%) interest
from March 16, 1984 until the payment thereof.

The warranty that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be covers
all the defects in the instrument affecting the validity thereof, including a forged
indorsement. Thus, the last indorser will be liable for the amount indicated in the negotiable
instrument even if a previous indorsement was forged. However, this general rule is subject
to exceptions. One such exception is when the issuance of the check itself was attended
with negligence.

Similarly, we ruled in Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals that the issuing institution and the
collecting bank should equally share the liability for the loss of amount represented by the
checks concerned due to the negligence of both parties.

In the instant case, the trial court correctly found Allied negligent in issuing the managers
check and in transmitting it to Santos without even a written authorization. In fact, Allied did
not even ask for the certificate evidencing the money market placement or call up Lim Sio
Wan at her residence or office to confirm her instructions.

The liability of Allied, however, is concurrent with that of Metrobank as the last indorser of
the check. When Metrobank indorsed the check in compliance with the PCHC Rules and
Regulations without verifying the authenticity of Lim Sio Wans indorsement and when it
accepted the check despite the fact that it was cross-checked payable to payees account
only, its negligent and cavalier indorsement contributed to the easier release of Lim Sio
Wans money and perpetuation of the fraud. Given the relative participation of Allied and
Metrobank to the instant case, both banks cannot be adjudged as equally liable. Hence, the
60:40 ratio of the liabilities of Allied and Metrobank, as ruled by the CA, must be upheld.