Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Petitioner Vs Ca, Respondents. GR No. 166260 Facts
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Petitioner Vs Ca, Respondents. GR No. 166260 Facts
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Petitioner Vs Ca, Respondents. GR No. 166260 Facts
Check No. 080126638 dated January 13, 1997, payable to Petitioner instituted the instant petition for review
cash, and drawn against the account of Bienvenido C. Tan on certiorari before this Court. The petition is denied.
with petitioner Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company
(Metrobank) was deposited with respondent United Overseas ISSUE:
Bank (UOB). Metrobank cleared the check, however, it Whether or not the PCHC Rules can confer jurisdiction on the
informed UOB that it was returning the check on account of RTC to review arbitral awards.
material alteration. The date was changed from January 23,
1997 to January 13, 1997, and the amount was altered HELD:
from P1,000.00 to P91,000.00. No. PCHC Rules cannot confer jurisdiction on the RTC to
review arbitral awards. The petitioner had several judicial
UOB refused to accept the return and to reimburse remedies available at its disposal after the Arbitration
Metrobank the amount it paid on the check. The latter filed a Committee denied its Motion for Reconsideration. It may
Complaint, contending that since UOB failed to exercise due petition the proper RTC to issue an order vacating the award
diligence in determining that the check had been altered, it on the grounds provided for under Section 24 of the
should bear the loss. In its Answer with Counterclaim, UOB Arbitration Law. Petitioner likewise has the option to file a
interposed the defenses that it exercised due diligence, and petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with
that Metrobank failed to comply with the 24-hour clearing the Court of Appeals on questions of fact, of law, or mixed
house rule, and, with gross negligence, cleared the check. questions of fact and law. Lastly, petitioner may file a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the
After almost a year, Metrobank moved for the postponement ground that the Arbitrator Committee acted without or in
of the hearings, on the ground that the PNP Crime Laboratory excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
document examination results were not yet available. In the amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Since this case
scheduled December 10, 1998 hearing, Metrobanks counsel involves acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, the
failed to appear. UOB thus moved for the dismissal of the petition should be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of
case, which the Arbitration Committee granted. Appeals.
Metrobank filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the The trial court, in this case, properly dismissed Civil Case No.
dismissal order, attaching thereto a copy of the Medical 00-595 for lack of jurisdiction, not because the petition had
Certificate declaring that its counsel had been afflicted with been filed out of time, but because the court had no
influenza and a copy of PNP Crime Laboratory Document jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition.
Examination Report No. 102-98 stating that the subject check
had been altered. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL VS. SIMA WEI, ET AL.
G.R. NO. 85419
UOB opposed the motion and argued that Metrobank was
not serious in prosecuting the case considering the numerous FACTS:
postponements of hearings made by its counsel. Further, the Respondent Sima Wei executed and delivered to petitioner
examination by the PNP Crime Laboratory of the check had Bank a promissory note engaging to pay the petitioner Bank
already been completed on July 6, 1998. The Arbitration or order the amount of P1,820,000.00. Sima Wei
Committee denied Metrobank’s motion. Metrobank filed its subsequently issued two crossed checks payable to petitioner
Second Motion for Reconsideration. Bank drawn against China Banking Corporation in full
settlement of the drawer's account evidenced by the
The PCHC Board of Directors issued Resolution denying the promissory note. These two checks however were not
second motion for reconsideration. Metrobank again moved delivered to the petitioner-payee or to any of its authorized
for the reconsideration of this resolution. However, it representatives but instead came into the possession of
received communication from the PCHC Executive Secretary respondent Lee Kian Huat, who deposited the checks without
informing it that the proper remedy was for it to file a notice the petitioner-payee's indorsement to the account of
of appeal with the PCHC and a petition for review with the respondent Plastic Corporation with Producers Bank. Inspite
Regional Trial Court (RTC) within a non-extendible period of of the fact that the checks were crossed and payable to
fifteen (15) days counted from the receipt of the PCHC board petitioner Bank and bore no indorsement of the latter, the
resolution. Branch Manager of Producers Bank authorized the
acceptance of the checks for deposit and credited them to
the account of said Plastic Corporation.
ISSUES:
ISSUE: Whether BA Finance has a cause of action against
Whether or not the petitioner Bank has a cause of action Metrobank even if the subject check had not been delivered
against Sima Wei for the undelivered checks. to BA Finance by the issuer itself?
Is Metrobank liable to BA Finance for the full value of
HELD: the check, under the Negotiable Instruments Law?
No. A negotiable instrument must be delivered to the payee
in order to evidence its existence as a binding HELD:
contract. Section 16 of the NIL provides that every contract YES. Section 41 of the Negotiable Instruments
on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable Law provides:
until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving Where an instrument is payable to the order of two
effect thereto. Thus, the payee of a negotiable instrument or more payees or indorsees who are not partners, all must
acquires no interest with respect thereto until its delivery to indorse unless the one indorsing has authority to indorse for
him. Without the initial delivery of the instrument from the the others.
drawer to the payee, there can be no liability on the Bitanga alone endorsed the crossed check, and
instrument. Petitioner however has a right of action against petitioner allowed the deposit and release of the proceeds
Sima Wei for the balance due on the promissory note. thereof, despite the absence of authority of Bitangas co-
payee BA Finance to endorse it on its behalf. Petitioners
argument that since there was neither forgery, nor
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (formerly unauthorized indorsement because Bitanga was a co-payee in
ASIANBANK CORPORATION) V. BA FINANCE CORPORATION the subject check, the dictum in Associated Bank v.
and MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. INC. CA does not apply in the present case fails. The payment of
G.R. No. 179952 an instrument over a missing indorsement is the equivalent of
payment on a forged indorsement or an unauthorized
FACTS: indorsement in itself in the case of joint payees.
Lamberto Bitanga (Bitanga) obtained from respondent Accordingly, one who credits the proceeds of a check
BA Finance Corporation (BA Finance) a loan to secure which, to the account of the indorsing payee is liable in conversion
he mortgaged his car to respondent BA Finance. Bitanga thus to the non-indorsing payee for the entireamount of the
had the mortgaged car insured by respondent Malayan check.
Insurance Co., Inc. (Malayan Insurance). The car was
stolen. On Bitangas claim, Malayan Insurance issued a check YES. Section 68 of the Negotiable Instruments
payable to the order of B.A. Finance Law instructs that joint payees who indorse are deemed
Corporation and Lamberto Bitanga for P224,500, drawn to indorse jointly and severally. When the maker dishonors
against China Banking Corporation (China Bank). The check the instrument, the holder thereof can turn to those
was crossed with the notation For Deposit Payees secondarily liable the indorser for recovery.
Account Only. A collecting bank, Asianbank in this case, where a
Without the indorsement or authority of his co-payee check is deposited and which indorses the check upon
BA Finance, Bitanga deposited the check to his account with presentment with the drawee bank, is an indorser. his is
the Asianbank Corporation (Asianbank), now merged with because in indorsing a check to the drawee bank, a collecting
petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company bank stamps the back of the check with the phrase all prior
(Metrobank). Bitanga subsequently withdrew the entire endorsements and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed and,
proceeds of the check. for all intents and purposes, treats the check as a negotiable
In the meantime, Bitangas loan became past due, but instrument, hence, assumes the warranty of an indorser.
despite demands, he failed to settle it. BA Finance thereupon Petitioner, as the collecting bank or last indorser,
demanded the payment of the value of the check from generally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain
Asianbank but to no avail, prompting it to file a complaint for the genuineness of all prior indorsements considering that
sum of money and damages against Asianbank and Bitanga the act of presenting the check for payment to the drawee is
alleging that, inter alia, it is entitled to the entire proceeds of an assertion that the party making the presentment has done
the check. its duty to ascertain the genuineness of prior indorsements.
On the issue of whether or not BA Finance has a cause
of action, Metrobank contends that 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. Absent the indispensable fact of forgery or
unauthorized indorsement, the payee may not recover from
the collecting bank.
REPUBLIC BANK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, (a) The matters and things mentioned in
VS. subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of the next
MAURICIA T. EBRADA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. preceding sections;
G.R. NO. L-40796 (b) That the instrument is at the time of his
indorsement valid and subsisting.
FACTS:
Francisco Realty & Development Corporation (AFRDC), of
which petitioner Francisco is the president, entered into a
Land Development and Construction Contract with private
respondent Herby Commercial & Construction Corporation
(HCCC), represented by its President and General Manager
private respondent Ong. Under the contract, HCCC was to be
paid on the basis of the completed houses and developed
lands delivered to and accepted by AFRDC and the GSIS. To
facilitate payment, AFRDC executed a Deed of Assignment in
favor of HCCC to enable the latter to collect payments directly
from the GSIS. Furthermore, the GSIS and AFRDC put up an
Executive Committee Account with the Insular Bank of Asia &
America (IBAA) in the amount of P4,000,000.00 from which
checks would be issued and co-signed by petitioner Francisco
and the GSIS Vice-President Armando Diaz Sometime in 1979,
Ong discovered that Diaz and Francisco, the Vice-President of
GSIS, had executed and signed seven checks of various dates
and amounts payable to HCCC for completed and delivered
work under the contract. Ong, however, claims that these
checks were never delivered to HCCC. It turned out that
Francisco forged the indorsement of Ong on the checks and
indorsed the checks for a second time by signing her name at
the back of the checks, petitioner then deposited said checks
in her savings account. A case was brought by private
respondents against petitioner to recover the value of said
checks. Petitioner however claims that she was authorized to
sign Ong's name on the checks by virtue of the Certification
executed by Ong in her favor giving her the authority to
collect all the receivables of HCCC from the GSIS, including
the questioned checks.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner cannot be held liable on the questioned
checks by virtue of the Certification executed by Ong giving
her the authority to collect such checks from the GSIS.