2

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 170325 September 26, 2008PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,Petitioner,vs.ERLANDO T. RODRIGUEZ and NORMA RODRIGUEZ,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

REYES, R.T.,J.:WHEN the payee of the check is not intended to be the true recipient of its proceeds, is it payable to order or bearer? What is the fictitious-payee rule and who is liable under it? Is there any exception?

These questions seek answers in this petition for review on certiorari of the Amended Decision1of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).2The Facts

The facts as borne by the records are as follows:

Respondents-Spouses Erlando and Norma Rodriguez were clients of petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB), Amelia Avenue Branch, Cebu City. They maintained savings and demand/checking accounts, namely, PNBig Demand Deposits (Checking/Current Account No. 810624-6 under the account name Erlando and/or Norma Rodriguez), and PNBig Demand Deposit (Checking/Current Account No. 810480-4 under the account name Erlando T. Rodriguez).

The spouses were engaged in the informal lending business. In line with their business, they had a discounting3arrangement with the Philnabank Employees Savings and Loan Association (PEMSLA), an association of PNB employees. Naturally, PEMSLA was likewise a client of PNB Amelia Avenue Branch. The association maintained current and savings accounts with petitioner bank.

PEMSLA regularly granted loans to its members. Spouses Rodriguez would rediscount the postdated checks issued to members whenever the association was short of funds. As was customary, the spouses would replace the postdated checks with their own checks issued in the name of the members.

It was PEMSLAs policy not to approve applications for loans of members with outstanding debts. To subvert this policy, some PEMSLA officers devised a scheme to obtain additional loans despite their outstanding loan accounts. They took out loans in the names of unknowing members, without the knowledge or consent of the latter. The PEMSLA checks issued for these loans were then given to the spouses for rediscounting. The officers carried this out by forging the indorsement of the named payees in the checks.

In return, the spouses issued their personal checks (Rodriguez checks) in the name of the members and delivered the checks to an officer of PEMSLA. The PEMSLA checks, on the other hand, were deposited by the spouses to their account.

Meanwhile, the Rodriguez checks were deposited directly by PEMSLA to its savings account without any indorsement from the named payees. This was an irregular procedure made possible through the facilitation of Edmundo Palermo, Jr., treasurer of PEMSLA and bank teller in the PNB Branch. It appears that this became the usual practice for the parties.

For the period November 1998 to February 1999, the spouses issued sixty nine (69) checks, in the total amount ofP2,345,804.00. These were payable to forty seven (47) individual payees who were all members of PEMSLA.4Petitioner PNB eventually found out about these fraudulent acts. To put a stop to this scheme, PNB closed the current account of PEMSLA. As a result, the PEMSLA checks deposited by the spouses were returned or dishonored for the reason "Account Closed." The corresponding Rodriguez checks, however, were deposited as usual to the PEMSLA savings account. The amounts were duly debited from the Rodriguez account. Thus, because the PEMSLA checks given as payment were returned, spouses Rodriguez incurred losses from the rediscounting transactions.

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 toP2,345,804.00. 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,5PNB claimed it is not liable for the checks which it paid to the PEMSLA account without any indorsement from the payees. The bank contended that spouses Rodriguez, the makers, actually did not intend for the named payees to receive the proceeds of the checks. Consequently, the payees were considered as "fictitious payees" as defined under the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). Being checks made to fictitious payees which are bearer instruments, the checks were negotiable by mere delivery. PNBs Answer included its cross-claim against its co-defendants PEMSLA and the MCP, praying that in the event that judgment is rendered against the bank, the cross-defendants should be ordered to reimburse PNB the amount it shall pay.

After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of spouses Rodriguez (plaintiffs). It ruled that PNB (defendant) is liable to return the value of the checks. All counterclaims and cross-claims were dismissed. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment, as follows:

1. Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs the total amount ofP2,345,804.00 or reinstate or restore the amount ofP775,337.00 in the PNBig Demand Deposit Checking/Current Account No. 810480-4 of Erlando T. Rodriguez, and the amount ofP1,570,467.00 in the PNBig Demand Deposit, Checking/Current Account No. 810624-6 of Erlando T. Rodriguez and/or Norma Rodriguez, plus legal rate of interest thereon to be computed from the filing of this complaint until fully paid;

2. The defendant PNB is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs the following reasonable amount of damages suffered by them taking into consideration the standing of the plaintiffs being sugarcane planters, realtors, residential subdivision owners, and other businesses:

(a) Consequential damages, unearned income in the amount ofP4,000,000.00, as a result of their having incurred great dificulty (sic) especially in the residential subdivision business, which was not pushed through and the contractor even threatened to file a case against the plaintiffs;

(b) Moral damages in the amount ofP1,000,000.00;

(c) Exemplary damages in the amount ofP500,000.00;

(d) Attorneys fees in the amount ofP150,000.00 considering that this case does not involve very complicated issues; and for the

(e) Costs of suit.

3. Other claims and counterclaims are hereby dismissed.6CA 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 Decision7dated 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 arrangement that 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 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 insufficiency of funds, PEMSLA approached the plaintiffs-appellees for the latter to issue rediscounted checks in favor of said applicant members. Based on the investigation of the defendant-appellant, meanwhile, this arrangement allowed the plaintiffs-appellees to make a profit by issuing rediscounted checks, while the officers of PEMSLA and other members would be able to claim their loans, despite the fact that they were disqualified for one reason or another. They were able to achieve this conspiracy by using other members who had loaned lesser amounts of money or had not applied at all. x x x.8(Emphasis added)

The CA found that the checks were bearer instruments, thus they do not require indorsement for negotiation; and that spouses Rodriguez and PEMSLA conspired with each other to accomplish this money-making scheme. The payees in the checks were "fictitious payees" because they were not the intended payees at all.

The spouses Rodriguez moved for reconsideration. They argued, inter alia, that the checks on their faces were unquestionably payable to order; and that PNB committed a breach of contract when it paid the value of the checks to PEMSLA without indorsement from the payees. They also argued that their cause of action is not only against PEMSLA but also against PNB to recover the value of the checks.

On October 11, 2005, the CA reversed itself via an Amended Decision, the last paragraph and fallo of which read:

In sum, we rule that the defendant-appellant PNB is liable to the plaintiffs-appellees Sps. Rodriguez for the following:

1. Actual damages in the amount ofP2,345,804 with interest at 6% per annum from 14 May 1999 until fully paid;

2. Moral damages in the amount ofP200,000;

3. Attorneys fees in the amount ofP100,000; and

4. Costs of suit.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by Us AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION the assailed decision rendered in Civil Case No. 99-10892, as set forth in the immediately next preceding paragraph hereof, and SETTING ASIDE Our original decision promulgated in this case on 22 July 2004.

SO ORDERED.9The CA ruled that the checks were payable to order. According to the appellate court, PNB failed to present sufficient proof to defeat the claim of the spouses Rodriguez that they really intended the checks to be received by the specified payees. Thus, PNB is liable for the value of the checks which it paid to PEMSLA without indorsements from the named payees. The award for damages was deemed appropriate in view of the failure of PNB to treat the Rodriguez account with the highest degree of care considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship, which constrained respondents to seek legal action.

Hence, the present recourse under Rule 45.

Issues

The issues may be compressed to whether the subject checks are payable to order or to bearer and who bears the loss?

PNB argues anew that when the spouses Rodriguez issued the disputed checks, they did not intend for the named payees to receive the proceeds. Thus, they are bearer instruments that could be validly negotiated by mere delivery. Further, testimonial and documentary evidence presented during trial amply proved that spouses Rodriguez and the officers of PEMSLA conspired with each other to defraud the bank.

Our Ruling

Prefatorily, amendment of decisions is more acceptable than an erroneous judgment attaining finality to the prejudice of innocent parties. A court discovering an erroneous judgment before it becomes final may, motu proprio or upon motion of the parties, correct its judgment with the singular objective of achieving justice for the litigants.10However, a word of caution to lower courts, the CA in Cebu in this particular case, is in order. The Court does not sanction careless disposition of cases by courts of justice. The highest degree of diligence must go into the study of every controversy submitted for decision by litigants. Every issue and factual detail must be closely scrutinized and analyzed, and all the applicable laws judiciously studied, before the promulgation of every judgment by the court. Only in this manner will errors in judgments be avoided.

Now to the core of the petition.

As a rule, when the payee is fictitious or not intended to be the true recipient of the proceeds, the check is considered as a bearer instrument. A check is "a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand."11It is either an order or a bearer instrument. Sections 8 and 9 of the NIL states:

SEC. 8. When payable to order. The instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable to the order of a specified person or to him or his order. It may be drawn payable to the order of

(a) A payee who is not maker, drawer, or drawee; or

(b) The drawer or maker; or

(c) The drawee; or

(d) Two or more payees jointly; or

(e) One or some of several payees; or

(f) The holder of an office for the time being.

Where the instrument is payable to order, the payee must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.

SEC. 9. When payable to bearer. The instrument is payable to bearer

(a) When it is expressed to be so payable; or

(b) When it is payable to a person named therein or bearer; or

(c) When it ispayable to the order of a fictitious or non-existing person, and such fact is known to the person making it so payable; or

(d) When the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of any person; or

(e) Where the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank.12(Underscoring supplied)

The distinction between bearer and order instruments lies in their manner of negotiation. Under Section 30 of the NIL, an order instrument requires an indorsement from the payee or holder before it may be validly negotiated. A bearer instrument, on the other hand, does not require an indorsement to be validly negotiated. It is negotiable by mere delivery. The provision reads:

SEC. 30. What constitutes negotiation. An instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer, it is negotiated by delivery; if payable to order, it is negotiated by the indorsement of the holder completed by delivery.

A check that is payable to a specified payee is an order instrument. However, under Section 9(c) of the NIL, a check payable to a specified payee may nevertheless be considered as a bearer instrument if it is payable to the order of a fictitious or non-existing person, and such fact is known to the person making it so payable. Thus, checks issued to "Prinsipe Abante" or "Si Malakas at si Maganda," who are well-known characters in Philippine mythology, are bearer instruments because the named payees are fictitious and non-existent.

We have yet to discuss a broader meaning of the term "fictitious" as used in the NIL. It is for this reason that We look elsewhere for guidance. Court rulings in the United States are a logical starting point since our law on negotiable instruments was directly lifted from the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law of the United States.13A review of US jurisprudence yields that an actual, existing, and living payee may also be "fictitious" if the maker of the check did not intend for the payee to in fact receive the proceeds of the check. This usually occurs when the maker places a name of an existing payee on the check for convenience or to cover up an illegal activity.14Thus, a check made expressly payable to a non-fictitious and existing person is not necessarily an order instrument. If the payee is not the intended recipient of the proceeds of the check, the payee is considered a "fictitious" payee and the check is a bearer instrument.

In a fictitious-payee situation, the drawee bank is absolved from liability and the drawer bears the loss. When faced with a check payable to a fictitious payee, it is treated as a bearer instrument that can be negotiated by delivery. The underlying theory is that one cannot expect a fictitious payee to negotiate the check by placing his indorsement thereon. And since the maker knew this limitation, he must have intended for the instrument to be negotiated by mere delivery. Thus, in case of controversy, the drawer of the check will bear the loss. This rule is justified for otherwise, it will be most convenient for the maker who desires to escape payment of the check to always deny the validity of the indorsement. This despite the fact that the fictitious payee was purposely named without any intention that the payee should receive the proceeds of the check.15The fictitious-payee rule is best illustrated in Mueller & Martin v. Liberty Insurance Bank.16In the said case, the corporation Mueller & Martin was defrauded by George L. Martin, one of its authorized signatories. Martin drew seven checks payable to the German Savings Fund Company Building Association (GSFCBA) amounting to $2,972.50 against the account of the corporation without authority from the latter. Martin was also an officer of the GSFCBA but did not have signing authority. At the back of the checks, Martin placed the rubber stamp of the GSFCBA and signed his own name as indorsement. He then successfully drew the funds from Liberty Insurance Bank for his own personal profit. When the corporation filed an action against the bank to recover the amount of the checks, the claim was denied.

The US Supreme Court held in Mueller that when the person making the check so payable did not intend for the specified payee to have any part in the transactions, the payee is considered as a fictitious payee. The check is then considered as a bearer instrument to be validly negotiated by mere delivery. Thus, the US Supreme Court held that Liberty Insurance Bank, as drawee, was authorized to make payment to the bearer of the check, regardless of whether prior indorsements were genuine or not.17The more recent Getty Petroleum Corp. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.18upheld the fictitious-payee rule. The rule protects the depositary bank and assigns the loss to the drawer of the check who was in a better position to prevent the loss in the first place. Due care is not even required from the drawee or depositary bank in accepting and paying the checks. The effect is that a showing of negligence on the part of the depositary bank will not defeat the protection that is derived from this rule.

However, there is a commercial bad faith exception to the fictitious-payee rule. A showing of commercial bad faith on the part of the drawee bank, or any transferee of the check for that matter, will work to strip it of this defense. The exception will cause it to bear the loss. Commercial bad faith is present if the transferee of the check acts dishonestly, and is a party to the fraudulent scheme. Said the US Supreme Court in Getty:

Consequently, a transferees lapse of wary vigilance, disregard of suspicious circumstances which might have well induced a prudent banker to investigate and other permutations of negligence are not relevant considerations under Section 3-405 x x x. Rather, there is a "commercial bad faith" exception to UCC 3-405, applicable when the transferee "acts dishonestly where it has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that amount to bad faith, thus itself becoming a participant in a fraudulent scheme. x x x Such a test finds support in the text of the Code, which omits a standard of care requirement from UCC 3-405 but imposes on all parties an obligation to act with "honesty in fact." x x x19(Emphasis added)

Getty also laid the principle that the fictitious-payee rule extends protection even to non-bank transferees of the checks.

In the case under review, the Rodriguez checks were payable to specified payees. It is unrefuted that the 69 checks were payable to specific persons. Likewise, it is uncontroverted that the payees were actual, existing, and living persons who were members of PEMSLA that had a rediscounting arrangement with spouses Rodriguez.

What remains to be determined is if the payees, though existing persons, were "fictitious" in its broader context.

For the fictitious-payee rule to be available as a defense, PNB must show that the makers did not intend for the named payees to be part of the transaction involving the checks. At most, the banks thesis shows that the payees did not have knowledge of the existence of the checks. This lack of knowledge on the part of the payees, however, was not tantamount to a lack of intention on the part of respondents-spouses that the payees would not receive the checks proceeds. Considering that respondents-spouses were transacting with PEMSLA and not the individual payees, it is understandable that they relied on the information given by the officers of PEMSLA that the payees would be receiving the checks.

Verily, the subject checks are presumed order instruments. This is because, as found by both lower courts, PNB failed to present sufficient evidence to defeat the claim of respondents-spouses that the named payees were the intended recipients of the checks proceeds. The bank failed to satisfy a requisite condition of a fictitious-payee situation that the maker of the check intended for the payee to have no interest in the transaction.

Because of a failure to show that the payees were "fictitious" in its broader sense, the fictitious-payee rule does not apply. Thus, the checks are to be deemed payable to order. Consequently, the drawee bank bears the loss.20PNB 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.21This 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.22For this reason, banks are minded to treat their customers accounts with utmost care, confidence, and honesty.23In 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 drawers instructions, i.e., to the named payee in the check. It should charge to the drawers accounts only the payables authorized by the latter. Otherwise, the drawee will be violating the instructions of the drawer and it shall be liable for the amount charged to the drawers account.24In the case at bar, respondents-spouses were the banks depositors. The checks were drawn against respondents-spouses accounts. PNB, as the drawee bank, had the responsibility to ascertain the regularity of the indorsements, and the genuineness of the signatures on the checks before accepting them for deposit. Lastly, PNB was obligated to pay the checks in strict accordance with the instructions of the drawers. Petitioner miserably failed to discharge this burden.

The checks were presented to PNB for deposit by a representative of PEMSLA absent any type of indorsement, forged or otherwise. The facts clearly show that the bank did not pay the checks in strict accordance with the instructions of the drawers, respondents-spouses. Instead, it paid the values of the checks not to the named payees or their order, but to PEMSLA, a third party to the transaction between the drawers and the payees.alf-ITCMoreover, PNB was negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees. The trustworthiness of bank employees is indispensable to maintain the stability of the banking industry. Thus, banks are enjoined to be extra vigilant in the management and supervision of their employees. In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals,25this Court cautioned thus:

Banks handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos. By the very nature of their work the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and officials is far greater than those of ordinary clerks and employees. For obvious reasons, the banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.26PNBs tellers and officers, in violation of banking rules of procedure, permitted the invalid deposits of checks to the PEMSLA account. Indeed, when it is the gross negligence of the bank employees that caused the loss, the bank should be held liable.27PNBs argument that there is no loss to compensate since no demand for payment has been made by the payees must also fail. Damage was caused to respondents-spouses when the PEMSLA checks they deposited were returned for the reason "Account Closed." These PEMSLA checks were the corresponding payments to the Rodriguez checks. Since they could not encash the PEMSLA checks, respondents-spouses were unable to collect payments for the amounts they had advanced.

A bank that has been remiss in its duty must suffer the consequences of its negligence. Being issued to named payees, PNB was duty-bound by law and by banking rules and procedure to require that the checks be properly indorsed before accepting them for deposit and payment. In fine, PNB should be held liable for the amounts of the checks.

One Last Note

We note that the RTC failed to thresh out the merits of PNBs cross-claim against its co-defendants PEMSLA and MPC. The records are bereft of any pleading filed by these two defendants in answer to the complaint of respondents-spouses and cross-claim of PNB. The Rules expressly provide that failure to file an answer is a ground for a declaration that defendant is in default.28Yet, the RTC failed to sanction the failure of both PEMSLA and MPC to file responsive pleadings. Verily, the RTC dismissal of PNBs cross-claim has no basis. Thus, this judgment shall be without prejudice to whatever action the bank might take against its co-defendants in the trial court.

To PNBs credit, it became involved in the controversial transaction not of its own volition but due to the actions of some of its employees. Considering that moral damages must be understood to be in concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, We resolve to reduce the award of moral damages toP50,000.00.29WHEREFORE, the appealed Amended Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award for moral damages is reduced toP50,000.00, and that this is without prejudice to whatever civil, criminal, or administrative action PNB might take against PEMSLA, MPC, and the employees involved.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 121413 January 29, 2001

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (formerly INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA),petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and FORD PHILIPPINES, INC. and CITIBANK, N.A.,respondents.

G.R. No. 121479 January 29, 2001

FORD PHILIPPINES, INC.,petitioner-plaintiff,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and CITIBANK, N.A. and PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK,respondents.

G.R. No. 128604 January 29, 2001

FORD PHILIPPINES, INC.,petitioner,vs.CITIBANK, N.A., PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK and COURT OF APPEALS,respondents.

QUISUMBING,J.:These consolidated petitions involve several fraudulently negotiated checks.

The original actionsa quowere instituted by Ford Philippines to recover from the drawee bank, CITIBANK, N.A. (Citibank) and collecting bank, Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIBank) [formerly Insular Bank of Asia and America], the value of several checks payable to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which were embezzled allegedly by an organized syndicate.1wphi1.ntG.R. Nos. 121413 and 121479 are twin petitions for review of the March 27, 1995 Decision1of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 25017, entitled "Ford Philippines, Inc. vs. Citibank, N.A. and Insular Bank of Asia and America (now Philipppine Commercial International Bank), and the August 8, 1995 Resolution,2ordering the collecting bank, Philippine Commercial International Bank, to pay the amount of Citibank Check No. SN-04867.

In G.R. No. 128604, petitioner Ford Philippines assails the October 15, 1996 Decision3of the Court of Appeals and its March 5, 1997 Resolution4in CA-G.R. No. 28430 entitled "Ford Philippines, Inc. vs. Citibank, N.A. and Philippine Commercial International Bank," affirmingin totothe judgment of the trial court holding the defendant drawee bank, Citibank, N.A., solely liable to pay the amount of P12,163,298.10 as damages for the misapplied proceeds of the plaintiff's Citibanl Check Numbers SN-10597 and 16508.

I. G.R. Nos. 121413 and 121479The stipulated facts submitted by the parties as accepted by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

"On October 19, 1977, the plaintiff Ford drew and issued its Citibank Check No. SN-04867 in the amount of P4,746,114.41, in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as payment of plaintiff;s percentage or manufacturer's sales taxes for the third quarter of 1977.

The aforesaid check was deposited with the degendant IBAA (now PCIBank) and was subsequently cleared at the Central Bank. Upon presentment with the defendant Citibank, the proceeds of the check was paid to IBAA 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 Revenue.

As a consequence, upon demand of the Bureau and/or Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the plaintiff was compelled to make a second payment to the Bureau of Internal Revenue of its percentage/manufacturers' sales taxes for the third quarter of 1977 and that said second payment of plaintiff in the amount of P4,746,114.41 was duly received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

It is further admitted by defendant Citibank that during the time of the transactions in question, plaintiff had been maintaining a checking account with defendant Citibank; that Citibank Check No. SN-04867 which was drawn and issued by the plaintiff in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a crossed check in that, on its face were two parallel lines and written in between said lines was the phrase "Payee's Account Only"; and that defendant Citibank paid the full face value of the check in the amount of P4,746,114.41 to the defendant IBAA.

It has been duly established that for the payment of plaintiff's percentage tax for the last quarter of 1977, the Bureau of Internal Revenue issued Revenue Tax Receipt No. 18747002, dated October 20, 1977, designating therein in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, as the authorized agent bank of Metrobanl, Alabang branch to receive the tax payment of the plaintiff.

On December 19, 1977, plaintiff's Citibank Check No. SN-04867, together with the Revenue Tax Receipt No. 18747002, was deposited with defendant IBAA, through its Ermita Branch. The latter accepted the check and sent it to the Central Clearing House for clearing on the samd day, with the indorsement at the back "all prior indorsements and/or lack of indorsements guaranteed." Thereafter, defendant IBAA presented the check for payment to defendant Citibank on same date, December 19, 1977, and the latter paid the face value of the check in the amount of P4,746,114.41. Consequently, the amount of P4,746,114.41 was debited in plaintiff's account with the defendant Citibank and the check was returned to the plaintiff.

Upon verification, plaintiff discovered that its Citibank Check No. SN-04867 in the amount of P4,746,114.41 was not paid to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Hence, in separate letters dated October 26, 1979, addressed to the defendants, the plaintiff notified the latter that in case it will be re-assessed by the BIR for the payment of the taxes covered by the said checks, then plaintiff shall hold the defendants liable for reimbursement of the face value of the same. Both defendants denied liability and refused to pay.

In a letter dated February 28, 1980 by the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue addressed to the plaintiff - supposed to be Exhibit "D", the latter was officially informed, among others, that its check in the amount of P4, 746,114.41 was not paid to the government or its authorized agent and instead encashed by unauthorized persons, hence, plaintiff has to pay the said amount within fifteen days from receipt of the letter. Upon advice of the plaintiff's lawyers, plaintiff on March 11, 1982, paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the amount of P4,746,114.41, representing payment of plaintiff's percentage tax for the third quarter of 1977.

As a consequence of defendant's refusal to reimburse plaintiff of the payment it had made for the second time to the BIR of its percentage taxes, plaintiff filed on January 20, 1983 its original complaint before this Court.

On December 24, 1985, defendant IBAA was merged with the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCI Bank) with the latter as the surviving entity.

Defendant Citibank maintains that; the payment it made of plaintiff's Citibank Check No. SN-04867 in the amount of P4,746,114.41 "was in due course"; it merely relied on the clearing stamp of the depository/collecting bank, the defendant IBAA that "all prior indorsements and/or lack of indorsements guaranteed"; and the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury is the gross negligence of defendant IBAA in indorsing the plaintiff's Citibank check in question.

It is admitted that on December 19, 1977 when the proceeds of plaintiff's Citibank Check No. SN-048867 was paid to defendant IBAA as collecting bank, plaintiff was maintaining a checking account with defendant Citibank."5Although it was not among the stipulated facts, an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) revealed that Citibank Check No. SN-04867 was recalled by Godofredo Rivera, the General Ledger Accountant of Ford. He purportedly needed to hold back the check because there was an error in the computation of the tax due to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). With Rivera's instruction, PCIBank replaced the check with two of its own Manager's Checks (MCs). Alleged members of a syndicate later deposited the two MCs with the Pacific Banking Corporation.

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. But the court dismissed the complaint against PBC for lack of cause of action. The course likewise dismissed the third-party complaint against Godofredo Rivera because he could not be served with summons as the NBI declared him as a "fugitive from justice".

On June 15, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision, as follows:

"Premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

"1. Ordering the defendants Citibank and IBAA (now PCI Bank), jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff the amount of P4,746,114.41 representing the face value of plaintiff's Citibank Check No. SN-04867, with interest thereon at the legal rate starting January 20, 1983, the date when the original complaint was filed until the amount is fully paid, plus costs;

"2. On defendant Citibank's cross-claim: ordering the cross-defendant IBAA (now PCI Bank) to reimburse defendant Citibank for whatever amount the latter has paid or may pay to the plaintiff in accordance with next preceding paragraph;

"3. The counterclaims asserted by the defendants against the plaintiff, as well as that asserted by the cross-defendant against the cross-claimant are dismissed, for lack of merits; and

"4. With costs against the defendants.

SO ORDERED."6Not satisfied with the said decision, both defendants, Citibank and PCIBank, elevated their respective petitions for review on certiorari to the Courts of Appeals. On March 27, 1995, the appellate court issued its judgment as follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court AFFIRMS the appealed decision with modifications.

The court hereby renderes judgment:

1.Dismissingthe complaint in Civil Case No. 49287 insofar as defendant Citibank N.A. is concerned;

2.Orderingthe defendant IBAA now PCI Bank to pay the plaintiff the amount of P4,746,114.41 representing the face value of plaintiff's Citibank Check No. SN-04867, with interest thereon at the legal rate starting January 20, 1983, the date when the original complaint was filed until the amount is fully paid;

3. Dismissing the counterclaims asserted by the defendants against the plaintiff as well as that asserted by the cross-defendant against the cross-claimant, for lack of merits.

Costs against the defendant IBAA (now PCI Bank).

IT IS SO ORDERED."7PCI Bank moved to reconsider the above-quoted decision of the Court of Appeals, while Ford filed a "Motion for Partial Reconsideration." Both motions were denied for lack of merit.

Separately, PCIBank and Ford filed before this Court, petitions for review by certiorari under Rule 45.

In G.R. No. 121413, PCIBank seeks the reversal of the decision and resolution of the Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals contending that it merely acted on the instruction of Ford and such casue of action had already prescribed.

PCIBank sets forth the following issues for consideration:

I. Did the respondent court err when, after finding that the petitioner acted on the check drawn by respondent Ford on the said respondent's instructions, it nevertheless found the petitioner liable to the said respondent for the full amount of the said check.

II. Did the respondent court err when it did not find prescription in favor of the petitioner.8In a counter move, Ford filed its petition docketed as G.R. No. 121479, questioning the same decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and praying for the reinstatementin totoof the decision of the trial court which found both PCIBank and Citibank jointly and severally liable for the loss.

In G.R. No. 121479, appellant Ford presents the following propositions for consideration:

I. Respondent Citibank is liable to petitioner Ford considering that:

1. As drawee bank, respondent Citibank owes to petitioner Ford, as the drawer of the subject check and a depositor of respondent Citibank, an absolute and contractual duty to pay the proceeds of the subject check only to the payee thereof, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

2. Respondent Citibank failed to observe its duty as banker with respect to the subject check, which was crossed and payable to "Payee's Account Only."

3. Respondent Citibank raises an issue for the first time on appeal; thus the same should not be considered by the Honorable Court.

4. As correctly held by the trial court, there is no evidence of gross negligence on the part of petitioner Ford.9II. PCI Bank is liable to petitioner Ford considering that:

1. There were no instructions from petitioner Ford to deliver the proceeds of the subject check to a person other than the payee named therein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; thus, PCIBank's only obligation is to deliver the proceeds to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.102. PCIBank which affixed its indorsement on the subject check ("All prior indorsement and/or lack of indorsement guaranteed"), is liable as collecting bank.113. PCIBank is barred from raising issues of fact in the instant proceedings.124. Petitioner Ford's cause of action had not prescribed.13II. G.R. No. 128604The same sysndicate apparently embezzled the proceeds of checks intended, this time, to settle Ford's percentage taxes appertaining to the second quarter of 1978 and the first quarter of 1979.

The facts as narrated by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

Ford drew Citibank Check No. SN-10597 on July 19, 1978 in the amount of P5,851,706.37 representing the percentage tax due for the second quarter of 1978 payable to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A BIR Revenue Tax Receipt No. 28645385 was issued for the said purpose.

On April 20, 1979, Ford drew another Citibank Check No. SN-16508 in the amount of P6,311,591.73, representing the payment of percentage tax for the first quarter of 1979 and payable to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Again a BIR Revenue Tax Receipt No. A-1697160 was issued for the said purpose.

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. Thus, in a letter dated February 28, 1980, the BIR, Region 4-B, demanded for the said tax payments the corresponding periods above-mentioned.

As far as the BIR is concernced, the said two BIR Revenue Tax Receipts were considered "fake and spurious". This anomaly was confirmed by the NBI upon the initiative of the BIR. The findings forced Ford to pay the BIR a new, while an action was filed against Citibank and PCIBank for the recovery of the amount of Citibank Check Numbers SN-10597 and 16508.

The Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 57, which tried the case, made its findings on themodus operandiof the syndicate, as follows:

"A certain Mr. Godofredo Rivera was employed by the plaintiff FORD as its General Ledger Accountant. As such, he prepared the plaintiff's check marked Ex. 'A' [Citibank Check No. Sn-10597] for payment to the BIR. Instead, however, fo delivering the same of the payee, he passed on the check to a co-conspirator named Remberto Castro who was a pro-manager of the San Andres Branch of PCIB.* In connivance with one Winston Dulay, Castro himself subsequently opened a Checking Account in the name of a fictitious person denominated as 'Reynaldo reyes' in the Meralco Branch of PCIBank where Dulay works as Assistant Manager.

After an initial deposit of P100.00 to validate the account, Castro deposited a worthless Bank of America Check in exactly the same amount as the first FORD check (Exh. "A", P5,851,706.37) 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 Exhibit 'A' and accordingly tampered the accompanying documents to cover the replacement. As a result, Exhibit 'A' was cleared by defendant CITIBANK, and the fictitious deposit account of 'Reynaldo Reyes' was credited at the PCIB Meralco Branch with the total amount of the FORD check Exhibit 'A'. The same method was again utilized by the syndicate in profiting from Exh. 'B' [Citibank Check No. SN-16508] which was subsequently pilfered by Alexis Marindo, Rivera's Assistant at FORD.

From this 'Reynaldo Reyes' account, Castro drew various checks distributing the sahres of the other participating conspirators namely (1) CRISANTO BERNABE, the mastermind who formulated the method for the embezzlement; (2) RODOLFO R. DE LEON a customs broker who negotiated the initial contact between Bernabe, FORD's Godofredo Rivera and PCIB's Remberto Castro; (3) JUAN VASTILLO who assisted de Leon in the initial arrangements; (4) GODOFREDO RIVERA, FORD's accountant who passed on the first check (Exhibit "A") to Castro; (5) REMERTO CASTRO, PCIB's pro-manager at San Andres who performed the switching of checks in the clearing process and opened the fictitious Reynaldo Reyes account at the PCIB Meralco Branch; (6) WINSTON DULAY, PCIB's Assistant Manager at its Meralco Branch, who assisted Castro in switching the checks in the clearing process and facilitated the opening of the fictitious Reynaldo Reyes' bank account; (7) ALEXIS MARINDO, Rivera's Assistant at FORD, who gave the second check (Exh. "B") to Castro; (8) ELEUTERIO JIMENEZ, BIR Collection Agent who provided the fake and spurious revenue tax receipts to make it appear that the BIR had received FORD's tax payments.

Several other persons and entities were utilized by the syndicate as conduits in the disbursements of the proceeds of the two checks, but like the aforementioned participants in the conspiracy, have not been impleaded in the present case. The manner by which the said funds were distributed among them are traceable from the record of checks drawn against the original "Reynaldo Reyes" account and indubitably identify the parties who illegally benefited therefrom and readily indicate in what amounts they did so."14On December 9, 1988, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 57, held drawee-bank, Citibank, liable for the value of the two checks while adsolving PCIBank from any liability, disposing as follows:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing defendant CITIBANK to reimburse plaintiff FORD the total amount of P12,163,298.10 prayed for in its complaint, with 6% interest thereon from date of first written demand until full payment, plus P300,000.00 attorney's fees and expenses litigation, and to pay the defendant, PCIB (on its counterclaim to crossclaim) the sum of P300,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs of litigation, and pay the costs.

SO ORDERED."15Both Ford and Citibank appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed,in toto, the decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner Ford prays that judgment be rendered setting aside the portion of the Court of Appeals decision and its resolution dated March 5, 1997, with respect to the dismissal of the complaint against PCIBank and holding Citibank solely responsible for the proceeds of Citibank Check Numbers SN-10597 and 16508 for P5,851,706.73 and P6,311,591.73 respectively.

Ford avers that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint against defendant PCIBank considering that:

I. Defendant PCIBank was clearly negligent when it failed to exercise the diligence required to be exercised by it as a banking insitution.

II. Defendant PCIBank clearly failed to observe the diligence required in the selection and supervision of its officers and employees.

III. Defendant PCIBank was, due to its negligence, clearly liable for the loss or damage resulting to the plaintiff Ford as a consequence of the substitution of the check consistent with Section 5 of Central Bank Circular No. 580 series of 1977.

IV. Assumingarguedothat defedant PCIBank did not accept, endorse or negotiate in due course the subject checks, it is liable, under Article 2154 of the Civil Code, to return the money which it admits having received, and which was credited to it its Central bank account.16The main issue presented for our consideration by these petitions could be simplified as follows: Has petitioner Ford the right to recover from the collecting bank (PCIBank) and the drawee bank (Citibank) the value of the checks intended as payment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue? Or has Ford's cause of action already prescribed?

Note that in these cases, the checks were drawn against the drawee bank, but the title of the person negotiating the same was allegedly defective because the instrument was obtained by fraud and unlawful means, and the proceeds of the checks were not remitted to the payee. It was established that instead of paying the checks to the CIR, for the settlement of the approprite quarterly percentage taxes of Ford, the checks were diverted and encashed for the eventual distribution among the mmbers of the syndicate. As to the unlawful negotiation of the check the applicable law is Section 55 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), which provides:

"When title defective -- The title of a person who negotiates an instrument is defective within the meaning of this Act when he obtained the instrument, or any signature thereto, by fraud, duress, or fore and fear, or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach of faith or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud."

Pursuant to this provision, it is vital to show that the negotiation is made by the perpetator in breach of faith amounting to fraud. The person negotiating the checks must have gone beyond the authority given by his principal. If the principal could prove that there was no negligence in the performance of his duties, he may set up the personal defense to escape liability and recover from other parties who. Though their own negligence, alowed the commission of the crime.

In this case, we note that the direct perpetrators of the offense, namely the embezzlers belonging to a syndicate, are now fugitives from justice. They have, even if temporarily, escaped liability for the embezzlement of millions of pesos. We are thus left only with the task of determining who of the present parties before us must bear the burden of loss of these millions. It all boils down to thequestion of liability based on the degree of negligence among the parties concerned.

Foremost, we must resolve whether the injured party, Ford, is guilty of the "imputed contributory negligence" that would defeat its claim for reimbursement, bearing ing mind that its employees, Godofredo Rivera and Alexis Marindo, were among the members of the syndicate.

Citibank points out that Ford allowed its very own employee, Godofredo Rivera, to negotiate the checks to his co-conspirators, instead of delivering them to the designated authorized collecting bank (Metrobank-Alabang) of the payee, CIR. Citibank bewails the fact that Ford was remiss in the supervision and control of its own employees, inasmuch as it only discovered the syndicate's activities through the information given by the payee of the checks after an unreasonable period of time.

PCIBank also blames Ford of negligence when it allegedly authorized Godofredo Rivera to divert the proceeds of Citibank Check No. SN-04867, instead of using it to pay the BIR. As to the subsequent run-around of unds of Citibank Check Nos. SN-10597 and 16508, PCIBank claims that the proximate cause of the damge to Ford lies in its own officers and employees who carried out the fradulent schemes and the transactions. These circumstances were not checked by other officers of the company including its comptroller or internal auditor. PCIBank contends that the inaction of Ford despite the enormity of the amount involved was a sheer negligence and stated that, as between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequences of a breach of trust, the one who made it possible, by his act of negligence, must bear the loss.

For its part, Ford denies any negligence in the performance of its duties. It avers that there was no evidence presented before the trial court showing lack of diligence on the part of Ford. And, citing the case ofGempesaw vs. Court of Appeals,17Ford argues that even if there was a finding therein that the drawer was negligent, the drawee bank was still ordered to pay damages.

Furthermore, Ford contends the Godofredo rivera was not authorized to make any representation in its behalf, specifically, to divert the proceeds of the checks. It adds that Citibank raised the issue of imputed negligence against Ford for the first time on appeal. Thus, it should not be considered by this Court.

On this point, jurisprudence regarding the imputed negligence of employer in a master-servant relationship is instructive. Since a master may be held for his servant's wrongful act, the law imputes to the master the act of the servant, and if that act is negligent or wrongful and proximately results in injury to a third person, the negligence or wrongful conduct is the negligence or wrongful conduct of the master, for which he is liable.18The general rule is that 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 theproximate causeof the injury of which complaint is made.19Accordingly, we need to determine whether or not the action of Godofredo Rivera, Ford's General Ledger Accountant, and/or Alexis Marindo, his assistant, was the proximate cause of the loss or damage. AS defined, proximate cause is that which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause produces the injury and without the result would not have occurred.20It appears that 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. The degree of Ford's negligence, if any, could not be characterized as the proximate cause of the injury to the parties.

The Board of Directors of Ford, we note, did not confirm the request of Godofredo Rivera to recall Citibank Check No. SN-04867. Rivera's instruction to replace the said check with PCIBank's Manager's Check was not in theordinary course of business which could have prompted PCIBank to validate the same.

As to the preparation of Citibank Checks Nos. SN-10597 and 16508, it was established that these 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 notentitle the bank toshift the loss to the drawer-payor, in the absence of some circumstance raising estoppel against the drawer.21This rule likewise applies to the checks fraudulently negotiated or diverted by the confidential employees who hold them in their possession.

With respect to the negligence of PCIBank in the payment of the three checks involved, separately, the trial courts found variations between the negotiation of Citibank Check No. SN-04867 and the misapplication of total proceeds of Checks SN-10597 and 16508. Therefore, we have to scrutinize, separately, PCIBank's share of negligence when the syndicate achieved its ultimate agenda of stealing the proceeds of these checks.

G.R. Nos. 121413 and 121479Citibank Check No. SN-04867 was deposited at PCIBank through its Ermita Branch. It was coursed through the ordinary banking transaction, 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 PCIBank, instead of remitting the proceeds to the CIR, prepared two of its Manager's checks and enabled the syndicate to encash the same.

On record, PCIBank failed to verify the authority of Mr. Rivera to negotiate the checks. The neglect of PCIBank employees to verify whether his letter requesting for the replacement of the Citibank Check No. SN-04867 was duly authorized, showed lack of care and prudence required in the circumstances.

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. As aptly stated by the trial court, to wit:

"xxx. Since the questioned crossed check was deposited with IBAA [now PCIBank], which claimed to be a depository/collecting bank of BIR, it has the responsibility to make sure that the check in question is deposited in Payee's account only.

xxxxxxxxx

As agent of the BIR (the payee of the check), defendant IBAA should receive instructions only from its principal BIR and not from any other person especially so when that person is not known to the defendant. It is very imprudent on the part of the defendant IBAA to just rely on the alleged telephone call of the one Godofredo Rivera and in his signature considering that the plaintiff is not a client of the defendant IBAA."

It is a well-settled rule that the relationship between the payee or holder of commercial paper and the bank to which it is sent for collection is, in the absence of an argreement to the contrary, that of principal and agent.22A bank which receives such paper for collection is the agent of the payee or holder.23Even consideringarguendo,that the diversion of the amount of a check payable to the collecting bank in behalf of the designated payee may be allowed, still such diversion must be properly authorized by the payor. 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.

Citibank further argues that PCI Bank's clearing stamp appearing at the back of the questioned checks stating that ALL PRIOR INDORSEMENTS AND/OR LACK OF INDORSEMENTS GURANTEED should render PCIBank liable because it made it pass through the clearing house and therefore Citibank had no other option but to pay it. Thus, Citibank had no other option but to pay it. Thus, Citibank assets that the proximate cause of Ford's injury is the gross negligence of PCIBank. Since the questione dcrossed check was deposited with PCIBank, which claimed to be a depository/collecting bank of the BIR, it had the responsibility to make sure that the check in questions is deposited in Payee's account only.

Indeed, the crossing of the check with the phrase "Payee's Account Only," is a warning that the check should be deposited only in the account of the CIR. Thus, 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".

InBanco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Equitable Banking Corporation,24we ruled:

"Anent petitioner's liability on said instruments, this court is in full accord with the ruling of the PCHC's Board of Directors that:

'In presenting the checks for clearing and for payment, the defendant made an express guarantee on the validity of "all prior endorsements." Thus, stamped at the back of the checks are the defedant's clear warranty: ALL PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS AND/OR LACK OF ENDORSEMENTS GUARANTEED. Without such warranty, plaintiff would not have paid on the checks.'

No amount of legal jargon can reverse the clear meaning of defendant's warranty. As the warranty has proven to be false and inaccurate, the defendant is liable for any damage arising out of the falsity of its representation."25Lastly, banking business requires that the one who first cashes and negotiates the check must take some percautions to learn whether or not it is genuine. And 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 the title of the person negotiating the instrument before paying the check. For this reason, a bank which cashes a check drawn upon another bank, without requiring proof as to the identity of persons presenting it, or making inquiries with regard to them, cannot hold the proceeds against 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 the authenticity 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 proximately contributed to the success of the fraud practiced on the drawee bank. The latter may recover from the holder the money paid on the check.26Having established that the collecting bank's negligence is the proximate cause of the loss, we conclude that PCIBank is liable in the amount corresponding to the proceeds of Citibank Check No. SN-04867.

G.R. No. 128604The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that PCIBank had no official act in the ordinary course of business that would attribute to it the case of the embezzlement of Citibank Check Numbers SN-10597 and 16508, because PCIBank did not actually receive nor hold the two Ford checks at all. The trial court held, thus:

"Neither is there any proof that defendant PCIBank contributed any official or conscious participation in the process of the embezzlement. This Court is convinced that 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"27In this case, there was no evidence presented confirming the conscious particiapation of PCIBank in the embezzlement. As a general rule, however, a banking corporation is liable for the wrongful or tortuous acts and declarations of its officers or agents within the course and scope of their employment.28A bank will be held liable for the negligence of its officers or agents when acting within the course and scope of their employment. It may be liable for the tortuous acts of its officers even as regards that species of tort of which malice is an essential element. In this case, we find a situation where the PCIBank appears also to be the victim of the scheme hatched by a syndicate in which its own management employees had particiapted.

The pro-manager of San Andres Branch of PCIBank, Remberto Castro, received Citibank Check Numbers SN-10597 and 16508. He passed the checks to a co-conspirator, an Assistant Manager of PCIBank's Meralco Branch, who helped Castro open a Checking account of a fictitious person named "Reynaldo Reyes." Castro deposited a worthless Bank of America Check in exactly the same amount of Ford checks. The syndicate tampered with the checks and succeeded in replacing the worthless checks and the eventual encashment of Citibank Check Nos. SN 10597 and 16508. The PCIBank Ptro-manager, Castro, and his co-conspirator Assistant Manager apparently performed their activities using facilities in their official capacity or authority but for their personal and private gain or benefit.

A bank holding out its officers and agents as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds these officers or agents were enabled to perpetrate in the apparent course of their employment; nor will t be permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds, 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.29And 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.30Moreover, as correctly pointed out by Ford, Section 531of Central Bank Circular No. 580, Series of 1977 provides that any theft affecting items in transit for clearing, shall be for the account of sending bank, which in this case is PCIBank.

But in this case, responsibility for negligence does not lie on PCIBank's shoulders alone.

The evidence on record shows that Citibank as drawee bank was likewise negligent in the performance of its duties. Citibank failed to establish that its payment of Ford's checjs were made in due course and legally in order. In its defense, Citibank claims the genuineness and due execution of said checks, considering that Citibank (1) has no knowledge of any informity in the issuance of the checks in question (2) coupled by the fact that said checks were sufficiently funded and (3) the endorsement of the Payee or lack thereof was guaranteed by PCI Bank (formerly IBAA), 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 the subject check only to the payee thereof, the CIR. Citing Section 6232of the Negotiable Instruments Law, Ford argues that by accepting the instrument, the acceptro which is Citibank engages that it will pay according to the tenor of its acceptance, and that it will pay only to the payee, (the CIR), considering the fact that here the check was crossed with annotation "Payees Account Only."

As ruled by the Court of Appeals, Citibank must likewise answer for the damages incurred by Ford on Citibank Checks Numbers SN 10597 and 16508, because of the contractual relationship existing between the two. Citibank, as the drawee bank breached its contractual obligation with Ford and such degree of culpability contributed to the damage caused to the latter. On this score, we agree with the respondent court's ruling.

Citibank should have scrutinized Citibank Check Numbers SN 10597 and 16508 before paying the amount of the proceeds thereof to the collecting bank of the BIR. One thing is clear from the record: the clearing stamps at the back of Citibank Check Nos. SN 10597 and 16508 do not bear any initials. Citibank failed to notice and verify the absence of the clearing stamps. Had this been duly examined, the switching of the worthless checks to Citibank Check Nos. 10597 and 16508 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 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. The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.33Thus, invoking the doctrine of comparative negligence, we are of the view that 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 of Citibank Check Nos. SN 10597 AND 16508. Thus, we are constrained to hold them equally liable for the loss of the proceeds of said checks issued by Ford in favor of the CIR.

Time and again, we have stressed that banking business is so impressed with public interest where the trust and confidence of the public in general is of paramount umportance such that the appropriate standard of diligence must be very high, if not the highest, degree of diligence.34A bank's liability as obligor is not merely vicarious but primary, wherein the defense of exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees is of no moment.35Banks handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos.36By the very nature of their work the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and officials is far greater than those of ordinary clerks and employees.37Banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.38On the issue of prescription, PCIBank claims that the action of Ford had prescribed because of its inability to seek judicial relief seasonably, considering that the alleged negligent act took place prior to December 19, 1977 but the relief was sought only in 1983, 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 is returned to the alleged drawer as a voucher with a statement of his account,39and an action upon a check is ordinarily governed by the statutory period applicable to instruments in writing.40Our 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.41hence, 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.

Finally, we also find thet Ford is not completely blameless in its failure to detect the fraud. Failure on the part of the 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. As provided in 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.42WHEREFORE,the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 25017 areAFFIRMED.PCIBank, know formerly as Insular Bank of Asia and America, id declared solely responsible for the loss of the proceeds of Citibank Check No SN 04867 in the amount P4,746,114.41, which shall be paid together with six percent (6%) interest thereon to Ford Philippines Inc. from the date when the original complaint was filed until said amount is fully paid.

However, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 28430 areMODIFIEDas follows: PCIBank and Citibank are adjudged liable for and must share the loss, (concerning the proceeds of Citibank Check Numbers SN 10597 and 16508 totalling P12,163,298.10) on a fifty-fifty ratio, and each bank isORDEREDto pay Ford Philippines Inc. P6,081,649.05, with six percent (6%) interest thereon, from the date the complaint was filed until full payment of said amount.1wphi1.ntCosts against Philippine Commercial International Bank and Citibank N.A.

SO ORDERED.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 179952 December 4, 2009METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (formerly ASIANBANK CORPORATION),Petitioner,vs.BA FINANCE CORPORATION and MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC.,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES,J.:Lamberto Bitanga (Bitanga) obtained from respondent BA Finance Corporation (BA Finance) aP329,2801loan to secure which, he mortgaged his car to respondent BA Finance.2The mortgage contained the following stipulation:

The MORTGAGOR covenants and agrees that he/it will cause the property(ies) hereinabove mortgagedto be insuredagainst loss or damage by accident, theft and fire for a period of one year from date hereof with an insurance company or companies acceptable to the MORTGAGEE in an amount not less than the outstanding balance of mortgage obligations and that he/it will make all loss, if any, under such policy or policies,payable to the MORTGAGEE or its assignsas its interest may appear x x x.3(emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Bitanga thus had the mortgaged car insured by respondent Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (Malayan Insurance)4which issued a policy stipulating that, inter alia,

Loss, if any shall bepayable to BA FINANCE CORP. as its interest may appear. It is hereby expressly understood that this policy or any renewal thereof, shall not be cancelled without prior notification and conformity by BA FINANCE CORPORATION.5(emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The car was stolen. On Bitangas claim, Malayan Insurance issued a check payable to the order of "B.A. Finance CorporationandLamberto Bitanga" forP224,500, drawn against China Banking Corporation (China Bank). The check was crossed with the notation "For Deposit Payees Account Only."6Without the indorsement or authority of his co-payee BA Finance, Bitanga deposited the check to his account with the Asianbank Corporation (Asianbank), now merged with herein petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank). Bitanga subsequently withdrew the entire proceeds of the check.

In the meantime, Bitangas loan became past due, but despite demands, he failed to settle it.

BA Finance eventually learned of the loss of the car and of Malayan Insurances issuance of a crossed check payable to it and Bitanga, and of Bitangas depositing it in his account at Asianbank and withdrawing the entire proceeds thereof.

BA Finance thereupon demanded the payment of the value of the check from Asianbank7but to no avail, prompting it to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati for sum of money and damagesagainst Asianbank and Bitanga,8alleging that, inter alia, it is entitled to the entire proceeds of the check.

In its Answerwith Counterclaim,9Asianbank alleged that BA Finance "instituted [the] complaint in bad faith to coerce [it] into paying the whole amount of the CHECK knowing fully well that its rightful claim, if any, is against Malayan [Insurance]."10Asianbank thereafter filed across-claim against Bitanga,11alleging that he fraudulently induced its personnel to release to him the full amount of the check; and that on being later informed that the entire amount of the check did not belong to Bitanga, it took steps to get in touch with him but he had changed residence without leaving any forwarding address.12And Asianbank filed athird-party complaint against MalayanInsurance,13alleging that Malayan Insurance was grossly negligent in issuing the check payable to both Bitanga and BA Finance and delivering it to Bitanga without the consent of BA Finance.14Bitanga was declared in default in Asianbanks cross-claim.15Branch 137 of the Makati RTC, finding that Malayan Insurance was not privy to the contract between BA Finance and Bitanga, and noting the claim of Malayan Insurance that it is its policy to issue checks to both the insured and the financing company, held that Malayan Insurance cannot be faulted for negligence for issuing the check payable to both BA Finance and Bitanga.

The trial court, holding that Asianbank was negligent in allowing Bitanga to deposit the check to his account and to withdraw the proceeds thereof, without his co-payee BA Finance having either indorsed it or authorized him to indorse it in its behalf,16found Asianbank and Bitanga jointly and severally liable to BA Financefollowing Section 41 of theNegotiable Instruments Lawand Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals.17Thus the trial court disposed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby renderedordering defendants Asian Bank Corporation and Lamberto Bitanga:

1) To pay plaintiff jointly and severally the sum of P224,500.00 with interest thereon at the rate of 12% from September 25, 1992 until fully paid;

2) To pay plaintiff the sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; P20,000.00 as actual damages; P30,000.00 as attorneys fee; and

3) To pay the costs of suit.

Asianbanks and Bitangas [sic] counterclaims are dismissed.

The third party complaint of defendant/third party plaintiff against third-party defendant Malayan Insurance, Co., Inc. is hereby dismissed. Asianbank is ordered to pay Malayan attorneys fee of P50,000.00 and a per appearance fee of P500.00.

On the cross-claim of defendant Asianbank, co-defendant Lamberto Bitanga is ordered to pay the former the amounts the latter is ordered to pay the plaintiff in Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above-mentioned.

SO ORDERED.18(emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Before the Court of Appeals, Asianbank, in its Appellants Brief, submitted the following issues for consideration:

3.01.1.1Whether BA Finance has a cause of action against Asianbank.3.01.1.2 Assuming that BA Finance has a valid cause of action,may it claim from Asianbank more than one-half of the value of the checkconsidering that it is a mere co-payee or joint payee of the check?

3.01.1.3Whether BA Finance is liable to Asianbank for actual and exemplary damagesfor wrongfully bringing the case to court.

3.01.1.4Whether Malayan is liable to Asianbank for reimbursementof any sum of money which this Honorable Court may award to BA Finance in this case.19(underscoring supplied)

And it proffered the following arguments:

A. BA Finance has no cause of action against Asianbank as it has no legal right and title to the check considering that thecheck was not delivered to BA Finance. Hence, BA Finance is not a holder thereof under the Negotiable Instruments Law.

B. Asianbank, as collecting bank, is not liable to BA Finance as there wasno privity of contract between them.

C. Asianbank, as collecting bank, is not liable to BA Finance, considering that, as the intermediary between the payee and the drawee Chinabank, itmerely acted on the instructions of drawee Chinabank to pay the amount of the check to Bitanga, hence, the consequent damage to BA Finance was due to the negligence of Chinabank.

D.Malayans act of issuing and delivering the checksolely to Bitanga in violation of the "loss payee" clause in the Policy,is the proximate cause of the alleged damage to BA Finance.

E. Assuming Asianbank is liable,BA Finance can claim only his proportionate interest on the check as it is a joint payee thereof.

F.Bitanga alone is liable for the amount to BA Financeon the ground of unjust enrichment or solutio indebiti.

G.BA Finance is liable to pay Asianbank actual and exemplary damages.20(underscoring supplied)

The appellate court, "summarizing" the errors attributed to the trial court by Asianbank to be "whetherBA Finance has a cause of action against [it] even if the subject check had not been delivered toBA Finance by the issuer itself," held in the affirmative and accordingly affirmed the trial courts decision but deleted the award ofP20,000 as actual damages.21Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari22filed by Metrobank (hereafter petitioner) to which Asianbank was, as earlier stated, merged, faulting the appellate court

I. x x xin applying the case of Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals, in the absence of factual similarity and of the legal relationships necessary for the application of the desirable shortcut rule. x x x

II. x x xin not finding that x x x the general rule that the payee has no cause of actionagainst the collecting bank absent delivery to him must be applied.

III. x x xin finding that all the elements of a cause of action by BA Finance Corporation against Asianbank Corporation are present.

IV. x x x in finding that Article 1208 of the Civil Code is not applicable.

V. x x xin awarding of exemplary damageseven in the absence of moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages and a finding of fact that Asianbank acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.

x x x x

VII. x x xin dismissing Asianbanks counterclaim and Third Party complaint [against Malayan Insurance].23(italics in the original; underscoring supplied)

Petitioner proffers the following arguments against the application of Associated Bank v. CA to the case:

x x x [T]he rule established in the Associated Bank case has provided a speedier remedy for the payee to recover from erring collecting banks despite the absence of delivery of the negotiable instrument. However, the application of the rule demands careful consideration of the factual settings and issues raised in the case x x x.

One of the relevant circumstances raised in Associated Bank is the existence of forgery or unauthorized indorsement. x x x

x x x x

In the case at bar,Bitanga is authorized to indorse the check as the drawer names him as one of the payees. Moreover,his signature is not a forgery nor has he or anyone forged the signature of the representative of BA Finance Corporation. No unauthorized indorsement appears on the check.

x x x x

Absent the indispensable fact of forgery or unauthorized indorsement, the desirable shortcut rule cannot be applied,24(underscoring supplied)

The petition fails.

Section 41 of theNegotiable Instruments Lawprovides:

Where an instrumentis payable to the order of two or more payees or indorseeswho are not partners,all must indorseunless the one indorsing has authority to indorse for the others. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Bitanga alone endorsed the crossed check, and petitioner allowed the deposit and release of the proceeds thereof, despite the absence of authority of Bitangas co-payee BA Finance to endorse it on its behalf.25Denying any irregularity in accepting the check, petitioner maintains that it followed normal banking procedure. The testimony of Imelda Cruz, Asianbanks then accounting head, shows otherwise, however, viz:

Q Now, could you be familiar with a particular policy of the bank with respect to checks with joined (sic) payees?

A Yes, sir.

Q And what would be the particular policy of the bank regarding this transaction?

AThe bank policy and procedure regarding the joint checks. Once it is deposited to a single account, we are not accepting joint checks for single account, depositing to a single account(sic).

Q What happened to the bank employee who allowed this particular transaction to occur?

A Once the branch personnel, the bank personnel (sic) accepted it, he is liable.

Q What do you mean by the branch personnel being held liable?

ABecause since (sic) the bank policy, we are not supposed to accept joint checks to a [single] account, so we mean that personnel would be held liable in the sense that (sic) once it is withdrawn or encashed, it will not be allowed.

Q In your experience, have you encountered any bank employee who was subjected to disciplinary action by not following bank policies?

A The one that happened in that case, since I really dont know who that personnel is, he is no longer connected with the bank.

QWhat about in general, do you know of any disciplinary action, Madam witness?ASince theres a negligence on the part of the bank personnel, it will be a ground for his separation [from] the bank.26(emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

Admittedly, petitioner dismissed the employee who allowed the deposit of the check in Bitangas account.

Petitioners argument that since there was neither forgery, nor unauthorized indorsement because Bitanga was a co-payee in the subject check, the dictum in Associated Bank v. CA does not apply in the present case fails.The payment of an instrument over a missing indorsement is the equivalent of payment on a forged indorsement27or an unauthorized indorsement in itself in the case of joint payees.28Clearly, petitioner, through its employee, was negligent when it allowed the deposit of the crossed check, despite the lone endorsement of Bitanga, ostensibly ignoring the fact that the check did not, it bears repeating, carry the indorsement of BA Finance.29As has been repeatedly emphasized, the banking business is imbued with public interest such that the highest degree of diligence and highest standards of integrity and performance are expected of banks in order to maintain the trust and confidence of the public in general in the banking sector.30Undoubtedly, BA Finance has a cause of action against petitioner.

Is petitioner liable to BA Finance for the full value of the check?

Petitioner, at all events, argue that its liability to BA Finance should only be one-half of the amount covered by the check as there is no indication in the check that Bitanga and BA Finance are solidary creditors to thus make them presumptively joint creditors under Articles 1207 and 1208 of the Civil Code which respectively provide:

Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestations. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.

Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or wording of the obligations to which the preceding article refers to the contrary does not appear,the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many equal shares as there are creditors or debtors, the debts or credits being considered distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of Court governing the multiplicity of suits.

Petitioners argument is flawed.

The provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law and underlying jurisprudential teachings on the black-letter law provide definitive justification for petitioners full liability on the value of the check.

To be sure, a collecting bank, Asianbank in this case, where a check is deposited and which indorses the check upon presentment with the drawee bank, is an indorser.[31]This is because in indorsing a check to the drawee bank, a collecting bank stamps the back of the check with the phrase "all prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed"32and, for all intents and purposes, treats the check as a negotiable instrument, hence, assumes the warranty of an indorser.33Without Asianbanks warranty, the drawee bank (China Bank in this case) would not have paid the value of the subject check.

Petitioner, as the collecting bank or last indorser, generally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior indorsements considering that the act of presenting the check for payment to the drawee is an assertion that the party making the presentment has done its duty to ascertain the genuineness of prior indorsements.34Accordingly, one who credits the proceeds of a check to the account of the indorsing payee is liable in conversion to the non-indorsing payee for the entire amount of the check.35It bears noting that in petitioners cross-claim against Bitanga, the trial court ordered Bitanga to return to petitioner the entire value of the check P224,500.00 with interest as well as damages and cost of suit. Petitioner never questioned this aspect of the trial courts disposition, yet it now prays for the modification of its liability to BA Finance to only one-half of said amount. To pander to petitioners supplication would certainly amount to unjust enrichment at BA Finances expense. Petitioners remedywhich is the reimbursement for the full amount of the check from the perpetrator of the irregularity lies with Bitanga.

Articles 1207 and 1208 of the Civil Code cannot be applied to the present case as these are completely irrelevant. The drawer, Malayan Insurance in this case, issued the check to answer for an underlying contractual obligation (payment of insurance proceeds). The obligation is merely reflected in the instrument and whether the payees would jointly share in the proceeds or not is beside the point.

Moreover, granting petitioners appeal for partial liability would run