G.R. No. 121413,121479,128604 January 29, 2001
Lessons Applicable: Liabilities of the Parties (Negotiable Instruments Law)
FACTS:
- These consolidated petitions involve several fraudulently negotiated checks
- October 19, 1977: Ford drew and issued its Citibank Check of P4,746,114.41, in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) as payment of percentage or manufacturer's sales taxes for the third quarter of 1977
- check was deposited with the IBAA (now PCIBank) and was subsequently cleared at the Central Bank
- Ford, with leave of court, filed a third-party complaint before the trial court impleading Pacific Banking Corporation (PBC) and Godofredo Rivera, as third party defendants
- dismissed the complaint against PBC for lack of cause of action
- dismissed the third-party complaint against Godofredo Rivera because he could not be served with summons as a "fugitive from justice"
- trial court: Citibank and IBAA (now PCI Bank), jointly and severally, to pay the Ford
- April 20, 1979, Ford drew another Citibank Check of P6,311,591.73, representing the payment of percentage tax for the first quarter of 1979 payable to the CIR
- Both checks were "crossed checks" and contain two diagonal lines on its upper corner between, which were written the words "payable to the payee's account only."
- The checks never reached the payee, CIR
- As far as the BIR is concernced, the said two BIR Revenue Tax Receipts were considered "fake and spurious".
- forced Ford to pay the BIR anew, while an action was filed against Citibank and PCIBank for recovery
- RTC: Mr. Godofredo Rivera was employed by FORD as its General Ledger Accountant. He prepared the check for payment to the BIR. Instead, of delivering to the payee, he gave it to Remberto Castro, a co-conspirator who was a pro-manager of PCIB. Castro opened a Checking Account in the name of a fictitious person "Reynaldo Reyes" with connivance of Dulay, assistant manager of PCIB
- After an initial deposit of P100 to validate the account, Castro deposited a worthless Bank of America Check in exactly the same amount as the first FORD check while this worthless check was coursed through PCIB's main office enroute to the Central Bank for clearing, replaced this worthless check with Ford's and accordingly tampered the accompanying documents to cover the replacement. As a result, Ford's check was cleared by CITIBANK, and the fictitious deposit account of 'Reynaldo Reyes' was credited at the PCIB
- December 9, 1988: RTC Citibank (drawee bank) liable for the value of the 2 checks while absolving PCIBank (collecting bank) from any liability
ISSUE: W/N Ford can hold both PCIB and Citibank liable
HELD: YES. CA AFFIRMED. PCIBank, know formerly as Insular Bank of Asia and America, id declared solely responsible for the loss of the proceeds of Citibank Check in the amount P4,746,114.41. However, MODIFIED as follows: PCIBank and Citibank are adjudged liable for and must share the loss, concerning the proceeds of Citibank Check Numbers SN 10597 and 16508 on a 50-50 ratio to pay Ford
- GR: if the master is injured by the negligence of a third person and by the concuring contributory negligence of his own servant or agent, the latter's negligence is imputed to his superior and will defeat the superior's action against the third person, asuming, of course that the contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the injury of which complaint is made.
- although the employees of Ford initiated the transactions attributable to an organized syndicate, in our view, their actions were not the proximate cause of encashing the checks payable to the CIR
- degree of Ford's negligence, if any, could not be characterized as the proximate cause of the injury to the parties
- Rivera's instruction to replace the check with PCIBank's Manager's Check was not in the ordinary course of business which could have prompted PCIBank to validate the same.
- checks were made payable to the CIR
- Both were crossed checks
- These checks were apparently turned around by Ford's emploees, who were acting on their own personal capacity.
- Given these circumstances, the mere fact that the forgery was committed by a drawer-payor's confidential employee or agent, who by virtue of his position had unusual facilities for perpertrating the fraud and imposing the forged paper upon the bank, does not entitle the bank to shift the loss to the drawer-payor, in the absence of some circumstance raising estoppel against the drawer.
- This rule likewise applies to the checks fraudulently negotiated or diverted by the confidential employees who hold them in their possession.
- Furthermore, it was admitted that PCIBank is authorized to collect the payment of taxpayers in behalf of the BIR.
- As an agent of BIR, PCIBank is duty bound to consult its principal regarding the unwarranted instructions given by the payor or its agent
- Otherwise stated, the diversion can be justified only by proof of authority from the drawer, or that the drawer has clothed his agent with apparent authority to receive the proceeds of such check.
- it is the duty of the collecting bank PCIBank to ascertain that the check be deposited in payee's account only. Therefore, it is the collecting bank (PCIBank) which is bound to scruninize the check and to know its depositors before it could make the clearing indorsement "all prior indorsements and/or lack of indorsement guaranteed".
- PCIBank did not actually receive nor hold the 2 Ford checks at all. Neither is there any proof that defendant PCIBank contributed any official or conscious participation in the process of the embezzlement.
- the switching operation (involving the checks while in transit for "clearing") were the clandestine or hidden actuations performed by the members of the syndicate in their own personl, covert and private capacity and done without the knowledge of the defendant PCIBank…
- clearing stamps at the back of Citibank Check do not bear any initials
- Citibank failed to notice and verify the absence of the clearing stamps
- For this reason, Citibank had indeed failed to perform what was incumbent upon it, which is to ensure that the amount of the checks should be paid only to its designated payee. The fact that the drawee bank did not discover the irregularity seasonably, in our view, consitutes negligence in carrying out the bank's duty to its depositors.
- invoking the doctrine of comparative negligence, both PCIBank and Citibank failed in their respective obligations and both were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees resulting in the encashment
- hold them equally liable for the loss of the proceeds of the checks issued by Ford in favor of the CIR
- The statute of limitations begins to run when the bank gives the depositor notice of the payment, which is ordinarily when the check is returned to the alleged drawer as a voucher with a statement of his account, and an action upon a check is ordinarily governed by the statutory period applicable to instruments in writing.
- Our laws on the matter provide that the action upon a written contract must be brought within ten year from the time the right of action accrues hence, the reckoning time for the prescriptive period begins when the instrument was issued and the corresponding check was returned by the bank to its depositor (normally a month thereafter).
- Applying the same rule, the cause of action for the recovery of the proceeds of Citibank Check No. SN 04867 would normally be a month after December 19, 1977, when Citibank paid the face value of the check in the amount of P4,746,114.41. Since the original complaint for the cause of action was filed on January 20, 1984, barely six years had lapsed. Thus, we conclude that Ford's cause of action to recover the amount of Citibank Check No. SN 04867 was seasonably filed within the period provided by law.
- Failure on the part of the FORD depositor to examine its passbook, statements of account, and cancelled checks and to give notice within a reasonable time (or as required by statute) of any discrepancy which it may in the exercise of due care and diligence find therein, serves to mitigate the banks' liability by reducing the award of interest from twelve percent (12%) to six percent (6%) per annum.
- Article 1172 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, respondibility 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. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.