G.R. No. 112392 February 29, 2000
Lessons Applicable: Liabilities of the Parties (Negotiable Instruments Law)
FACTS:
- September 3, 1987: Bejanmin Napiza deposited in Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) Savings Account which he maintained in BPI a Continental Bank Manager's Check dated August 17, 1984, payable to "cash" $2,500.00
- check belonged to Henry who went to the office of Napiza and requested him to deposit the check in his dollar account by way of accommodation and for the purpose of clearing the same.
- Napiza acceded, and agreed to deliver to Chan a signed blank withdrawal slip, with the understanding that as soon as the check is cleared, both of them would go to the bank to withdraw
- October 23, 1984: Using the blank withdrawal slip given by Napiza to Chan, Ruben Gayon, Jr. was able to withdraw
- the withdrawal slip shows that the amount was payable to Ramon A. de Guzman and Agnes C. de Guzman and was duly initialed by the branch assistant manager, Teresita Lindo
- November 20, 1984: BPI received communication from the Wells Fargo Bank International of New York that check deposited by Napiza was a counterfeit check because it was "not of the type or style of checks issued by Continental Bank International."
- Mr. Ariel Reyes, manager of BPI, instructed one of its employees, Benjamin D. Napiza IV, who is Napiza's son, to inform his father that the check bounced.
- Reyes himself sent a telegram to Napiza regarding the dishonor of the check
- Napiza's son told Reyes that:
- check been assigned "for encashment" to Ramon A. de Guzman and/or Agnes C. de Guzman after it shall have been cleared upon instruction of Chan
- his father immediately tried to contact Chan but Chan was out of town
- Napiza's son undertook to return the amount of $2,500.00 to BPI
- August 12, 1986: BPI filed a complaint against Napiza for the return of $2,500.00 or the prevailing peso equivalent plus legal interest, attorney's fees, and litigation and/or costs of suit
- Napiza:
- admitting that he indeed signed a "blank" withdrawal slip with the understanding that the amount deposited would be withdrawn only after the check in question has been cleared.
- However, without his knowledge, it was withdrawn through collusion with one of BPI's employees.
- BPI aslo filed a motion for admission of a third party complaint against Chan. He alleged that "thru strategem and/or manipulation," Chan was able to withdraw the amount of $2,500.00 even without Napiza's passbook.
- November 4, 1991: Lower Court dismissed the complaint.
- Having admitted that it committed a "mistake" in not waiting for the clearance of the check before authorizing the withdrawal of its value or proceeds, BPI should suffer the resultant loss.
- CA: Affirmed the lower courts decision
- BPI committed "clears gross negligence" in allowing Ruben Gayon, Jr. to withdraw the money without presenting BPI's passbook and, before the check was cleared and in crediting the amount indicated therein in Napiza's account.
- BPI claims that Napiza, having affixed his signature at the dorsal side of the check, should be liable in accordance to Sec. 66 of the Negotiable Instrument Law
Sec. 66. Liability of general indorser. — Every indorser who indorses without qualification, warrants to all subsequent holders in due course —
(a) The matters and things mentioned in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of the next preceding section; and
(b) That the instrument is at the time of his indorsement, valid and subsisting.
And, in addition, he engages that on due presentment, it shall be accepted or paid, or both, as the case may be, according to its tenor, and that if it be dishonored, and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it.
Sec. 65, on the other hand, provides for the following warranties of a person negotiating an instrument by delivery or by qualified indorsement: (a) that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; (b) that he has a good title to it, and (c) that all prior parties had capacity to contract.
ISSUE: W/N Napiza can be held liable as an indorser or accommodation party
HELD: NO.
- ordinarily Napiza may be held liable as an indorser of the check or even as an accommodation party
- However, to hold Napiza liable for the amount of the check he deposited by the strict application of the law and without considering the attending circumstances in the case would result in an injustice and in the erosion of the public trust in the banking system.
- The interest of justice thus demands looking into the events that led to the encashment of the check.
- under the Philippine foreign currency deposit system, two requisites must be presented to petitioner bank by the person withdrawing an amount:
- (a) a duly filled-up withdrawal slip, and
- Napiza signed a blank deposit slip
- BUT withdrawal slip itself indicates a special instruction that the amount is payable to "Ramon A. de Guzman &/or Agnes C. de Guzman."
- (b) the depositor's passbook
- In depositing the check in his name, Napiza did not become the outright owner of the amount stated therein. By depositing the check with BPI, he was, in a way, merely designating BPI as the collecting bank.
- This is in consonance with the rule that a negotiable instrument, such as a check, whether a manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal tender
- 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
- While it is true that Napiza's having signed a blank withdrawal slip set in motion the events that resulted in the withdrawal and encashment of the counterfeit check, the negligence of BPI's personnel was the proximate cause of the loss that petitioner sustained.
- Proximate cause, which is determined by a mixed consideration of logic, common sense, policy and precedent, 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."
- The proximate cause = disregard of its own rules and the clearing requirement in the banking system