PCIB vs CA, Ford Ph and Citibank

of 4
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  G.R. No. 121413 January 29, 2001PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK !or #r$y IN%&LAR BANK O' A%IA AN( AMERICA), vs. CO&RT O' APPEAL% an* 'OR( PHILIPPINE%, INC. an* CITIBANK, N.A.G.R. No. 1214+9 January 29, 2001'OR( PHILIPPINE%, INC., vs. CO&RT O' APPEAL% an* CITIBANK, N.A. an* PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK,G.R. No. 12-04 January 29, 2001'OR( PHILIPPINE%, INC. vs. CITIBANK, N.A., PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK an* CO&RT O' APPEAL%, These consolidated petitions involve several fraudulently negotiated checks. [Both PCIBank and Citibank failed in their respective obligations and both were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees resulting in theencashment of Citibank Check Nos. SN ! #$ %N& ' !(. )hus* we are constrained to hold them e+ually liable for the loss of the proceeds of said checks issued by ,ord in favor of the CI-. 1.The srcinal actions a quo  were instituted by Ford Philippines to recover from the drawee bank, CITI! #, .!. $Citibank%and collecting bank, Philippine Commercial International ank $PCIank% the value of several checks payable to theCommissioner of Internal &evenue, which were embe''led allegedly by an organi'ed syndicate.1(wphi1.n). I. G.R. No. 121413 an* 1214+9 ) Ford drew and issued its Citibank Check in favor of the Commissioner of Internal &evenueas payment of plaintiff*s percentage or manufacturer*s sales ta+es..The aforesaid check was deposited with the defendant I!! $now PCIank% and was subse-uently cleared at the Central ank.pon presentment with the defendant Citibank, the proceeds of the check was paid to I!! as collecting or depository bank./.The proceeds of the same Citibank check of the plaintiff was never paid to or received by the payee thereof, the Commissioner of Internal &evenue.0.!s a conse-uence, upon demand of the ureau andor Commissioner of Internal &evenue, the plaintiff was compelled to make asecond payment to the ureau of Internal &evenue of its percentagemanufacturers* sales ta+es which was duly received by theureau of Internal &evenue. 2.3ence, in separate letters dated 4ctober )2, 1565, addressed to the defendants, the plaintiff notified the latter that in case it will be re7assessed by the I& for the payment of the ta+es covered by the said checks, then plaintiff shall hold the defendants liablefor reimbursement of the face value of the same. oth defendants denied liability and refused to pay.6.8ater on, an investigation by the ational ureau of Investigation $ I% revealed that Citibank Check o. 9 7:/;26 wasrecalled by <odofredo &ivera, the <eneral 8edger !ccountant of Ford. 3e purportedly needed to hold back the check becausethere was an error in the computation of the ta+ due to the ureau of Internal &evenue $I&%. =ith &ivera*s instruction,PCIank replaced the check with two of its own >anager*s Checks $>Cs%. !lleged members of a syndicate later deposited thetwo >Cs with the Pacific anking Corporation.;.Ford, with leave of court, filed a third7party complaint before the trial court impleading Pacific anking Corporation $PC% and<odofredo &ivera, as third party defendants. ut the court dismissed the complaint against PC for lack of cause of action. Thecourse likewise dismissed the third7party complaint against <odofredo &ivera because he could not be served with summons asthe I declared him as a ?fugitive from @ustice?.5.TC rendered its decision774rdering the defendants Citibank and I!! $now PCI ank%, @ointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff the amount of P/,6/2,11/./1 representing the face value of plaintiff*s Citibank Check with legal interestA orderingI!! $now PCI ank% to reimburse defendant Citibank for whatever amount the latter has paid or may pay to the plaintiff 1:.C! affirmed the decision with modificationsB (/ //n  the complaint in Civil Case o. /5);6 insofar as defendant Citibank   .!. is concernedA Or*#r/n the defendant I!! now PCI ank to pay the plaintiff the amount of P/,6/2,11/./1 representingthe face value of plaintiff*s Citibank Check o. 9 7:/;26, with interest thereon at the legal rate starting anuary ):, 15;, thedate when the srcinal complaint was filed until the amount is fully paid11.PCI ank moved for recon, while Ford filed a ?>otion for Partial &econsideration.? oth motions were denied for lack of merit. 9eparately, PCIank and Ford filed before this Court, petitions for review by certiorari under &ule /0.This is another set of facts, second actionB II. G.R. No. 12-04 1).Ford drew Citibank Check in the amount of P0,;01,6:2.6 representing the percentage ta+ due for the second -uarter of 156; payable to the Commissioner of Internal &evenue. ! I& &evenue Ta+ &eceipt o. );2/0;0 was issued for the said purposeand another check worth of P2,11,051.6, representing the payment of percentage ta+ for the first -uarter of 1565 and payableto the Commissioner of Internal &evenue. !gain a I& &evenue Ta+ &eceipt o. !7125612: was issued for the said purpose.1.oth 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.?1/.The checks never reached the payee, CI&. Thus, in a letter dated February );, 15;:, the I&, &egion /7, demanded for thesaid ta+ payments the corresponding periods above7mentioned.  10.!s far as the I& is concerned, the said two I& &evenue Ta+ &eceipts were considered ?fake and spurious?. This anomaly wasconfirmed by the I upon the initiative of the I&. The findings forced Ford to pay the I& a new, while an action was filedagainst Citibank and PCIank for the recovery of the amount of Citibank Check umbers 9 71:056 and 120:;.12.The &egional Trial Court of >akati, ranch 06, which tried the case, made its findings on the modus operandi of the syndicate,as followsB?! certain >r. <odofredo &ivera was employed by the plaintiff F4&D as its <eneral 8edger !ccountant. !s such, he preparedthe plaintiff*s check marked E+. *!* Citibank Check o. 9n71:056G for payment to the I&. Instead, however, for delivering thesame of the payee, he passed on the check to a co7conspirator named &emberto Castro who was a pro7manager of the 9an!ndres ranch of PCI.H In connivance with one =inston Dulay, Castro himself subse-uently opened a Checking !ccount inthe name of a fictitious person denominated as *&eynaldo reyes* in the >eralco ranch of PCIank where Dulay works as!ssistant >anager.!fter an initial deposit of P1::.:: to validate the account, Castro deposited a worthless ank of !merica Check in e+actly thesame amount as the first F4&D check $E+h. ?!?, P0,;01,6:2.6% while this worthless check was coursed through PCI*s mainoffice enroute to the Central ank for clearing, replaced this worthless check with F4&D*s E+hibit *!* and accordingly tamperedthe accompanying documents to cover the replacement. !s a result, E+hibit *!* was cleared by defendant CITI! #, and thefictitious deposit account of *&eynaldo &eyes* was credited at the PCI >eralco ranch with the total amount of the F4&Dcheck E+hibit *!*. The same method was again utili'ed by the syndicate in profiting from E+h. ** Citibank Check o. 9 7120:;G which was subse-uently pilfered by !le+is >arindo, &ivera*s !ssistant at F4&D.16.&egional Trial Court of >akati, ranch 06, held drawee7bank, Citibank, liable for the value of the two checks while adsolvingPCIank from any liability,1;.oth Ford and Citibank appealed to the Court of !ppeals which affirmed, in toto , the decision of the trial court. 3ence, this petition. ISS/0S1   %. Whether the injured party, Ford, is guilty of the imputed contributory negligence that would defeat its claim for reimbursement, bearing in mind that its employees, Godofredo Rivera and Alexis arindo, were among the members of thesyndicate!  20S but ,ord3s negligence was not the pro4imate cause of the in5ury. It appears that although the employees of Ford initiatedthe transactions attributable to an organi'ed syndicate, in our view, their actions were not the pro+imate cause of encashing the checks payable to the CI&. The degree of Ford*s negligence, if any, could not be characteri'ed as the pro+imate cause of the in@ury to the parties.The oard of Directors of Ford, we note, did not confirm the re-uest of <odofredo &ivera to recall Citibank Check o. 9 7:/;26.&ivera*s instruction to replace the said check with PCIank*s >anager*s Check was not in the ordinary course of business which couldhave prompted PCIank to validate the same.!s to the preparation of Citibank Checks os. 9 71:056 and 120:;, it was established that these checks were made payable to the CI&.oth were crossed checks. These checks were apparently turned around by Ford*s emploees, who were acting on their own personalcapacity.<iven these circumstances, the mere fact that the forgery was committed by a drawer7payor*s confidential employee or agent, who byvirtue 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 drawer7payor, in the absence of some circumstance raising estoppel against the drawer.)1 This rule likewiseapplies to the checks fraudulently negotiated or diverted by the confidential employees who hold them in their possession.=ith respect to the negligence of PCIank in the payment of the three checks involved, separately, the trial courts found variations between the negotiation of Citibank Check o. 9 7:/;26 and the misapplication of total proceeds of Checks 9 71:056 and 120:;.Therefore, we have to scrutini'e, separately, PCIank*s share of negligence when the syndicate achieved its ultimate agenda of stealingthe proceeds of these checks. B. =hether or not the banks are liable to petitioner Ford and the latter has right to recover from the collecting bank $PCIank% and thedrawee bank $Citibank% the value of the checks intended as payment to the Commissioner of Internal &evenue  20S6 Citibank Check o. 9 7:/;26 was deposited at PCIank through its Ermita ranch. It was coursed through the ordinary bankingtransaction, sent to Central Clearing with the indorsement at the back ?all prior indorsements andor lack of indorsements guaranteed,?and was presented to Citibank for payment. Thereafter PCIank, instead of remitting the proceeds to the CI&, prepared two of its>anager*s checks and enabled the syndicate to encash the same.4n record, PCIank failed to verify the authority of >r. &ivera to negotiate the checks. The neglect of PCIank employees to verifywhether his letter re-uesting for the replacement of the Citibank Check o. 9 7:/;26 was duly authori'ed, showed lack of care and prudence re-uired in the circumstances.Furthermore, it was admitted that PCIank is authori'ed to collect the payment of ta+payers in behalf of the I&. !s an agent of I&,PCIank is duty bound to consult its principal regarding the unwarranted instructions given by the payor or its agent. 8astly, banking business re-uires that the one who first cashes and negotiates the check must take some percautions to learn whether or not it is genuine.!nd if the one cashing the check through indifference or othe circumstance assists the forger in committing the fraud, he should not be permitted to retain the proceeds of the check from the drawee whose sole fault was that it did not discover the forgery or the defect in thetitle of the person negotiating the instrument before paying the check. For this reason, a bank which cashes a check drawn upon another  bank, without re-uiring proof as to the identity of persons presenting it, or making in-uiries with regard to them, cannot hold the proceedsagainst the drawee when the proceeds of the checks were afterwards diverted to the hands of a third party. In such cases the drawee bank has a right to believe that the cashing bank $or the collecting bank% had, by the usual proper investigation, satisfied itself of theauthenticity of the negotiation of the checks. Thus, one who encashed a check which had been forged or diverted and in turn received   payment thereon from the drawee, is guilty of negligence which pro+imately contributed to the success of the fraud practiced on thedrawee bank. The latter may recover from the holder the money paid on the check.)23aving established that the collecting bank*s negligence is the pro+imate cause of the loss, we conclude that PCIank is liable in theamount corresponding to the proceeds of Citibank Check o. 9 7:/;26.! bank holding out its officers and agents as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds these officers or agentswere enabled to perpetrate in the apparent course of their employmentA nor will they be permitted to shirk its responsibility for suchfrauds, even though no benefit may accrue to the bank therefrom. For the general rule is that a bank is liable for the fraudulent acts or representations of an officer or agent acting within the course and apparent scope of his employment or authority.)5 !nd if an officer or employee of a bank, in his official capacity, receives money to satisfy an evidence of indebetedness lodged with his bank for collection,the bank is liable for his misappropriation of such sum.:>oreover, as correctly pointed out by Ford, 9ection 01 of Central ank Circular o. 0;:, 9eries of 1566 provides that any theft affectingitems in transit for clearing, shall be for the account of sending bank, which in this case is PCIank. But in this case* responsibility for negligence does not lie on PCIBank3s shoulders alone. The evidence on record shows that Citibank as drawee bank was likewise negligent in the performance of its duties. Citibank failed toestablish that its payment of Ford*s chec@s were made in due course and legally in order. In its defense, Citibank claims the genuinenessand due e+ecution of said checks, considering that Citibank $1% has no knowledge of any informity in the issuance of the checks in-uestion $)% coupled by the fact that said checks were sufficiently funded and $% the endorsement of the Payee or lack thereof wasguaranteed by PCI ank $formerly I!!%, thus, it has the obligation to honor and pay the same.For its part, Ford contends that Citibank as the drawee bank owes to Ford an absolute and contractual duty to pay the proceeds of thesub@ect check only to the payee thereof, the CI&. Citing 9ection 2)) of the egotiable Instruments 8aw, Ford argues that by acceptingthe instrument, the acceptro which is Citibank engages that it will pay according to the tenor of its acceptance, and that it will pay only tothe payee, $the CI&%, considering the fact that here the check was crossed with annotation ?Payees !ccount 4nly.?!s ruled by the Court of !ppeals, Citibank must likewise answer for the damages incurred by Ford on Citibank Checks umbers 9 1:056 and 120:;, because of the contractual relationship e+isting between the two. Citibank, as the drawee bank breached its contractualobligation with Ford and such degree of culpability contributed to the damage caused to the latter. 4n this score, we agree with therespondent court*s ruling.Citibank should have scrutini'ed Citibank Check umbers 9 1:056 and 120:; before paying the amount of the proceeds thereof to thecollecting bank of the I&. 4ne thing is clear from the recordB the clearing stamps at the back of Citibank Check os. 9 1:056 and120:; do not bear any initials. Citibank failed to notice and verify the absence of the clearing stamps. 3ad this been duly e+amined, theswitching of the worthless checks to Citibank Check os. 1:056 and 120:; would have been discovered in time. For this reason, Citibank had indeed failed to perform what was incumbent upon it, which is to ensure that the amount of the checks should be paid only to itsdesignated payee. The fact that the drawee bank did not discover the irregularity seasonably, in our view, constitutes negligence incarrying out the bank*s duty to its depositors. The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of itsfunctions, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciarynature of their relationship. )hus* invoking the doctrine of comparative negligence* we are of the view that both PCIBank and Citibank failed intheir respective obligations and both were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees resulting inthe encashment of Citibank Check Nos. SN ! #$ %N& ' !(. )hus* we are constrained to hold them e+ually liablefor the loss of the proceeds of said checks issued by ,ord in favor of the CI-. Time and again, we have stressed that banking business is so impressed with public interest where the trust and confidence of the publicin general is of paramount umportance such that the appropriate standard of diligence must be very high, if not the highest, degree of diligence./ ! bank*s liability as obligor is not merely vicarious but primary, wherein the defense of e+ercise of due diligence in theselection and supervision of its employees is of no moment.0anks handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos.2 y the very nature of their work the degree of responsibility, care andtrustworthiness e+pected of their employees and officials is far greater than those of ordinary clerks and employees.6 anks are e+pectedto e+ercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.;4n the issue of prescription, PCIank claims that the action of Ford had prescribed because of its inability to seek @udicial relief seasonably, considering that the alleged negligent act took place prior to December 15, 1566 but the relief was sought only in 15;, or seven years thereafter.The statute of limitations begins to run when the bank gives the depositor notice of the payment, which is ordinarily when the check isreturned to the alleged drawer as a voucher with a statement of his account,5 and an action upon a check is ordinarily governed by thestatutory period applicable to instruments in writing./:4ur laws on the matter provide that the action upon a written contract must be brought within ten year from the time the right of actionaccrues./1 hence, the reckoning time for the prescriptive period begins when the instrument was issued and the corresponding check wasreturned by the bank to its depositor $normally a month thereafter%. !pplying the same rule, the cause of action for the recovery of the proceeds of Citibank Check o. 9 :/;26 would normally be a month after December 15, 1566, when Citibank paid the face value of thecheck in the amount of P/,6/2,11/./1. 9ince the srcinal complaint for the cause of action was filed on anuary ):, 15;/, barely si+ yearshad lapsed. Thus, we conclude that Ford*s cause of action to recover the amount of Citibank Check o. 9 :/;26 was seasonably filedwithin the period provided by law.Decision and &esolution of the Court of !ppeals in C!7<.&. o. );/: are MO(I'IE(  as followsB PCIank and Citibank are ad@udgedliable for and must share the loss, $concerning the proceeds of Citibank Check umbers 9 1:056 and 120:; totalling P1),12,)5;.1:%  on a fifty7fifty ratio, and each bank is OR(ERE( to pay Ford Philippines Inc. P2,:;1,2/5.:0, with si+ percent $2J% interest thereon,from the date the complaint was filed until full payment of said amount.1(wphi1.nKt
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks