Notes Cases

Transcript

G.R. No. 141181 April 27, 2007 SAMSON CHING, Petitioner, vs. CLARITA NICDAO and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents Held: The acquittal of respondent Nicdao likewise effectively extinguished her civil liability A painstaking review of the case leads to the conclusion that respondent Nicdao’s acquittal likewise carried with it the extinction of the action to enforce her civil liability. There is simply no basis to hold respondent Nicdao civilly liable to petitioner Ching. First, the CA’s acquittal of respondent Nicdao is not merely based on reasonable doubt. Rather, it is based on the finding that she did not commit the act penalized under BP 22. In particular, the CA found that the P20,000,000.00 check was a stolen check which was never issued nor delivered by respondent Nicdao to petitioner Ching. As such, according to the CA, petitioner Ching "did not acquire any right or interest over Check No. 002524 and cannot assert any cause of action founded on said check,"41 and that respondent Nicdao "has no obligation to make good the stolen check and cannot, therefore, be held liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22."42 With respect to the ten (10) other checks, the CA established that the loans secured by these checks had already been extinguished after full payment had been made by respondent Nicdao. In this connection, the second element for the crime under BP 22, i.e., "that the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value," is not present. BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA, Petitioner,-versus-PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB Held: However, on the blank space of each check reserved for the payee, the following typewritten words appear: “ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND PESOS ONLY.” Above the same is the typewritten word, “CASH.” On the blank reserved for the amount, the same amount of One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos was indicated with the use of a check writer. The presence of these irregularities in each check should have alerted the petitioner to be cautious before proceeding to encash them which it did not do. It is well-settled that banks are engaged in a business impressed with public interest, and it is their duty to protect in return their many clients and depositors who transact business with them. They have the obligation to treat their client’s account meticulously and with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The diligence required of banks, therefore, is more than that of a good father of a family.1[12] 1 Although not in the strict sense “material alterations,” the misplacement of the typewritten entries for the payee and the amount on the same blank and the repetition of the amount using a check writer were glaringly obvious irregularities on the face of the check. Clearly, someone made a mistake in filling up the checks and the repetition of the entries was possibly an attempt to rectify the mistake. Also, if the check had been filled up by the person who customarily accomplishes the checks of respondent, it should have occurred to petitioner’s employees that it would be unlikely such mistakes would be made. All these circumstances should have alerted the bank to the possibility that the holder or the person who is attempting to encash the checks did not have proper title to the checks or did not have authority to fill up and encash the same. As noted by the CA, petitioner could have made a simple phone call to its client to clarify the irregularities and the loss to respondent due to the encashment of the stolen checks would have been prevented. In the case at bar, extraordinary diligence demands that petitioner should have ascertained from respondent the authenticity of the subject checks or the accuracy of the entries therein not only because of the presence of highly irregular entries on the face of the checks but also of the decidedly unusual circumstances surrounding their encashment. Respondent’s witness testified that for checks in amounts greater than Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) it is the company’s practice to ensure that the payee is indicated by name in the check.2[14] This was not rebutted by petitioner. Indeed, it is highly uncommon for a corporation to make out checks payable to “CASH” for substantial amounts such as in this case. If each irregular circumstance in this case were taken singly or isolated, the bank’s employees might have been justified in ignoring them. However, the confluence of the irregularities on the face of the checks and circumstances that depart from the usual banking practice of respondent should have put petitioner’s employees on guard that the checks were possibly not issued by the respondent in due course of its business. Petitioner’s subtle sophistry cannot exculpate it from behavior that fell extremely short of the highest degree of care and diligence required of it as a banking institution. - subject checks are properly characterized as incomplete and undelivered instruments thus making Section 153[20] of the NIL applicable in this case. - doctrine of last clear chance : , the one who had a last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. - Following established jurisprudential precedents,4[27] we believe the allocation of sixty percent (60%) of the actual damages involved in this case (represented by the amount of the checks 2 3 with legal interest) to petitioner is proper under the premises. Respondent should, in light of its contributory negligence, bear forty percent (40%) of its own loss. PNB vs Rodriguez Held: The issues may be compressed to whether the subject checks are payable to order or to bearer and who bears the loss? 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.”5[11] It 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) (b) (c) When it is expressed to be so payable; or When it is payable to a person named therein or bearer; or When 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; 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.6[12] (Underscoring supplied) 4 5 6 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.7[13] A 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.8[14] Thus, a check made expressly payable to a nonfictitious and existing person is not necessarily an order instrument. If the payee is not the intended 7 8 recipient of the proceeds of the check, the payee is considered a “fictitious” payee and the check is a bearer instrument. 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 bank’s 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 fictitiouspayee rule does not apply. Thus, the checks are to be deemed payable to order. Consequently, the drawee bank bears the loss.9[20] PNB was remiss in its duty as the drawee bank . It does not dispute the fact that its teller or tellers accepted the 69 checks for deposit to the PEMSLA account even without any indorsement from the named payees. indorsement. It bears stressing that order instruments can only be negotiated with a valid 9 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.10[21] This Court has recognized the unique public interest possessed by the banking industry and the need for the people to have full trust and confidence in their banks.11[22] For this reason, banks are minded to treat their customer’s accounts with utmost care, confidence, and honesty.12[23] In a checking transaction, the drawee bank has the duty to verify the genuineness of the signature of the drawer and to pay the check strictly in 10 11 12 accordance with the drawer’s instructions, i.e., to the named payee in the check. It should charge to the drawer’s 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 drawer’s account.13[24] In the case at bar, respondents-spouses were the bank’s 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. Moreover, 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,14[25] this 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 13 14 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.15[26] PNB’s 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.16[27] PNB’s 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. should be held liable for the amounts of the checks. In fine, PNB ASSOCIATED BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PROVINCE OF TARLAC and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondents. Where thirty checks bearing forged endorsements are paid, who bears the loss, the drawer, the drawee bank or the collecting bank? Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL) provides: Sec. 23. FORGED SIGNATURE, EFFECT OF. — When a signature is forged or made without authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof against any 15 16 party thereto, can be acquired through or under such signature unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority. A forged signature, whether it be that of the drawer or the payee, is wholly inoperative and no one can gain title to the instrument through it. A person whose signature to an instrument was forged was never a party and never consented to the contract which allegedly gave rise to such instrument. 18 Section 23 does not avoid the instrument but only the forged signature. 19 Thus, a forged indorsement does not operate as the payee's indorsement. The exception to the general rule in Section 23 is where "a party against whom it is sought to enforce a right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority." Parties who warrant or admit the genuineness of the signature in question and those who, by their acts, silence or negligence are estopped from setting up the defense of forgery, are precluded from using this defense. Indorsers, persons negotiating by delivery and acceptors are warrantors of the genuineness of the signatures on the instrument. 20 In bearer instruments, the signature of the payee or holder is unnecessary to pass title to the instrument. Hence, when the indorsement is a forgery, only the person whose signature is forged can raise the defense of forgery against a holder in due course. 21 The checks involved in this case are order instruments, hence, the following discussion is made with reference to the effects of a forged indorsement on an instrument payable to order. Where the instrument is payable to order at the time of the forgery, such as the checks in this case, the signature of its rightful holder (here, the payee hospital) is essential to transfer title to the same instrument. When the holder's indorsement is forged, all parties prior to the forgery may raise the real defense of forgery against all parties subsequent thereto. 22 An indorser of an order instrument warrants "that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; that he has a good title to it; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and that the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting." 23 He cannot interpose the defense that signatures prior to him are forged. A collecting bank where a check is deposited and which indorses the check upon presentment with the drawee bank, is such an indorser. So even if the indorsement on the check deposited by the banks's client is forged, the collecting bank is bound by his warranties as an indorser and cannot set up the defense of forgery as against the drawee bank. The bank on which a check is drawn, known as the drawee bank, is under strict liability to pay the check to the order of the payee. The drawer's instructions are reflected on the face and by the terms of the check. Payment under a forged indorsement is not to the drawer's order. When the drawee bank pays a person other than the payee, it does not comply with the terms of the check and violates its duty to charge its customer's (the drawer) account only for properly payable items. Since the drawee bank did not pay a holder or other person entitled to receive payment, it has no right to reimbursement from the drawer. 24 The general rule then is that the drawee bank may not debit the drawer's account and is not entitled to indemnification from the drawer. 25 The risk of loss must perforce fall on the drawee bank. However, if the drawee bank can prove a failure by the customer/drawer to exercise ordinary care that substantially contributed to the making of the forged signature, the drawer is precluded from asserting the forgery. If at the same time the drawee bank was also negligent to the point of substantially contributing to the loss, then such loss from the forgery can be apportioned between the negligent drawer and the negligent bank. 26 In cases involving a forged check, where the drawer's signature is forged, the drawer can recover from the drawee bank. No drawee bank has a right to pay a forged check. If it does, it shall have to recredit the amount of the check to the account of the drawer. The liability chain ends with the drawee bank whose responsibility it is to know the drawer's signature since the latter is its customer. 27 In cases involving checks with forged indorsements, such as the present petition, the chain of liability does not end with the drawee bank. The drawee bank may not debit the account of the drawer but may generally pass liability back through the collection chain to the party who took from the forger and, of course, to the forger himself, if available. 28 In other words, the drawee bank canseek reimbursement or a return of the amount it paid from the presentor bank or person. 29 Theoretically, the latter can demand reimbursement from the person who indorsed the check to it and so on. The loss falls on the party who took the check from the forger, or on the forger himself. In this case, the checks were indorsed by the collecting bank (Associated Bank) to the drawee bank (PNB). The former will necessarily be liable to the latter for the checks bearing forged indorsements. If the forgery is that of the payee's or holder's indorsement, the collecting bank is held liable, without prejudice to the latter proceeding against the forger. Since a forged indorsement is inoperative, the collecting bank had no right to be paid by the drawee bank. The former must necessarily return the money paid by the latter because it was paid wrongfully. 30 More importantly, by reason of the statutory warranty of a general indorser in section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a collecting bank which indorses a check bearing a forged indorsement and presents it to the drawee bank guarantees all prior indorsements, including the forged indorsement. It warrants that the instrument is genuine, and that it is valid and subsisting at the time of his indorsement. Because the indorsement is a forgery, the collecting bank commits a breach of this warranty and will be accountable to the drawee bank. This liability scheme operates without regard to fault on the part of the collecting/presenting bank. Even if the latter bank was not negligent, it would still be liable to the drawee bank because of its indorsement. The Court has consistently ruled that "the collecting bank or last endorser generally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior endorsements 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 the endorsements." 31 The drawee bank is not similarly situated as the collecting bank because the former makes no warranty as to the genuineness. of any indorsement. 32 The drawee bank's duty is but to verify the genuineness of the drawer's signature and not of the indorsement because the drawer is its client. Moreover, the collecting bank is made liable because it is privy to the depositor who negotiated the check. The bank knows him, his address and history because he is a client. It has taken a risk on his deposit. The bank is also in a better position to detect forgery, fraud or irregularity in the indorsement. Hence, the drawee bank can recover the amount paid on the check bearing a forged indorsement from the collecting bank. However, a drawee bank has the duty to promptly inform the presentor of the forgery upon discovery. If the drawee bank delays in informing the presentor of the forgery, thereby depriving said presentor of the right to recover from the forger, the former is deemed negligent and can no longer recover from the presentor. 33 Applying these rules to the case at bench, PNB, the drawee bank, cannot debit the current account of the Province of Tarlac because it paid checks which bore forged indorsements. However, if the Province of Tarlac as drawer was negligent to the point of substantially contributing to the loss, then the drawee bank PNB can charge its account. If both drawee bank-PNB and drawer-Province of Tarlac were negligent, the loss should be properly apportioned between them. The loss incurred by drawee bank-PNB can be passed on to the collecting bank-Associated Bank which presented and indorsed the checks to it. Associated Bank can, in turn, hold the forger, Fausto Pangilinan, liable. If PNB negligently delayed in informing Associated Bank of the forgery, thus depriving the latter of the opportunity to recover from the forger, it forfeits its right to reimbursement and will be made to bear the loss. After careful examination of the records, the Court finds that the Province of Tarlac was equally negligent and should, therefore, share the burden of loss from the checks bearing a forged indorsement. The Province of Tarlac permitted Fausto Pangilinan to collect the checks when the latter, having already retired from government service, was no longer connected with the hospital. With the exception of the first check (dated January 17, 1978), all the checks were issued and released after Pangilinan's retirement on February 28, 1978. After nearly three years, the Treasurer's office was still releasing the checks to the retired cashier. In addition, some of the aid allotment checks were released to Pangilinan and the others to Elizabeth Juco, the new cashier. The fact that there were now two persons collecting the checks for the hospital is an unmistakable sign of an irregularity which should have alerted employees in the Treasurer's office of the fraud being committed. There is also evidence indicating that the provincial employees were aware of Pangilinan's retirement and consequent dissociation from the hospital. Jose Meru, the Provincial Treasurer, testified:. ATTY. MORGA: Q Now, is it true that for a given month there were two releases of checks, one went to Mr. Pangilinan and one went to Miss Juco? JOSE MERU: A Yes, sir. Q Will you please tell us how at the time (sic) when the authorized representative of Concepcion Emergency Hospital is and was supposed to be Miss Juco? A Well, as far as my investigation show (sic) the assistant cashier told me that Pangilinan represented himself as also authorized to help in the release of these checks and we were apparently misled because they accepted the representation of Pangilinan that he was helping them in the release of the checks and besides according to them they were, Pangilinan, like the rest, was able to present an official receipt to acknowledge these receipts and according to them since this is a government check and believed that it will eventually go to the hospital following the standard procedure of negotiating government checks, they released the checks to Pangilinan aside from Miss Juco.34 The failure of the Province of Tarlac to exercise due care contributed to a significant degree to the loss tantamount to negligence. Hence, the Province of Tarlac should be liable for part of the total amount paid on the questioned checks. The drawee bank PNB also breached its duty to pay only according to the terms of the check. Hence, it cannot escape liability and should also bear part of the loss. As earlier stated, PNB can recover from the collecting bank. In the case of Associated Bank v. CA, 35 six crossed checks with forged indorsements were deposited in the forger's account with the collecting bank and were later paid by four different drawee banks. The Court found the collecting bank (Associated) to be negligent and held: The Bank should have first verified his right to endorse the crossed checks, of which he was not the payee, and to deposit the proceeds of the checks to his own account. The Bank was by reason of the nature of the checks put upon notice that they were issued for deposit only to the private respondent's account. . . . The situation in the case at bench is analogous to the above case, for it was not the payee who deposited the checks with the collecting bank. Here, the checks were all payable to Concepcion Emergency Hospital but it was Fausto Pangilinan who deposited the checks in his personal savings account. Although Associated Bank claims that the guarantee stamped on the checks (All prior and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed) is merely a requirement forced upon it by clearing house rules, it cannot but remain liable. The stamp guaranteeing prior indorsements is not an empty rubric which a bank must fulfill for the sake of convenience. A bank is not required to accept all the checks negotiated to it. It is within the bank's discretion to receive a check for no banking institution would consciously or deliberately accept a check bearing a forged indorsement. When a check is deposited with the collecting bank, it takes a risk on its depositor. It is only logical that this bank be held accountable for checks deposited by its customers. A delay in informing the collecting bank (Associated Bank) of the forgery, which deprives it of the opportunity to go after the forger, signifies negligence on the part of the drawee bank (PNB) and will preclude it from claiming reimbursement. It is here that Associated Bank's assignment of error concerning C.B. Circular No. 580 and Section 23 of the Philippine Clearing House Corporation Rules comes to fore. Under Section 4(c) of CB Circular No. 580, items bearing a forged endorsement shall be returned within twenty-Sour (24) hours after discovery of the forgery but in no event beyond the period fixed or provided by law for filing of a legal action by the returning bank. Section 23 of the PCHC Rules deleted the requirement that items bearing a forged endorsement should be returned within twenty-four hours. Associated Bank now argues that the aforementioned Central Bank Circular is applicable. Since PNB did not return the questioned checks within twenty-four hours, but several days later, Associated Bank alleges that PNB should be considered negligent and not entitled to reimbursement of the amount it paid on the checks. The Court deems it unnecessary to discuss Associated Bank's assertions that CB Circular No. 580 is an administrative regulation issued pursuant to law and as such, must prevail over the PCHC rule. The Central Bank circular was in force for all banks until June 1980 when the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC) was set up and commenced operations. Banks in Metro Manila were covered by the PCHC while banks located elsewhere still had to go through Central Bank Clearing. In any event, the twenty-four-hour return rule was adopted by the PCHC until it was changed in 1982. The contending banks herein, which are both branches in Tarlac province, are therefore not covered by PCHC Rules but by CB Circular No. 580. Clearly then, the CB circular was applicable when the forgery of the checks was discovered in 1981. The rule mandates that the checks be returned within twenty-four hours after discovery of the forgery but in no event beyond the period fixed by law for filing a legal action. The rationale of the rule is to give the collecting bank (which indorsed the check) adequate opportunity to proceed against the forger. If prompt notice is not given, the collecting bank maybe prejudiced and lose the opportunity to go after its depositor. The Court finds that even if PNB did not return the questioned checks to Associated Bank within twentyfour hours, as mandated by the rule, PNB did not commit negligent delay. Under the circumstances, PNB gave prompt notice to Associated Bank and the latter bank was not prejudiced in going after Fausto Pangilinan. After the Province of Tarlac informed PNB of the forgeries, PNB necessarily had to inspect the checks and conduct its own investigation. Thereafter, it requested the Provincial Treasurer's office on March 31, 1981 to return the checks for verification. The Province of Tarlac returned the checks only on April 22, 1981. Two days later, Associated Bank received the checks from PNB. 36 Associated Bank was also furnished a copy of the Province's letter of demand to PNB dated March 20, 1981, thus giving it notice of the forgeries. At this time, however, Pangilinan's account with Associated had only P24.63 in it. 37 Had Associated Bank decided to debit Pangilinan's account, it could not have recovered the amounts paid on the questioned checks. In addition, while Associated Bank filed a fourthparty complaint against Fausto Pangilinan, it did not present evidence against Pangilinan and even presented him as its rebuttal witness. 38 Hence, Associated Bank was not prejudiced by PNB's failure to comply with the twenty-four-hour return rule. Next, Associated Bank contends that PNB is estopped from requiring reimbursement because the latter paid and cleared the checks. The Court finds this contention unmeritorious. Even if PNB cleared and paid the checks, it can still recover from Associated Bank. This is true even if the payee's Chief Officer who was supposed to have indorsed the checks is also a customer of the drawee bank. 39 PNB's duty was to verify the genuineness of the drawer's signature and not the genuineness of payee's indorsement. Associated Bank, as the collecting bank, is the entity with the duty to verify the genuineness of the payee's indorsement. PNB also avers that respondent court erred in adjudging circuitous liability by directing PNB to return to the Province of Tarlac the amount of the checks and then directing Associated Bank to reimburse PNB. The Court finds nothing wrong with the mode of the award. The drawer, Province of Tarlac, is a clientor customer of the PNB, not of Associated Bank. There is no privity of contract between the drawer and the collecting bank. The trial court made PNB and Associated Bank liable with legal interest from March 20, 1981, the date of extrajudicial demand made by the Province of Tarlac on PNB. The payments to be made in this case stem from the deposits of the Province of Tarlac in its current account with the PNB. Bank deposits are considered under the law as loans. 40 Central Bank Circular No. 416 prescribes a twelve percent (12%) interest per annum for loans, forebearance of money, goods or credits in the absence of express stipulation. Normally, current accounts are likewise interest-bearing, by express contract, thus excluding them from the coverage of CB Circular No. 416. In this case, however, the actual interest rate, if any, for the current account opened by the Province of Tarlac with PNB was not given in evidence. Hence, the Court deems it wise to affirm the trial court's use of the legal interest rate, or six percent (6%) per annum. The interest rate shall be computed from the date of default, or the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand. 41 The trial court did not err in granting legal interest from March 20, 1981, the date of extrajudicial demand. The Court finds as reasonable, the proportionate sharing of fifty percent - fifty percent (50%-50%). Due to the negligence of the Province of Tarlac in releasing the checks to an unauthorized person (Fausto Pangilinan), in allowing the retired hospital cashier to receive the checks for the payee hospital for a period close to three years and in not properly ascertaining why the retired hospital cashier was collecting checks for the payee hospital in addition to the hospital's real cashier, respondent Province contributed to the loss amounting to P203,300.00 and shall be liable to the PNB for fifty (50%) percent thereof. In effect, the Province of Tarlac can only recover fifty percent (50%) of P203,300.00 from PNB. The collecting bank, Associated Bank, shall be liable to PNB for fifty (50%) percent of P203,300.00. It is liable on its warranties as indorser of the checks which were deposited by Fausto Pangilinan, having guaranteed the genuineness of all prior indorsements, including that of the chief of the payee hospital, Dr. Adena Canlas. Associated Bank was also remiss in its duty to ascertain the genuineness of the payee's indorsement. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (formerly ASIANBANK CORPORATION)Petitioner,versus -BA FINANCE CORPORATION and MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., Held: B. Asianbank, as collecting bank, is not liable to BA Finance as there was no privity of contract between them. Petitioner’s 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. payees.18[28] The payment of an instrument over a missing indorsement is the equivalent of payment on a forged indorsement17[27] or an unauthorized indorsement in itself in the case of joint 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.19[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”20[32] and, for all intents and purposes, treats the check as a negotiable instrument, hence, assumes the warranty of an indorser.21[33] Without 17 18 19 20 21 Asianbank’s warranty, the drawee bank (China Bank in this case) would not have paid the value of the subject check. Section 41 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides: Where an instrument is payable to the order of two or more payees or indorsees who are not partners, all must indorse unless 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 Bitanga’s co-payee BA Finance to endorse it on its behalf.22[25] Denying any irregularity in accepting the check, petitioner maintains that it followed normal banking procedure. The testimony of Imelda Cruz, Asianbank’s then accounting head, shows otherwise, however, viz: Q A Q A Now, could you be familiar with a particular policy of the bank with respect to checks with joined (sic) payees? Yes, sir. And what would be the particular policy of the bank regarding this transaction? The 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). What happened to the bank employee who allowed this particular transaction to occur? Once the branch personnel, the bank personnel (sic) accepted it, he is liable. What do you mean by the branch personnel being held liable? Because 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. In your experience, have you encountered any bank employee who was subjected to disciplinary action by not following bank policies? Q A Q A Q 22 A Q A The one that happened in that case, since I really don’t know who that personnel is, he is no longer connected with the bank. What about in general, do you know of any disciplinary action, Madam witness? Since there’s a negligence on the part of the bank personnel, it will be a ground for his separation [from] the bank. 23[26] (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) Admittedly, petitioner dismissed the employee who allowed the deposit of the check in Bitanga’s account. Petitioner’s 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. payees.25[28] The payment of an instrument over a missing indorsement is the equivalent of payment on a forged indorsement24[27] or an unauthorized indorsement in itself in the case of joint Clearly, 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.26[29] As 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. 27[30] Undoubtedly, BA Finance has a cause of action against petitioner. 23 24 25 26 27 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. Petitioner’s argument is flawed. The provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law and underlying jurisprudential teachings on the black-letter law provide definitive justification for petitioner’s 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.28[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”29[32] and, for all intents and purposes, 28 29 treats the check as a negotiable instrument, hence, assumes the warranty of an indorser.30[33] Without Asianbank’s 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.31[34] FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. GOLD PALACE JEWELLERY CO., AS REPRESENTED BY JUDY L. YANG, JULIE YANG-GO AND KHO SOON HUAT, RESPONDENT. Act No. 2031, or the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), explicitly provides that the acceptor, by accepting the instrument, engages that he will pay it according to the tenor of his acceptance .[33] This provision applies with equal force in case the drawee pays a bill without having previously accepted it. His actual payment of the amount in the check implies not only his assent to the order of the drawer and a recognition of his corresponding obligation to pay the aforementioned sum, but also, his clear compliance with that obligation.[34] Actual payment by the drawee is greater than his acceptance, which is merely a promise in writing to pay. The payment of a check includes its acceptance.[35] Unmistakable herein is the fact that the drawee bank cleared and paid the subject foreign draft and forwarded the amount thereof to the collecting bank. The latter then credited to Gold Palace's account the payment it received. Following the plain language of the law, the drawee, by the said payment, recognized and complied with its obligation to pay in accordance with the tenor of his acceptance. The tenor of the acceptance is determined by the terms of the bill as it is when the drawee accepts.[36] Stated simply, LBP was liable on its payment of the check according to the tenor of the check at the time of payment, which was the raised amount. Because of that engagement, LBP could no longer repudiate the payment it erroneously made to a due course holder. We note at this point that Gold Palace was not a participant in the alteration of the draft, was not negligent, and was a holder in due course--it received the draft complete and regular on its face, before it became overdue and without notice of any dishonor, in good faith and for value, and absent any knowledge of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.[37] Having relied on the drawee bank's clearance and payment of the draft and not being negligent (it delivered the purchased jewelry only when the draft was cleared and paid), respondent is amply protected by the said Section 62. Commercial policy favors the protection of any one who, in due course, changes his position on the faith of the drawee bank's clearance and payment of a check or draft. [38] This construction and application of the law gives effect to the plain language of the NIL [39] and is in line with the sound principle that where one of two innocent parties must suffer a loss, the law will leave the loss where it finds it.[40] It further reasserts the usefulness, stability and currency of negotiable paper without seriously endangering accepted banking practices. Indeed, banking institutions can readily protect themselves against liability on altered instruments either by qualifying their acceptance or 30 31 certification, or by relying on forgery insurance and special paper which will make alterations obvious.[41] This is not to mention, but we state nevertheless for emphasis, that the drawee bank, in most cases, is in a better position, compared to the holder, to verify with the drawer the matters stated in the instrument. As we have observed in this case, were it not for LBP's communication with the drawer that its account in the Philippines was being depleted after the subject foreign draft had been encashed, then, the alteration would not have been discovered. What we cannot understand is why LBP, having the most convenient means to correspond with UOB, did not first verify the amount of the draft before it cleared and paid the same. Gold Palace, on the other hand, had no facility to ascertain with the drawer, UOB Malaysia, the true amount in the draft. It was left with no option but to rely on the representations of LBP that the draft was good. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is not closing its eyes to the other view espoused in common law jurisdictions that a drawee bank, having paid to an innocent holder the amount of an uncertified, altered check in good faith and without negligence which contributed to the loss, could recover from the person to whom payment was made as for money paid by mistake .[42] However, given the foregoing discussion, we find no compelling reason to apply the principle to the instant case. The Court is also aware that under the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States of America, if an unaccepted draft is presented to a drawee for payment or acceptance and the drawee pays or accepts the draft, the person obtaining payment or acceptance, at the time of presentment, and a previous transferor of the draft, at the time of transfer, warrant to the drawee making payment or accepting the draft in good faith that the draft has not been altered.[43] Nonetheless, absent any similar provision in our law, we cannot extend the same preferential treatment to the paying bank. Thus, considering that, in this case, Gold Palace is protected by Section 62 of the NIL, its collecting agent, Far East, should not have debited the money paid by the drawee bank from respondent company's account. When Gold Palace deposited the check with Far East, the latter, under the terms of the deposit and the provisions of the NIL, became an agent of the former for the collection of the amount in the draft.[44] The subsequent payment by the drawee bank and the collection of the amount by the collecting bank closed the transaction insofar as the drawee and the holder of the check or his agent are concerned, converted the check into a mere voucher,[45] and, as already discussed, foreclosed the recovery by the drawee of the amount paid. This closure of the transaction is a matter of course; otherwise, uncertainty in commercial transactions, delay and annoyance will arise if a bank at some future time will call on the payee for the return of the money paid to him on the check.[46] As the transaction in this case had been closed and the principal-agent relationship between the payee and the collecting bank had already ceased, the latter in returning the amount to the drawee bank was already acting on its own and should now be responsible for its own actions. Neither can petitioner be considered to have acted as the representative of the drawee bank when it debited respondent's account, because, as already explained, the drawee bank had no right to recover what it paid. Likewise, Far East cannot invoke the warranty of the payee/depositor who indorsed the instrument for collection to shift the burden it brought upon itself. This is precisely because the said indorsement is only for purposes of collection which, under Section 36 of the NIL, is a restrictive indorsement.[47] It did not in any way transfer the title of the instrument to the collecting bank. Far East did not own the draft, it merely presented it for payment. Considering that the warranties of a general indorser as provided in Section 66 of the NIL are based upon a transfer of title and are available only to holders in due course, [48] these warranties did not attach to the indorsement for deposit and collection made by Gold Palace to Far East. Without any legal right to do so, the collecting bank, therefore, could not debit respondent's account for the amount it refunded to the drawee bank. The foregoing considered, we affirm the ruling of the appellate court to the extent that Far East could not debit the account of Gold Palace, and for doing so, it must return what it had erroneously taken. Far East's remedy under the law is not against Gold Palace but against the drawee-bank or the person responsible for the alteration. That, however, is another issue which we do not find necessary to discuss in this case. However, we delete the exemplary damages awarded by the appellate court. Respondents have not shown that they are entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages.[49] Neither was petitioner impelled by malice or bad faith in debiting the account of the respondent company and in pursuing its cause.[50] On the contrary, petitioner was honestly convinced of the propriety of the debit. We also delete the award of attorney's fees for, in a plethora of cases, we have ruled that it is not a sound public policy to place a premium on the right to litigate. No damages can be charged to those who exercise such precious right in good faith, even if done erroneously.[