G.R. No. 88866 February 18, 1991
Lessons Applicable: Forgery (Negotiable Instruments Law)
FACTS:
- January 1979: Eduardo Gomez opened an account with Golden Savings and deposited over a period of 2 months 38 treasury warrants totalling P1,755,228.37.
- all drawn by the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority and purportedly signed by its General Manager and countersigned by its Auditor:
- 6 - directly payable to Gomez
- 32 - indorsed by their respective payees, followed by Gomez as second indorser
- June 25 - July 16, 1979: all warrants were subsequently indorsed by Gloria Castillo as Cashier of Golden Savings and deposited to its Savings in the Metrobank branch
- They were then sent for clearing by the branch office to the principal office of Metrobank, which forwarded them to the Bureau of Treasury for special clearing
- More than 2 weeks after the deposits, Castillo asked if the warrants were cleared.
- She was told to wait.
- Gomez was also not allowed to withdraw from his account
- exasperated over Gloria's repeated inquiries and also as an accommodation for a "valued client," Metrobank allowed Golden Savings to make the following withdrawals:
- July 9, 1979 - P508,000.00
- July 13, 1979 - P310,000.00
- July 16, 1979 - P150,000.00
- Gomez was also allowed to withdraw a total amount of P1,167,500 (latest on July 16, 1979)
- July 21, 1979: Metrobank informed Golden Savings that 32 of the warrants had been dishonored by the Bureau of Treasury on July 19, 1979, and demanded the refund by Golden Savings of the amount it had previously withdrawn, to make up the deficit in its account. - refused
- CA affirmed RTC: favored Golden Savings
ISSUE: W/N Metrobank can claim a refund from Golden Savings
HELD: NO. Affirmed. withdrawn must be charged not to Golden Savings but to Metrobank, which must bear the consequences of its own negligence. But the balance of P586,589.00 should be debited to Golden Savings, as obviously Gomez can no longer be permitted to withdraw this amount from his deposit because of the dishonor of the warrants
- Metrobank was negligent in giving Golden Savings the impression that the treasury warrants had been cleared and that, consequently, it was safe to allow Gomez to withdraw
- It "presumed" that the warrants had been cleared simply because of "the lapse of one week."
- There was no reason why it should not have waited until the treasury warrants had been cleared
Art. 1909. — The agent is responsible not only for fraud, but also for negligence, which shall be judged 'with more or less rigor by the courts, according to whether the agency was or was not for a compensation.
- Golden Savings acted with due care and diligence
- Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be established by clear, positive and convincing evidence. -here not proven
- treasury warrants in question are not negotiable instruments
- stamped on their face is the word "non-negotiable"
- indicated that they are payable from a particular fund
Sec. 1. — Form of negotiable instruments. — An instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following requirements:
(a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
(b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money;
(c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;
(d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and
(e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 3. When promise is unconditional. — An unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this Act though coupled with —
(a) An indication of a particular fund out of which reimbursement is to be made or a particular account to be debited with the amount; or
(b) A statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument judgment.
But an order or promise to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional.
