Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
8/3/15 5:31 PM
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
BANK,
petitioner,
vs.
ERLANDO T. RODRIGUEZ and NORMA RODRIGUEZ,
respondents.
Courts; Judgments; Amendment of decisions is more acceptable
than an erroneous judgment attaining finality to the prejudice of
innocent parties; The Court does not sanction careless disposition of
cases by courts of justicethe highest degree of diligence must go
into the study of every controversy submitted for decision by
litigants.
_______________
** Justice Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro was designated to sit as
additional member, replacing Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 1 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
514
514
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 2 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
515
Page 3 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
516
Page 4 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
517
Page 5 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
processes checks that are neither payable to the customer nor duly
indorsed by the payee is apparently grossly negligent in its
operations.PNB was remiss in its duty as the drawee bank.
It does not dispute the fact that its teller or tellers accepted the 69
checks for deposit to the PEMSLA account even without any
indorsement from the named payees. It bears stressing that order
instruments can only be negotiated with a valid indorsement. A
bank that regularly processes checks that are neither payable to the
customer nor duly indorsed by the payee is apparently grossly
negligent in its operations. This Court has recognized the unique
public interest possessed by the banking industry and the need for
the people to have full trust and confidence in their banks. For this
reason, banks are minded to treat their customers accounts with
utmost care, confidence, and honesty.
Same; Same; Same; Same; In a checking transaction, the drawee
bank has the duty to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
drawer and to pay the check strictly in accordance with the
518
518
Page 6 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
519
Page 7 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
520
Page 8 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
521
Check No.
0001110
0000011589
0000011567
0000011565
0000011587
0000011594
0000011593
0000011595
0000011591
0001657
0001655
0000011588
0000011596
0000011597
0000011600
0000011598
0000011599
0000011564
0000011563
0001656
0000011583
0000011566
Date Issued
11.27.98
02.01.99
01.25.99
01.22.99
02.01.99
02.02.99
02.02.99
02.02.99
02.01.99
02.05.99
02.05.99
02.01.99
02.05.99
02.05.99
02.05.99
02.05.99
02.05.99
01.21.99
01.19.99
02.05.99
02.01.99
01.20.99
Total:
Amount
40,934.00
29,877.00
50,350.00
39,995.00
38,000.00
28,500.00
37,715.00
45,002.00
35,373.00
39,900.00
28,595.00
34,819.00
32,851.00
28,785.00
32,509.00
43,691.00
31,498.00
38,000.00
38,000.00
32,006.00
20,093.00
28,844.00
775,337.00
522
522
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 9 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
Check No.
0001944
0001927
0001926
0001924
0001932
0001922
0001928
0001929
0001933
0001923
0001945
0001951
0001955
0001960
0001958
0001956
0001969
0001968
0002021
0002023
0002030
0002032
0002020
0001972
0001967
0002022
Date Issued
01.15.99
01.14.99
01.14.99
01.14.99
01.14.99
01.14.99
01.14.99
01.14.99
01.14.99
01.14.99
01.15.99
01.18.99
01.18.99
01.22.99
01.22.99
01.18.99
01/22/99
01/22/99
02/01/99
02/01/99
02/02/99
02/02/99
02/01/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
02/01/99
Amount
37,449.00
30,020.00
34,884.00
35,502.00
38,323.00
43,852.00
32,414.00
38,361.00
38,285.00
29,982.00
37,449.00
39,995.00
37,221.00
30,923.00
40,679.00
24,700.00
38,304.00
37,706.00
36,727.00
38,000.00
26,600.00
19,000.00
32,282.00
36,376.00
36,566.00
37,981.00
523
523
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 10 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
_______________
27. Ma. Corazon Salva
28. Jose Bago-od
29. Avelino Brion
30. Mickle Algusar
31. Jose Weber
32. Joel Velasco
33. Elma Bacarro
34. Grace Tambis
35. Proceso Mailim
36. Ronnie Aragon
37. Danilo Villarosa
38. Joel Abibuag
39. Danilo Villarosa
40. Reynard Guia
41. Estrella Alunan
42. Eddie Bago-od
43. Jose Bago-od
44. Nicandro Aguilar
45. Guandencia Banaston
46. Dennis Montemayor
47. Eduardo Buglosa
0002029
0001957
0001965
0001962
0001959
0002028
0002031
0001952
0001980
0001983
0001931
0001954
0001984
0001985
0001925
0001982
0001982
0001964
0001963
0001961
0002027
02/02/99
01/18/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
02/02/99
02/02/99
01/18/99
01/21/99
01/22/99
01/14/99
01/18/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/14/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/22/99
01/02/99
25,270.00
34,656.00
31,882.00
25,004.00
37,001.00
9,500.00
23,750.00
39,995.00
37,193.00
30,324.00
31,008.00
26,600.00
26,790.00
42,959.00
39,596.00
31,018.00
37,240.00
52,250.00
38,000.00
26,600.00
14,250.00
524
RTC Disposition
Alarmed over the unexpected turn of events, the spouses
Rodriguez filed a civil complaint for damages against
PEMSLA, the Multi-Purpose Cooperative of Philnabankers
(MCP), and petitioner PNB. They sought to recover the
value of their checks that were deposited to the PEMSLA
savings account amounting to P2,345,804.00. The spouses
contended that because PNB credited the checks to the
PEMSLA account even without indorsements, PNB
violated its contractual obligation to them as depositors.
PNB paid the wrong payees, hence, it should bear the loss.
PNB moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
lack of cause of action. PNB argued that the claim for
damages should come from the payees of the checks, and not
from spouses Rodriguez. Since there was no demand from
the said payees, the obligation should be considered as
discharged.
In an Order dated January 12, 2000, the RTC denied
PNBs motion to dismiss.
In its Answer,5 PNB claimed it is not liable for the checks
which it paid to the PEMSLA account without any
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 11 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
525
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 12 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
526
CA Disposition
PNB appealed the decision of the trial court to the CA on
the principal ground that the disputed checks should be
considered as payable to bearer and not to order.
In a Decision7 dated July 22, 2004, the CA reversed and
set aside the RTC disposition. The CA concluded that the
checks were obviously meant by the spouses to be really
paid to PEMSLA. The court a quo declared:
We are not swayed by the contention of the plaintiffs-appellees
(Spouses Rodriguez) that their cause of action arose from the
alleged breach of contract by the defendant-appellant (PNB) when
it paid the value of the checks to PEMSLA despite the checks being
payable to order. Rather, we are more convinced by the strong and
credible evidence for the defendant-appellant with regard to the
plaintiffs-appellees and PEMSLAs business arrangementthat the
value of the rediscounted checks of the plaintiffs-appellees would be
deposited in PEMSLAs account for payment of the loans it has
approved in exchange for PEMSLAs checks with the full value of
the said loans. This is the only obvious explanation as to why all
the disputed sixty-nine (69) checks were in the possession of
PEMSLAs errand boy for presentment to the defendant-appellant
that led to this present controversy. It also appears that the teller
who accepted the said checks was PEMSLAs officer, and that such
was a regular practice by the parties until the defendant-appellant
discovered the scam. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the
checks were never meant to be paid to order, but instead, to
PEMSLA. We thus find no breach of contract on the part of the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 13 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
defendant-appellant.
According to plaintiff-appellee Erlando Rodriguez testimony,
PEMSLA allegedly issued post-dated checks to its qualified members
who had applied for loans. However, because of PEMSLAs insuffi_______________
6 CA Rollo, pp. 71-72.
7 Rollo, pp. 44-49. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with
Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring.
527
527
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 14 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
528
Page 15 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
529
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 16 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
530
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 17 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
531
Page 18 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
532
Page 19 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
payee is
_______________
15 Mueller & Martin v. Liberty Insurance Bank, 187 Ky. 44, 218 SW
465 (1920).
16 Id.
533
533
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 20 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
Such a test finds support in the text of the Code, which omits a
standard of care re_______________
17 Mueller & Martin v. Liberty Insurance Bank, id.
18 90 NY 2d 322 (1997), citing the Uniform Commercial Code, Sec. 3-405.
534
534
Page 21 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
535
Page 22 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
21 Id.
22 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Cabilzo, G.R. No.
154469, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 259.
23 Citytrust Banking Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. 84281, May 27, 1994, 232 SCRA 559; Bank of the Philippine
Islands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 69162, February 21,
1992, 206 SCRA 408.
536
536
Page 23 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
537
Page 24 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
declaration
_______________
26 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, id., at p. 71.
27 Id., at p. 77.
538
538
Page 25 of 26
8/3/15 5:31 PM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ef2e666eecf43ec27000a0094004f00ee/p/ALA370/?username=Guest
Page 26 of 26