Maralit vs Imperial

G.R. No. 130756. January 21, 1999

Ponente: Mendoza, J.
DOCTRINE:
Loss is chargeable to the accused
who upon her indorsements warrant that
the instrument is genuine in all respect
what it purports to be and that she will pay
the amount thereof in case of dishonor.
FACTS:
Ester Maralit is the assistant
manager of the Naga City branch of the
Philippine National Bank (PNB). On two
seaprate
occassion,
Jesusa
Imperial
deposited in her savings account at the
PNB, 3 United States treasury warrants and
on the same days withdrew their peso
equivalent
of P59,216.86,P130,743.60,
and P130,326.00. The treasury warrants
were subsequently returned one after the
other by the United States Treasury,
through the Makati branch of the Citibank,
on the ground that the amounts thereof
had been altered. Maralit claimed that, as a
consequence, she was held personally
liable by the PNB for the total amount
of P320,287.30.On
her
part,
Imperial
alleged that she merely helped a relative,
Aida Abengoza, encash the treasury
warrants and she did not know that the
amounts on the treasury warrants had been
altered nor did she represent to petitioner
that the treasury warrants were genuine.
Three estafa cases were filed against
Imperial. MCT Naga City acquitted Imperial
but stated that she is civilly liable as
indorser of the checks which are the
subject matter of the criminal action. The
decision became final and executor.y In a
petition for certiorari, RTC Naga held that
the decision of the MTC did not really find
Imperial liable because in fact it was Maralit
who was found responsible for making the
defraudation possible.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Imperial is civilly liable?
HELD:
Yes. The MTC stated the following in its
decision that it is the established
procedure of banks that US Treasury

Warrants should first be cleared before

the same is to be paid. More so if the
holder is a second indorser. But
because Maralit knew Imperial is
working in the same building and a
depositor, she took the risk of
approving the withdrawal of the peso
equivalent, without the check being
cleared and if the same is dishonored
she should be responsible. She took the
risk therefore she should be responsible
for the outcome of the risk she has
taken. The Court is of the opinion that
there was negligence on both Maralit
and Ismael but greater responsibility
should be borne by the Maralit. The
accused could not have encashed and
deposited the checks without her
approval. If the complainant was not
remiss in her duty in imposing the
banking rules strictly, then these things
could not have happened.
This portion of the decision of the MTC,
however, only and actually refers to
respondents criminal liability and not her
civil liability. For Ismaels civil liability, the
MTC held that ...loss is chargeable to the
accused who upon her indorsements
warrant that the instrument is genuine in
all respect what it purports to be and that
she will pay the amount thereof in case of
dishonor. (Sec. 66 Negotiable Instrument
Law)
Thus, while the MTC found petitioner
partly responsible for the encashment of
the altered checks, it found respondent
civilly liable because of her indorsements of
the treasury warrants. To find therefore that
there is no declaration of civil liability of
respondent would be to disregard the
judgment of the MTC. Worse, it would be to
amend a final and executory decision of a
court.
(you can disregard this part, not about
Nego)
As to the amont of civil liability of Ismael, it
is argued that the decision of the MTC did
not order respondent, as accused in the
case, to pay a specific amount of money to
any particular person such that it could not
be an adjudication of respondents civil
liability. However, the ambiguity can easily
be clarified by a resort to the text of the
decision or, what is properly called, the
opinion part. Doing so, it is clear that it can
only be to petitioner that respondent was
made liable as the former was the offended

party in the case. As for what amount

respondent is liable, it can only be for the
total amount of the treasury warrants
subject of the case, determined according
to their peso equivalent, in the decision of
the MTC.
For another, that respondent should
pay petitioner the amounts of the altered
treasury
warrants
is
the
logical
consequence of the MTCs holding that
private respondent is civilly liable for the
treasury warrants subject of the case.

Sapiera vs CA
G.R. No. 128927. September 14, 1999
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
DOCTRINE:
An accused acquitted for estafa
because of insufficiency of evidence may
still be held civilly liable because of signing
the
negotiable
instrument,
by
the
signature, one becomes an indorser liable
in case of dishonor.
FACTS:
Remedios Sapiera, a sari-sari store
owner, purchased from Monrico Mart
certain grocery items, mostly cigarettes,
and paid for them with checks issued by
one Arturo de Guzman. These checks were
signed at the back by petitioner. When
presented for payment the checks were
dishonored because the drawers account
was already closed. Private respondent
Ramon Sua informed Arturo de Guzman
and petitioner about the dishonor but both
failed to pay the value of the checks.
Hence, 4 charges of estafa were filed
against Sapiera with the RTC Dagupan City.
RTC acquitted Sapiera and did not rule if
she was civilly liable. Sua appealed in CA,
the latter ordered Sapiera to pay Sua
P335,000.00 representing the aggregate
face value of the 4 checks indorsed by her.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent Court of Appeals
committed reversible error in requiring
petitioner to pay civil indemnity to private
respondent after the trial court had
acquitted her of the criminal charges.

HELD:
There was no error.
(Two main arguments by the Supreme
Court: 1. That acquittal in a criminal case
because of insuffieciency of evidence does
not necessary mean acquittal from civil
liability
2. NIL one who signs in ambiguity is an
indorser and is liable in case of dishonour)
1. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, as
amended, specifically provides: "Extinction
of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil
might arise did not exist. The judgment of
acquittal extinguishes the liability of the
accused for damages only when it includes
a declaration that the fact from which the
civil liability might arise did not exist.
In the case at bar, it is true that
Sapiera was acquitted based on the failure
of the prosecution to present sufficient
evidence showing conspiracy between her
and a certain Arturo de Guzman in
defrauding Sua. Still, Sapiera admitted
signing the subject checks. There is scarcity
of evidence for criminal lialibity, but
grounds for civil liability still exist.
2. The SC affirmed the CA finding that the
checks issued by de Guzman were signed
by petitioner at the back without any
indication as to how she should be bound
thereby and, therefore, she is deemed to be
an
indorser
thereof. The
Negotiable
Instruments Law clearly provides Sec. 17. Construction where instrument is
ambiguous. - Where the language of the
instrument is ambiguous, or there are
admissions therein, the following rules of
construction apply: x x x x (f) Where a
signature is so placed upon the instrument
that it is not clear in what capacity the
person making the same intended to sign,
he is deemed an indorser. x x x x
Sec. 63. When person deemed indorser. - A
person placing his signature upon an
instrument otherwise than as maker,
drawer or acceptor, is deemed to be an
indorser unless he clearly indicates by
appropriate words his intention to be bound
in some other capacity.

Sec. 66. Liability of general indorser. xxx

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.
The dismissal of the criminal cases
against petitioner did not erase her civil
liability since the dismissal was due to
insufficiency of evidence and not from a
declaration from the court that the fact
from which the civil action might arise did
not exist. An accused acquitted of estafa
may nevertheless be held civilly liable
where the facts established by the
evidence so warrant. The accused should
be adjudged liable for the unpaid value of
the checks signed by her in favor of the
complainant.

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs

COURT OF APPEALS and BENJAMIN C.
NAPIZA
G.R. No. 112392
February 29,
2000
Ponente: Ynares- Santiago, J.
DOCTRINE:
The signature of a blank withdrawal
slip set in motion the events that resulted
in the withdrawal and eventually loss of a
sum of money, but he is not liable as an
indorser because under the circumstances
it is the gross negligence of the bank which
was the proximate cause of the loss. The
bank must bear the loss.
FACTS:
Benjamin C. Napiza deposited in his
Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU)
Savings Account (in BPI Buendia Avenue
Extension Branch), a Continental Bank
Manager's Check amounting to $2,500.00.

The check was duly endorsed by private

respondent on its dorsal side.
It appears that the check belonged to
a certain Henry Chan. who went to the
office of Napiza and requested the latter 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 the
amount of the check upon private
respondent's presentation to the bank of
his passbook. This withdrawal slip shows
that the amount was payable to Ramon A.
de Guzman and Agnes C. de Guzman. Using
the blank withdrawal slip given by private
respondent to Chan, one Ruben Gayon, Jr.
was able to withdraw $2,541.67 from
Napizas savings account.
BPI received a communication from
the Wells Fargo Bank International of New
York that the said check deposited by
Napiza was a counterfeit. Mr. Ariel Reyes,
the branch manager, instructed one of its
employees, Benjamin D. Napiza IV, who is
private respondent's son, to inform his
father that the check bounced.R eyes
himself sent a telegram to private
respondent regarding the dishonor of the
check.
BPI instituted an action for collection
against Napiza. Napiza in his answer stated
that the bank was negligent for allowing
the withdrawal even if the period of
clearing has not yet expired and even if
Napizas passbook was not presented. BPI
contented that Napiza was estopped from
disclaiming liability because he himself
authorized the withdrawal of the amount by
signing the withdrawal slip.
The trial court dismissed BPIs complaint
holding that BPI 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. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.
The appellate court held that petitioner
committed "clears gross negligence" in
allowing Ruben Gayon, Jr. to withdraw the
money
without
presenting
private
respondent's passbook and, before the
check was cleared.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Napiza may be held liable
because of his signature in the withdrawal
slip?
HELD:
No.
Petitioner
claims
that
private
respondent, having affixed his signature at
the dorsal side of the check, should be
liable for the amount stated therein in
accordance with Section 65 and 66 of the
NIL. Also, the Supreme Court explained that
in People vs. Maniego among the "parties
liable thereon." Is an indorser of the
instrument, i.e., "a person placing his
signature upon an instrument otherwise
than as a maker, drawer or acceptor *
* unless he clearly indicated by appropriate
words his intention to be bound in some
other capacity." Napiza
may also be
deemed an "accommodation party" - a
person "who has signed the instrument as
maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser,
without receiving value thereof, and for the
purpose of lending his name to some other
person.
In the case at bar, Napiza may be
held liable as an indorser of the check or
even as an accommodation party. However,
to hold private respondent 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 rules of the bank, to be able to
withdraw from the savings account deposit
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 (b) the depositor's
passbook.

In (a) Private respondent admits he

signed a blank withdrawal slip but
the same indicates a special

instruction that the amount is

payable to "Ramon A. de Guzman
&/or Agnes C. de Guzman." Such
being
the
case,
petitioner's
personnel should have been duly
warned that Gayon, who was also
employed in petitioner's Buendia
Ave. Extension branch, was not the
proper payee of the proceeds of the
check.
In (b) The withdrawal slip contains a
boxed warning that states: "This
receipt
must
be
signed
and
presented with the corresponding
foreign currency savings passbook by
the depositor in person. In the case
at bar, petitioner, in allowing the
withdrawal of private respondent's
deposit, failed to exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family.
In total disregard of its own rules,
petitioner's personnel negligently
handled
private
respondent's
account to petitioner's detriment.

While it is true that private respondent'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
petitioner'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 of the
withdrawal and eventual loss of the amount
of $2,500.00 on petitioner's part was its
personnel's negligence in allowing such
withdrawal in disregard of its own rules and
the clearing requirement in the banking
system. In so doing, petitioner assumed the
risk of incurring a loss on account of a
forged or counterfeit foreign check and
hence, it should suffer the resulting
damage.