G.R. No. 93397 March 3, 1997 TRADERS ROYAL BANK, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, FILRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION and CENTRAL BANK of the PHILIPPINES, respondents.

PhilFinance, which authorization is specifically phrased as follows: '(Filriters) hereby irrevocably authorized the said issuer (Central Bank) to transfer the said bond/certificates on the books of its fiscal agent; 5. On February 4, 1981, petitioner entered into a Repurchase Agreement with PhilFinance . . ., whereby, for and in consideration of the sum of PESOS: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00), PhilFinance sold, transferred and delivered to petitioner CBCI 4year, 8th series, Serial No. D891 with a face value of P500,000.00 . . ., which CBCI was among those previously acquired by PhilFinance from Filriters as averred in paragraph 3 of the Petition; 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid Repurchase Agreement (Annex "B"), Philfinance agreed to repurchase CBCI Serial No. D891 (Annex "C"), at the stipulated price of PESOS: FIVE HUNDRED NINETEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE & 11/100 (P519,361.11) on April 27, 1981; 7. PhilFinance failed to repurchase the CBCI on the agreed date of maturity, April 27, 1981, when the checks it issued in favor of petitioner were dishonored for insufficient funds; 8. Owing to the default of PhilFinance, it executed a Detached Assignment in favor of the Petitioner to enable the latter to have its title completed and registered in the books of the respondent. And by means of said Detachment, Philfinance transferred and assigned all, its rights and title in the said CBCI (Annex "C") to petitioner and, furthermore, it did thereby "irrevocably authorize the said issuer (respondent herein) to transfer the said bond/certificate on the books of its fiscal agent." . . . 9. Petitioner presented the CBCI (Annex "C"), together with the two (2) aforementioned Detached Assignments (Annexes "B" and "D"), to the Securities Servicing Department of the respondent, and requested the latter to effect the transfer of the CBCI

TORRES, JR., J.: Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated January 29, 1990, 1 affirming the nullity of the transfer of Central Bank Certificate of Indebtedness (CBCI) No. D891, 2 with a face value of P500,000.00, from the Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (Philfinance) to the petitioner Trader's Royal Bank (TRB), under a Repurchase Agreement 3 dated February 4, 1981, and a Detached Assignment 4 dated April 27, 1981. Docketed as Civil Case No. 83-17966 in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, the action was originally filed as a Petition for Mandamus 5 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to compel the Central Bank of the Philippines to register the transfer of the subject CBCI to petitioner Traders Royal Bank (TRB). In the said petition, TRB stated that: 3. On November 27, 1979, Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation (Filriters) executed a "Detached Assignment" . . ., whereby Filriters, as registered owner, sold, transferred, assigned and delivered unto Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (Philfinance) all its rights and title to Central Bank Certificates of Indebtedness of PESOS: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000) and having an aggregate value of PESOS: THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P3,500,000.00); 4. The aforesaid Detached Assignment (Annex "A") contains an express authorization executed by the transferor intended to complete the assignment through the registration of the transfer in the name of

on its books and to issue a new certificate in the name of petitioner as absolute owner thereof; 10. Respondent failed and refused to register the transfer as requested, and continues to do so notwithstanding petitioner's valid and just title over the same and despite repeated demands in writing, the latest of which is hereto attached as Annex "E" and made an integral part hereof; 11. The express provisions governing the transfer of the CBCI were substantially complied with the petitioner's request for registration, to wit: "No transfer thereof shall be valid unless made at said office (where the Certificate has been registered) by the registered owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, and similarly noted hereon, and upon payment of a nominal transfer fee which may be required, a new Certificate shall be issued to the transferee of the registered holder thereof." and, without a doubt, the Detached Assignments presented to respondent were sufficient authorizations in writing executed by the registered owner, Filriters, and its transferee, PhilFinance, as required by the above-quoted provision; 12. Upon such compliance with the aforesaid requirements, the ministerial duties of registering a transfer of ownership over the CBCI and issuing a new certificate to the transferee devolves upon the respondent; Upon these assertions, TRB prayed for the registration by the Central Bank of the subject CBCI in its name. On December 4, 1984, the Regional Trial Court the case took cognizance of the defendant Central Bank of the Philippines' Motion for Admission of Amended Answer with Counter Claim for

Interpleader 6 thereby calling to fore the respondent Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation (Filriters), the registered owner of the subject CBCI as respondent. For its part, Filriters interjected as Special Defenses the following: 11. Respondent is the registered owner of CBCI No. 891; 12. The CBCI constitutes part of the reserve investment against liabilities required of respondent as an insurance company under the Insurance Code; 13. Without any consideration or benefit whatsoever to Filriters, in violation of law and the trust fund doctrine and to the prejudice of policyholders and to all who have present or future claim against policies issued by Filriters, Alfredo Banaria, then Senior Vice-President-Treasury of Filriters, without any board resolution, knowledge or consent of the board of directors of Filriters, and without any clearance or authorization from the Insurance Commissioner, executed a detached assignment purportedly assigning CBCI No. 891 to Philfinance; xxx xxx xxx 14. Subsequently, Alberto Fabella, Senior Vice-PresidentComptroller are Pilar Jacobe, Vice-President-Treasury of Filriters (both of whom were holding the same positions in Philfinance), without any consideration or benefit redounding to Filriters and to the grave prejudice of Filriters, its policy holders and all who have present or future claims against its policies, executed similar detached assignment forms transferring the CBCI to plaintiff; xxx xxx xxx 15. The detached assignment is patently void and inoperative because the assignment is without the knowledge and consent of directors of Filriters, and not duly authorized in writing by the Board, as requiring by Article V, Section 3 of CB Circular No. 769;

16. The assignment of the CBCI to Philfinance is a personal act of Alfredo Banaria and not the corporate act of Filriters and such null and void; a) The assignment was executed without consideration and for that reason, the assignment is void from the beginning (Article 1409, Civil Code); b) The assignment was executed without any knowledge and consent of the board of directors of Filriters; c) The CBCI constitutes reserve investment of Filriters against liabilities, which is a requirement under the Insurance Code for its existence as an insurance company and the pursuit of its business operations. The assignment of the CBCI is illegal act in the sense of malum in se or malum prohibitum, for anyone to make, either as corporate or personal act; d) The transfer of dimunition of reserve investments of Filriters is expressly prohibited by law, is immoral and against public policy; e) The assignment of the CBCI has resulted in the capital impairment and in the solvency deficiency of Filriters (and has in fact helped in placing Filriters under conservatorship), an inevitable result known to the officer who executed assignment. 17. Plaintiff had acted in bad faith and with knowledge of the illegality and invalidity of the assignment. a) The CBCI No. 891 is not a negotiable instrument and as a certificate of indebtedness is not payable to bearer but is a registered in the name of Filriters; b) The provision on transfer of the CBCIs provides that the Central Bank shall treat the registered owner as the absolute owner and that the value of the registered certificates shall be payable only to the registered owner; a sufficient notice to plaintiff that the assignments do not give them the registered owner's right as absolute owner of the CBCI's;

c) CB Circular 769, Series of 1980 (Rules and Regulations Governing CBCIs) provides that the registered certificates are payable only to the registered owner (Article II, Section 1). 18. Plaintiff knew full well that the assignment by Philfinance of CBCI No. 891 by Filriters is not a regular transaction made in the usual of ordinary course of business; a) The CBCI constitutes part of the reserve investments of Filriters against liabilities requires by the Insurance Code and its assignment or transfer is expressly prohibited by law. There was no attempt to get any clearance or authorization from the Insurance Commissioner; b) The assignment by Filriters of the CBCI is clearly not a transaction in the usual or regular course of its business; c) The CBCI involved substantial amount and its assignment clearly constitutes disposition of "all or substantially all" of the assets of Filriters, which requires the affirmative action of the stockholders (Section 40, Corporation [sic] Code. 7 In its Decision 8 dated April 29, 1988, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXIII found the assignment of CBCI No. D891 in favor of Philfinance, and the subsequent assignment of the same CBCI by Philfinance in favor of Traders Royal Bank null and void and of no force and effect. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the respondent Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation and against the plaintiff Traders Royal Bank: (a) Declaring the assignment of CBCI No. 891 in favor of PhilFinance, and the subsequent assignment of CBCI by PhilFinance in favor of the plaintiff Traders Royal Bank as null and void and of no force and effect; (b) Ordering the respondent Central Bank of the Philippines to disregard the said assignment and to pay the value of the proceeds of the CBCI No. D891 to the Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation;

(c) Ordering the plaintiff Traders Royal Bank to pay respondent Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corp. The sum of P10,000 as attorney's fees; and (d) to pay the costs. SO ORDERED. 9 The petitioner assailed the decision of the trial court in the Court of Appeals 10, but their appeals likewise failed. The findings of the fact of the said court are hereby reproduced: The records reveal that defendant Filriters is the registered owner of CBCI No. D891. Under a deed of assignment dated November 27, 1971, Filriters transferred CBCI No. D891 to Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (Philfinance). Subsequently, Philfinance transferred CBCI No. D891, which was still registered in the name of Filriters, to appellant Traders Royal Bank (TRB). The transfer was made under a repurchase agreement dated February 4, 1981, granting Philfinance the right to repurchase the instrument on or before April 27, 1981. When Philfinance failed to buy back the note on maturity date, it executed a deed of assignment, dated April 27, 1981, conveying to appellant TRB all its right and the title to CBCI No. D891. Armed with the deed of assignment, TRB then sought the transfer and registration of CBCI No. D891 in its name before the Security and Servicing Department of the Central Bank (CB). Central Bank, however, refused to effect the transfer and registration in view of an adverse claim filed by defendant Filriters. Left with no other recourse, TRB filed a special civil action for mandamus against the Central Bank in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The suit, however, was subsequently treated by the lower court as a case of interpleader when CB prayed in its amended answer that Filriters be impleaded as a respondent and the court adjudge which of them is entitled to the ownership of CBCI No. D891. Failing to get a favorable judgment. TRB now comes to this Court on appeal. 11

In the appellate court, petitioner argued that the subject CBCI was a negotiable instrument, and having acquired the said certificate from Philfinance as a holder in due course, its possession of the same is thus free fro any defect of title of prior parties and from any defense available to prior parties among themselves, and it may thus, enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof against all parties liable thereon. 12 In ignoring said argument, the appellate court that the CBCI is not a negotiable instrument, since the instrument clearly stated that it was payable to Filriters, the registered owner, whose name was inscribed thereon, and that the certificate lacked the words of negotiability which serve as an expression of consent that the instrument may be transferred by negotiation. Obviously, the assignment of the certificate from Filriters to Philfinance was fictitious, having made without consideration, and did not conform to Central Bank Circular No. 769, series of 1980, better known as the "Rules and Regulations Governing Central Bank Certificates of Indebtedness", which provided that any "assignment of registered certificates shall not be valid unless made . . . by the registered owner thereof in person or by his representative duly authorized in writing." Petitioner's claimed interest has no basis, since it was derived from Philfinance whose interest was inexistent, having acquired the certificate through simulation. What happened was Philfinance merely borrowed CBCI No. D891 from Filriters, a sister corporation, to guarantee its financing operations. Said the Court: In the case at bar, Alfredo O. Banaria, who signed the deed of assignment purportedly for and on behalf of Filriters, did not have the necessary written authorization from the Board of Directors of Filriters to act for the latter. For lack of such authority, the assignment did not therefore bind Filriters and violated as the same time Central Bank Circular No. 769 which has the force and effect of a law, resulting in the nullity of the transfer (People v. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; 3M Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 165 SCRA 778).

In sum, Philfinance acquired no title or rights under CBCI No. D891 which it could assign or transfer to Traders Royal Bank and which the latter can register with the Central Bank. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED, with costs against plaintiff-appellant. SO ORDERED. 13 Petitioner's present position rests solely on the argument that Philfinance owns 90% of Filriters equity and the two corporations have identical corporate officers, thus demanding the application of the doctrine or piercing the veil of corporate fiction, as to give validity to the transfer of the CBCI from registered owner to petitioner TRB. 14 This renders the payment by TRB to Philfinance of CBCI, as actual payment to Filriters. Thus, there is no merit to the lower court's ruling that the transfer of the CBCI from Filriters to Philfinance was null and void for lack of consideration. Admittedly, the subject CBCI is not a negotiable instrument in the absence of words of negotiability within the meaning of the negotiable instruments law (Act 2031). The pertinent portions of the subject CBCI read: xxx xxx xxx The Central Bank of the Philippines (the Bank) for value received, hereby promises to pay bearer, of if this Certificate of indebtedness be registered, to FILRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, the registered owner hereof, the principal sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS. xxx xxx xxx Properly understood, a certificate of indebtedness pertains to certificates for the creation and maintenance of a permanent improvement revolving fund, is similar to a "bond," (82 Minn. 202). Being equivalent to a bond, it is properly understood as acknowledgment of an obligation to pay a fixed sum of money. It is usually used for the purpose of long term loans.

The appellate court ruled that the subject CBCI is not a negotiable instrument, stating that: As worded, the instrument provides a promise "to pay Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, the registered owner hereof." Very clearly, the instrument is payable only to Filriters, the registered owner, whose name is inscribed thereon. It lacks the words of negotiability which should have served as an expression of consent that the instrument may be transferred by negotiation. 15 A reading of the subject CBCI indicates that the same is payable to FILRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, and to no one else, thus, discounting the petitioner's submission that the same is a negotiable instrument, and that it is a holder in due course of the certificate. The language of negotiability which characterize a negotiable paper as a credit instrument is its freedom to circulate as a substitute for money. Hence, freedom of negotiability is the touchtone relating to the protection of holders in due course, and the freedom of negotiability is the foundation for the protection which the law throws around a holder in due course (11 Am. Jur. 2d, 32). This freedom in negotiability is totally absent in a certificate indebtedness as it merely to pay a sum of money to a specified person or entity for a period of time. As held in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
16

The accepted rule is that the negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is determined from the writing, that is, from the face of the instrument itself. In the construction of a bill or note, the intention of the parties is to control, if it can be legally ascertained. While the writing may be read in the light of surrounding circumstance in order to more perfectly understand the intent and meaning of the parties, yet as they have constituted the writing to be the only outward and visible expression of their meaning, no other words are to be added to it or substituted in its stead. The duty of the court in such case is to ascertain, not what the parties may have secretly intended as contradistinguished from what their words express, but what is the meaning of the words they have used. What the parties meant must be determined by what they said.

Thus, the transfer of the instrument from Philfinance to TRB was merely an assignment, and is not governed by the negotiable instruments law. The pertinent question then is, was the transfer of the CBCI from Filriters to Philfinance and subsequently from Philfinance to TRB, in accord with existing law, so as to entitle TRB to have the CBCI registered in its name with the Central Bank? The following are the appellate court's pronouncements on the matter: Clearly shown in the record is the fact that Philfinance's title over CBCI No. D891 is defective since it acquired the instrument from Filriters fictitiously. Although the deed of assignment stated that the transfer was for "value received", there was really no consideration involved. What happened was Philfinance merely borrowed CBCI No. D891 from Filriters, a sister corporation. Thus, for lack of any consideration, the assignment made is a complete nullity. What is more, We find that the transfer made by Filriters to Philfinance did not conform to Central Bank Circular No. 769, series of 1980, otherwise known as the "Rules and Regulations Governing Central Bank Certificates of Indebtedness", under which the note was issued. Published in the Official Gazette on November 19, 1980, Section 3 thereof provides that any assignment of registered certificates shall not be valid unless made . . . by the registered owner thereof in person or by his representative duly authorized in writing. In the case at bar, Alfredo O. Banaria, who signed the deed of assignment purportedly for and on behalf of Filriters, did not have the necessary written authorization from the Board of Directors of Filriters to act for the latter. For lack of such authority, the assignment did not therefore bind Filriters and violated at the same time Central Bank Circular No. 769 which has the force and effect of a law, resulting in the nullity of the transfer (People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; 3M Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 165 SCRA 778). In sum, Philfinance acquired no title or rights under CBCI No. D891 which it could assign or transfer to Traders Royal Bank and which the latter can register with the Central Bank

Petitioner now argues that the transfer of the subject CBCI to TRB must upheld, as the respondent Filriters and Philfinance, though separate corporate entities on paper, have used their corporate fiction to defraud TRB into purchasing the subject CBCI, which purchase now is refused registration by the Central Bank. Says the petitioner; Since Philfinance own about 90% of Filriters and the two companies have the same corporate officers, if the principle of piercing the veil of corporate entity were to be applied in this case, then TRB's payment to Philfinance for the CBCI purchased by it could just as well be considered a payment to Filriters, the registered owner of the CBCI as to bar the latter from claiming, as it has, that it never received any payment for that CBCI sold and that said CBCI was sold without its authority. xxx xxx xxx We respectfully submit that, considering that the Court of Appeals has held that the CBCI was merely borrowed by Philfinance from Filriters, a sister corporation, to guarantee its (Philfinance's) financing operations, if it were to be consistent therewith, on the issued raised by TRB that there was a piercing a veil of corporate entity, the Court of Appeals should have ruled that such veil of corporate entity was, in fact, pierced, and the payment by TRB to Philfinance should be construed as payment to Filriters. 17 We disagree with Petitioner. Petitioner cannot put up the excuse of piercing the veil of corporate entity, as this merely an equitable remedy, and may be awarded only in cases when the corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime or where a corporation is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person. 18 Peiercing the veil of corporate entity requires the court to see through the protective shroud which exempts its stockholders from liabilities that ordinarily, they could be subject to, or distinguished one corporation from a seemingly separate one, were it not for the existing corporate fiction. But to do this, the court must be sure that the corporate fiction was misused, to such an extent that injustice,

fraud, or crime was committed upon another, disregarding, thus, his, her, or its rights. It is the protection of the interests of innocent third persons dealing with the corporate entity which the law aims to protect by this doctrine. The corporate separateness between Filriters and Philfinance remains, despite the petitioners insistence on the contrary. For one, other than the allegation that Filriters is 90% owned by Philfinance, and the identity of one shall be maintained as to the other, there is nothing else which could lead the court under circumstance to disregard their corporate personalities. Though it is true that when valid reasons exist, the legal fiction that a corporation is an entity with a juridical personality separate from its stockholders and from other corporations may be disregarded, 19 in the absence of such grounds, the general rule must upheld. The fact that Filfinance owns majority shares in Filriters is not by itself a ground to disregard the independent corporate status of Filriters. In Liddel & Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 20 the mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of separate corporate personalities. In the case at bar, there is sufficient showing that the petitioner was not defrauded at all when it acquired the subject certificate of indebtedness from Philfinance. On its face the subject certificates states that it is registered in the name of Filriters. This should have put the petitioner on notice, and prompted it to inquire from Filriters as to Philfinance's title over the same or its authority to assign the certificate. As it is, there is no showing to the effect that petitioner had any dealings whatsoever with Filriters, nor did it make inquiries as to the ownership of the certificate. The terms of the CBCI No. D891 contain a provision on its TRANSFER. Thus: TRANSFER. This Certificate shall pass by delivery unless it is registered in the owner's name at any office of the Bank or any agency duly authorized by the Bank, and such registration is noted hereon. After such registration no transfer thereof shall be valid unless made at said office (where the Certificates has been registered) by the registered

owner hereof, in person, or by his attorney, duly authorized in writing and similarly noted hereon and upon payment of a nominal transfer fee which may be required, a new Certificate shall be issued to the transferee of the registered owner thereof. The bank or any agency duly authorized by the Bank may deem and treat the bearer of this Certificate, or if this Certificate is registered as herein authorized, the person in whose name the same is registered as the absolute owner of this Certificate, for the purpose of receiving payment hereof, or on account hereof, and for all other purpose whether or not this Certificate shall be overdue. This is notice to petitioner to secure from Filriters a written authorization for the transfer or to require Philfinance to submit such an authorization from Filriters. Petitioner knew that Philfinance is not registered owner of the CBCI No. D891. The fact that a non-owner was disposing of the registered CBCI owned by another entity was a good reason for petitioner to verify of inquire as to the title Philfinance to dispose to the CBCI. Moreover, CBCI No. D891 is governed by CB Circular No. 769, series of 1990 21, known as the Rules and Regulations Governing Central Bank Certificates of Indebtedness, Section 3, Article V of which provides that: Sec. 3. Assignment of Registered Certificates. Assignment of registered certificates shall not be valid unless made at the office where the same have been issued and registered or at the Securities Servicing Department, Central Bank of the Philippines, and by the registered owner thereof, in person or by his representative, duly authorized in writing. For this purpose, the transferee may be designated as the representative of the registered owner. Petitioner, being a commercial bank, cannot feign ignorance of Central Bank Circular 769, and its requirements. An entity which deals with corporate agents within circumstances showing that the agents are acting in excess of corporate authority, may not hold the corporation liable. 22 This is only fair, as everyone must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. 23

The transfer made by Filriters to Philfinance did not conform to the said. Central Bank Circular, which for all intents, is considered part of the law. As found by the courts a quo, Alfredo O. Banaria, who had signed the deed of assignment from Filriters to Philfinance, purportedly for and in favor of Filriters, did not have the necessary written authorization from the Board of Directors of Filriters to act for the latter. As it is, the sale from Filriters to Philfinance was fictitious, and therefore void and inexistent, as there was no consideration for the same. This is fatal to the petitioner's cause, for then, Philfinance had no title over the subject certificate to convey the Traders Royal Bank. Nemo potest nisi quod de jure potest no man can do anything except what he can do lawfully. Concededly, the subject CBCI was acquired by Filriters to form part of its legal and capital reserves, which are required by law 24 to be maintained at a mandated level. This was pointed out by Elias Garcia, Manager-in-Charge of respondent Filriters, in his testimony given before the court on May 30, 1986. Q Do you know this Central Bank Certificate of Indebtedness, in short, CBCI No. D891 in the face value of P5000,000.00 subject of this case? A Yes, sir. Q Why do you know this? A Well, this was CBCI of the company sought to be examined by the Insurance Commission sometime in early 1981 and this CBCI No. 891 was among the CBCI's that were found to be missing. Q Let me take you back further before 1981. Did you have the knowledge of this CBCI No. 891 before 1981? A Yes, sir. This CBCI is an investment of Filriters required by the Insurance Commission as legal reserve of the company. Q Legal reserve for the purpose of what? A Well, you see, the Insurance companies are required to put up legal reserves under Section 213 of the Insurance Code equivalent to 40 percent of the premiums receipt and further, the Insurance Commission requires this reserve to be

invested preferably in government securities or government binds. This is how this CBCI came to be purchased by the company. It cannot, therefore, be taken out of the said funds, without violating the requirements of the law. Thus, the anauthorized use or distribution of the same by a corporate officer of Filriters cannot bind the said corporation, not without the approval of its Board of Directors, and the maintenance of the required reserve fund. Consequently, the title of Filriters over the subject certificate of indebtedness must be upheld over the claimed interest of Traders Royal Bank. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED and the decision appealed from dated January 29, 1990 is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Regalado, Romero and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Puno, J., took no part. G.R. No. 170325 September 26, 2008

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. ERLANDO T. RODRIGUEZ and NORMA RODRIGUEZ, Respondents. DECISION 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 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).2

The 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 discounting3 arrangement 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 of P2,345,804.00. These were payable to forty seven (47) individual payees who were all members of PEMSLA.4 Petitioner 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 MultiPurpose Cooperative of Philnabankers (MCP), and petitioner PNB. They sought to recover the value of their checks that were deposited to the PEMSLA savings account amounting to P2,345,804.00. The spouses contended that because PNB credited the checks to the PEMSLA account even without indorsements, PNB violated its contractual obligation to them as depositors. PNB paid the wrong payees, hence, it should bear the loss. PNB moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. PNB argued that the claim for damages should come from the payees of the checks, and not from spouses Rodriguez. Since there was no demand from the said payees, the obligation should be considered as discharged. In an Order dated January 12, 2000, the RTC denied PNBs motion to dismiss. In its Answer,5 PNB claimed it is not liable for the checks which it paid to the PEMSLA account without any 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 of P2,345,804.00 or reinstate or restore the amount of P775,337.00 in the PNBig Demand Deposit Checking/Current Account No. 810480-4 of Erlando T. Rodriguez, and the amount of P1,570,467.00 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 of P4,000,000.00, 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 of P1,000,000.00; (c) Exemplary damages in the amount of P500,000.00;

(d) Attorneys fees in the amount of P150,000.00 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.6 CA Disposition PNB appealed the decision of the trial court to the CA on the principal ground that the disputed checks should be considered as payable to bearer and not to order. In a Decision7 dated July 22, 2004, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC disposition. The CA concluded that the checks were obviously meant by the spouses to be really paid to PEMSLA. The court a quo declared: We are not swayed by the contention of the plaintiffs-appellees (Spouses Rodriguez) that their cause of action arose from the alleged breach of contract by the defendant-appellant (PNB) when it paid the value of the checks to PEMSLA despite the checks being payable to order. Rather, we are more convinced by the strong and credible evidence for the defendant-appellant with regard to the plaintiffs-appellees and PEMSLAs business 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 moneymaking 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 of P2,345,804 with interest at 6% per annum from 14 May 1999 until fully paid; 2. Moral damages in the amount of P200,000; 3. Attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000; 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.9 The 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.10 However, 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."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) 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 is payable to the order of a fictitious or nonexisting 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.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.14 Thus, 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.15 The fictitious-payee rule is best illustrated in Mueller & Martin v. Liberty Insurance Bank.16 In 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.17 The 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 fictitiouspayee 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.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. 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.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.22 For this reason, banks are minded to treat their customers accounts with utmost care, confidence, and honesty.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 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.24 In 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, respondentsspouses. 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-ITC 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,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 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.26 PNBs 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.27 PNBs 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 crossclaim 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.28 Yet, 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 toP50,000.00.29 WHEREFORE, the appealed Amended Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award for moral damages is reduced to P50,000.00, 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. RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Petitioner spouses are engaged in the construction business. Complainant Romualdo Vicencio was a former Judge and his wife, Luz Vicencio, owns a pawnshop in Samar. On May 17, 1989, due to financial difficulties arising from the repeated delays in the payment of their receivables for the construction projects from the DPWH, 1petitioners were constrained to obtain a loan of P10,000.00 from Mrs. Vicencio. The latter acceded. Instead of merely requiring a note of indebtedness, however, her husband Mr. Vicencio required petitioners to issue an undated check as evidence of the loan which allegedly will not be presented to the bank. Despite being informed by petitioners that their bank account no longer had any funds, Mrs. Vicencio insisted that issue the check, which according to her was only a formality. Thus, petitioner Virginia Pacheco issued on May 17, 1989 an undated RCBC 2 check with number CT 101756 for P10,000.00. However, she only received the amount of P9,000.00 as the 10% interest on the loan was already deducted. Mrs. Vicencio also required Virginia's husband, herein petitioner Ernesto Pacheco, to sign the check on the same understanding that the check is not to be encashed but merely intended as an evidence of indebtedness which cannot be negotiated. On June 14, 1989, Virginia obtained another loan of P50,000.00 from Mrs. Vicencio. She received only P35,000.00 as the previous loan of P10,000.00 as well as the 10% interest amounting to P5,000.00 on the new loan were deducted by the latter. With the payment of the previous debt, Virginia asked for the return of the first check (RCBC check no. 101756) but Mrs. Vicencio told her that her filing clerk was absent. Despite several demands for the return of the first check, Mrs. Vicencio told Virginia that they can no longer locate the folder containing that check. For the new loan, she also required Virginia to issue three (3) more checks in various amounts two checks for P20,000.00 each and the third check for P10,000.00. Petitioners were not amendable to these requirements, but Mrs. Vicencio insisted that they issue the same assuring them that the checks will not be presented to the banks but will merely serve as guarantee for the loan since there was no promissory note required of them. Due to her dire financial needs, Virginia issued three undated RCBC checks numbered 101783 and 101784 in the sum of P20,000.00 each and 101785 for P10,000.00, and again informed Mrs. Vicencio that the cheeks cannot be encashed as the same were not funded. Petitioner Ernesto also signed the three checks as required by Mrs. Vicencio on the same conditions as the first check.

G.R. No. 126670 December 2, 1999 ERNESTO T. PACHECO and VIRGINIA O. PACHECO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

On June 20 and July 21, 1989, petitioner Virginia obtained two more loans, one for P10,000.00 and another for P15,000.00. Again she issued two more RCBC checks (No. 101768 for P10,000.00 and No. 101774 for P15,000.00) as required by Mrs. Vicencio with the same assurance that the checks shall not be presented for payment but shall stand only as evidence of indebtedness in lieu of the usual promissory note. All the checks were undated at the time petitioners handed them to Mrs. Vicencio. The six checks represent a total obligation of P85,000.00. However, since the loan of P10,000.00 under the first check was already paid when the amount thereof was deducted from the proceeds of the second loan, the remaining account was only P75,000.00. Of this amount, petitioners were able to settle and pay in cash P60,000.00 in July 1989. Petitioners never had any transaction nor ever dealt with Mrs. Vicencio's husband, the complainant herein. When the remaining balance of P15,000.00 on the loans became due and demandable, petitioners were not able to pay despite demands to do so. On August 3, 1992, Mrs. Vicencio together with her husband and their daughter Lucille, went to petitioners' residence to persuade Virginia to place the date "August 15, 1992" on checks nos. 101756 and 101774, although said checks were respectively given undated to Mrs. Vicencio on May 17, 1989 and July 21, 1989. Check no. 101756 was required by Mrs. Vicencio to be dated as additional guarantee for the P15,000.00 unpaid balance allegedly under check no. 101774. Despite being informed by petitioner Virginia that their account with RCBC had been closed as early as August 17, 1989, Mrs. Vicencio and her daughter insisted that she place a date on the checks allegedly so that it will become evidence of their indebtedness. The former reluctantly wrote the date on the checks for fear that she might not be able to obtain future loans from Mrs. Vicencio. Later, petitioners were surprised to receive on August 29, 1992 a demand letter from Mrs. Vicencio's spouse informing them that the checks when presented for payment on August 25, 1992 were dishonored due to "Account Closed". Consequently, upon the complaint of Mrs., Vicencio's husband with whom petitioners never had any transaction, two informations for estafa, defined in Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code, were filed against them. The informations which were amended on April 1, 1993 alleged that petitioners "through fraud and false pretenses and in payment of a diamond ring (gold necklace)" issued checks which when presented

for payment were dishonored due to account closed. 3 After entering a plea of not guilty during arraignment, petitioners were tried and sentenced to suffer imprisonment and ordered to indemnify the complainant in the total amount of P25,000.00. 4 On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the court a quo. 5 Hence this petition. Estafa may be committed in several ways. One of these is by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation, as provided in Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, viz: Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: xxx xxx xxx 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: xxx xxx xxx (d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. The essential elements in order to sustain a conviction under the above paragraph are: 1. that the offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an payment obligation contracted at the time the check was issued;

2. that such postdating or issuing a check was done when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; 3. deceit or damage to the payee thereof. 6 The first and third elements are not present in this case. A check has the character of negotiability and at the same time it constitutes an evidence of indebtedness. By mutual agreement of the parties, the negotiable character of a check may be waived and the instrument may be treated simply as proof of an obligation. There cannot be deceit on the part of the obligor, petitioners herein, because they agreed with the obligee at the time of the issuance and postdating of the checks that the same shall not be encashed or presented to the banks. As per assurance of the lender, the checks are nothing but evidence of the loan or security thereof in lieu of and for the same purpose as a promissory note. By their own covenant, therefore, the checks became mere evidence of indebtedness. It has been ruled that a drawer who issues a check as security or evidence of investment is not liable for estafa. 7 Mrs. Vicencio could not have been deceived nor defrauded by petitioners in order to obtain the loans because she was informed that they no longer have funds in their RCBC accounts. In 1992, when the Vicencio family asked Virginia to place a date on the check, the latter again informed Mrs. Vicencio that their account with RCBC was already closed as early as August 1989. With the assurance, however, that the check will only stand as a firm evidence of indebtedness, Virginia placed a date on the check. Under these circumstances, Mrs. Vicencio cannot claim that she was deceived or defrauded by petitioners in obtaining the loan. In the absence of the essential element of deceit, 8 no estafa was committed by petitioners. Both courts below relied so much on the fact that Mrs. Vicencio's husband is a former Judge who knows the law. He should have known, then, that he need not even ask the petitioners to place a date on the check, because as holder of the check, he could have inserted the date pursuant to Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). 9 Moreover, as stated in Section 14 thereof, complainant, as the person in possession of the check, hasprima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. Besides, pursuant to Section 12 of the same law, a negotiable instrument is not rendered invalid by reason only that it is antedated

or postdated. 10 Thus, the allegation of Mrs. Vicencio that the date to be placed by Virginia was necessary so as to make the check evidence of indebtedness is nothing but a ploy. Petitioners openly disclosed and never hid the fact that they no longer have funds in the bank as their bank account was already closed. Knowledge by the complainant that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in the bank at the time it was issued to him does not give rise to a case for estafa through bouncing checks. 11 Moreover, a check must be presented within a reasonable time from issue. 12 By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (6) months. In fact a check long overdue for more than two and one-half years is considered stale. 13 In this case, the checks were issued more than three years prior to their presentment. In his complaint, complainant alleged that petitioners bought jewelry from him and that he would not have parted with his jewelry had not petitioners issued the checks. The evidence on record, however, does not support the theory of the crime. There were six checks given by petitioners to Mrs. Vicencio but only two were presented for encashment. If all were issued in payment of the alleged jewelry, why were not all the checks presented? There was a deliberate choice of these two checks as the total amount reflected therein is equivalent to the amount due under the unpaid obligation. The other checks, on the other hand, could not be used as the amounts therein do not jibe with the amount of the unpaid balance. Following complainant's theory that he would not have sold the jewelries had not petitioners issued "postdated" checks, still no estafa can be imputed to petitioners. It is clear that the checks were not intended for encashment with the bank, but were delivered as mere security for the payment of the loan and under an agreement that the checks would be redeemed with cash as they fell due. Hence, the checks were not intended by the parties to be modes of payment but only as promissory notes. Since complainant and his wife were well aware of that fact, they cannot now complain there was deception on the part of petitioners. Awareness by the complainant of the fictitious nature of the pretense cannot give rise to estafa by means of deceit. 14 When the payee was informed by the by the drawer that the checks are not covered by adequate funds it does not give rise to bad faith or estafa. 15 Moreover, complainant's allegations that the two subject checks were issued in 1992 as payment for the jewelry he allegedly sold to petitioners is belied by the evidence on record. First, complainant is

not engaged in the sale of jewelry. 16 Neither are petitioners. If the pieces of jewelry were important to complainant considering that they were with him for more than twenty-five years already, 17 he would not have easily parted with them in consideration for unfunded personal checks in favor of persons whose means of living or source of income were unknown to him. 18Applicable here is the legal precept that persons are presumed to have taken care of their business. 19 Second, petitioners' bank account with RCBC was opened on March 26, 1987 and was closed on April 17, 1989, during the span of which they were issued 10 check booklets with the last booklet issued on April 6, 1984. This last booklet contains 50 checks consecutively numbered from 101751 to 101800. The two subject checks came from this booklet. All the checks in this booklet were issued in the year 1989 including the two subject checks, so that the complainants' theory that the jewelry were sold in 1992 cannot be believed. The rule that factual findings of the trial court bind this court is not absolute but admits of exceptions such as when the conclusion is a finding grounded on speculation, surmise, and conjecture and when the findings of the lower court is premised on the absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 20 Based on the foregoing discussions, this Court is constrained to depart from the general rule. Equally applicable is what Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet once said: 21 Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of judicial cognizance. Petitioners, however, are not without liability. An accused acquitted of a criminal charge may nevertheless be held civilly liable in the same case where the facts established by the evidence so warrant. 22 Based on the records, they still have an outstanding obligation of P15,000.00 in favor of Mrs. Vicencio. There was mention that the loan shall earn interests. However, an agreement as to payment of interest must be in writing, otherwise it cannot be

valid, 23 although there was actual payment of interests by virtue of the advance deductions from the loan. Once the judgment becomes final and executory, the amount due is deemed equivalent to a forbearance of credit during the interim period from the finality of judgment until full payment, in which case it shall earn legal interest at the rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum pursuant to Central Bank (CB) Circular No. 416. 24 WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners are ACQUITTED of the charge of estafa but they are ORDERED to pay Mrs. Vicencio the amount of P15,000.00 without interest. However, from the time this judgment becomes final and executory, the amount due shall earn legal interest of twelve percent (12%)per annum until full payment. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 148864

August 21, 2003

SPOUSES EDUARDO B. EVANGELISTA and EPIFANIA C. EVANGELISTA, Petitioners, vs. MERCATOR FINANCE CORP., LYDIA P. SALAZAR, LAMEC'S** REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, Respondents. PUNO, J.: Petitioners, Spouses Evangelista ("Petitioners"), are before this Court on a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised

Rules of Court, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing their petition. Petitioners filed a complaint1 for annulment of titles against respondents, Mercator Finance Corporation, Lydia P. Salazar, Lamecs Realty and Development Corporation, and the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. Petitioners claimed being the registered owners of five (5) parcels of land2 contained in the Real Estate Mortgage3 executed by them and Embassy Farms, Inc. ("Embassy Farms"). They alleged that they executed the Real Estate Mortgage in favor of Mercator Financing Corporation ("Mercator") only as officers of Embassy Farms. They did not receive the proceeds of the loan evidenced by a promissory note, as all of it went to Embassy Farms. Thus, they contended that the mortgage was without any consideration as to them since they did not personally obtain any loan or credit accommodations. There being no principal obligation on which the mortgage rests, the real estate mortgage is void.4 With the void mortgage, they assailed the validity of the foreclosure proceedings conducted by Mercator, the sale to it as the highest bidder in the public auction, the issuance of the transfer certificates of title to it, the subsequent sale of the same parcels of land to respondent Lydia P. Salazar ("Salazar"), and the transfer of the titles to her name, and lastly, the sale and transfer of the properties to respondent Lamecs Realty & Development Corporation ("Lamecs"). Mercator admitted that petitioners were the owners of the subject parcels of land. It, however, contended that "on February 16, 1982, plaintiffs executed a Mortgage in favor of defendant Mercator Finance Corporation for and in consideration of certain loans, and/or other forms of credit accommodations obtained from the Mortgagee (defendant Mercator Finance Corporation) amounting to EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE & 78/100 (P844,625.78) PESOS, Philippine Currency and to secure the payment of the same and those others that the MORTGAGEE may extend to the MORTGAGOR (plaintiffs) x x x."5 It contended that since petitioners and Embassy Farms signed the promissory note6 as co-makers, aside from the Continuing Suretyship Agreement7 subsequently executed to guarantee the indebtedness of Embassy Farms, and the succeeding promissory notes8 restructuring the loan, then petitioners are jointly and severally liable with Embassy Farms. Due to their failure to pay the obligation, the foreclosure and subsequent sale of the mortgaged properties are valid.

Respondents Salazar and Lamecs asserted that they are innocent purchasers for value and in good faith, relying on the validity of the title of Mercator. Lamecs admitted the prior ownership of petitioners of the subject parcels of land, but alleged that they are the present registered owner. Both respondents likewise assailed the long silence and inaction by petitioners as it was only after a lapse of almost ten (10) years from the foreclosure of the property and the subsequent sales that they made their claim. Thus, Salazar and Lamecs averred that petitioners are in estoppel and guilty of laches.9 During pre-trial, the parties agreed on the following issues: a. Whether or not the Real Estate Mortgage executed by the plaintiffs in favor of defendant Mercator Finance Corp. is null and void; b. Whether or not the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings undertaken on subject parcels of land to satisfy the indebtedness of Embassy Farms, Inc. is (sic) null and void; c. Whether or not the sale made by defendant Mercator Finance Corp. in favor of Lydia Salazar and that executed by the latter in favor of defendant Lamecs Realty and Development Corp. are null and void; d. Whether or not the parties are entitled to damages.10 After pre-trial, Mercator moved for summary judgment on the ground that except as to the amount of damages, there is no factual issue to be litigated. Mercator argued that petitioners had admitted in their pre-trial brief the existence of the promissory note, the continuing suretyship agreement and the subsequent promissory notes restructuring the loan, hence, there is no genuine issue regarding their liability. The mortgage, foreclosure proceedings and the subsequent sales are valid and the complaint must be dismissed.11 Petitioners opposed the motion for summary judgment claiming that because their personal liability to Mercator is at issue, there is a need for a full-blown trial.12 The RTC granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. It held:

A reading of the promissory notes show (sic) that the liability of the signatories thereto are solidary in view of the phrase "jointly and severally." On the promissory note appears (sic) the signatures of Eduardo B. Evangelista, Epifania C. Evangelista and another signature of Eduardo B. Evangelista below the words Embassy Farms, Inc. It is crystal clear then that the plaintiffs-spouses signed the promissory note not only as officers of Embassy Farms, Inc. but in their personal capacity as well(.) Plaintiffs(,) by affixing their signatures thereon in a dual capacity have bound themselves as solidary debtor(s) with Embassy Farms, Inc. to pay defendant Mercator Finance Corporation the amount of indebtedness. That the principal contract of loan is void for lack of consideration, in the light of the foregoing is untenable.13 Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.14 Thus, petitioners went up to the Court of Appeals, but again were unsuccessful. The appellate court held: The appellants insistence that the loans secured by the mortgage they executed were not personally theirs but those of Embassy Farms, Inc. is clearly self-serving and misplaced. The fact that they signed the subject promissory notes in the(ir) personal capacities and as officers of the said debtor corporation is manifest on the very face of the said documents of indebtedness (pp. 118, 128-131, Orig. Rec.). Even assuming arguendo that they did not, the appellants lose sight of the fact that third persons who are not parties to a loan may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property (Lustan vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 663, 675). x x x. In constituting a mortgage over their own property in order to secure the purported corporate debt of Embassy Farms, Inc., the appellants undeniably assumed the personality of persons interested in the fulfillment of the principal obligation who, to save the subject realities from foreclosure and with a view towards being subrogated to the rights of the creditor, were free to discharge the same by payment (Articles 1302 [3] and 1303, Civil Code of the Philippines).15 (emphases in the original) The appellate court also observed that "if the appellants really felt aggrieved by the foreclosure of the subject mortgage and the subsequent sales of the realties to other parties, why then did they commence the suit only on August 12, 1997 (when the certificate of sale was issued on January 12, 1987, and the certificates of title in the name of Mercator on September 27, 1988)?" Petitioners "procrastination for about nine (9) years is difficult to understand. On

so flimsy a ground as lack of consideration, (w)e may even venture to say that the complaint was not worth the time of the courts."16 A motion for reconsideration by petitioners was likewise denied for lack of merit.17 Thus, this petition where they allege that: The court a quo erred and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming in toto the May 4, 1998 order of the trial court granting respondents motion for summary judgment despite the existence of genuine issues as to material facts and its non-entitlement to a judgment as a matter of law, thereby deciding the case in a way probably not in accord with applicable decisions of this Honorable Court.18 we affirm. Summary judgment "is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation."19 The crucial question in a motion for summary judgment is whether the issues raised in the pleadings are genuine or fictitious, as shown by affidavits, depositions or admissions accompanying the motion. A genuine issue means "an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial."20 To forestall summary judgment, it is essential for the nonmoving party to confirm the existence of genuine issues where he has substantial, plausible and fairly arguable defense, i.e., issues of fact calling for the presentation of evidence upon which a reasonable finding of fact could return a verdict for the non-moving party. The proper inquiry would therefore be whether the affirmative defenses offered by petitioners constitute genuine issue of fact requiring a full-blown trial.21 In the case at bar, there are no genuine issues raised by petitioners. Petitioners do not deny that they obtained a loan from Mercator. They merely claim that they got the loan as officers of Embassy Farms without intending to personally bind themselves or their property. However, a simple perusal of the promissory note and the continuing suretyship agreement shows otherwise. These documentary evidence prove that petitioners are solidary obligors with Embassy Farms. The promissory note22 states:

For value received, I/We jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of MERCATOR FINANCE CORPORATION at its office, the principal sum of EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE PESOS & 78/100 (P 844,625.78), Philippine currency, x x x, in installments as follows: September 16, 1982 P154,267.8 7 P154,267.8 7 P154,267.8 7 P154,267.8 7 P154,267.8 7 P154,267.8 7

xxx

xxx

xxx

(3) The obligations hereunder are joint and several and independent of the obligations of the Principal. A separate action or actions may be brought and prosecuted against the Surety whether or not the action is also brought and prosecuted against the Principal and whether or not the Principal be joined in any such action or actions. xxx xxx xxx

October 16, 1982 November 16, 1982 December 16, 1982 January 16, 1983 February 16, 1983 -

The agreement was signed by petitioners on February 16, 1982. The promissory notes24 subsequently executed by petitioners and Embassy Farms, restructuring their loan, likewise prove that petitioners are solidarily liable with Embassy Farms. Petitioners further allege that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the promissory note and claim that since it was Mercator who provided the form, then the ambiguity should be resolved against it. Courts can interpret a contract only if there is doubt in its letter.25 But, an examination of the promissory note shows no such ambiguity. Besides, assuming arguendo that there is an ambiguity, Section 17 of the Negotiable Instruments Law states, viz: SECTION 17. Construction where instrument is ambiguous. Where the language of the instrument is ambiguous or there are omissions therein, the following rules of construction apply: xxx xxx xxx (g) Where an instrument containing the word "I promise to pay" is signed by two or more persons, they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable thereon. Petitioners also insist that the promissory note does not convey their true intent in executing the document.1wphi1 The defense is unavailing. Even if petitioners intended to sign the note merely as officers of Embassy Farms, still this does not erase the fact that they subsequently executed a continuing suretyship agreement. A surety is one who is solidarily liable with the principal.26 Petitioners cannot claim that they did not personally receive any consideration for the contract for well-entrenched is the rule that the consideration necessary to support a surety obligation need not pass directly to the surety, a consideration moving to the principal alone being

xxx xxx xxx The note was signed at the bottom by petitioners Eduardo B. Evangelista and Epifania C. Evangelista, and Embassy Farms, Inc. with the signature of Eduardo B. Evangelista below it. The Continuing Suretyship Agreement23 also proves the solidary obligation of petitioners, viz: (Embassy Farms, Inc.) Principal (Eduardo B. Evangelista) Surety (Epifania C. Evangelista) Surety (Mercator Finance Corporation) Creditor To: MERCATOR FINANCE COPORATION (1) For valuable and/or other consideration, EDUARDO B. EVANGELISTA and EPIFANIA C. EVANGELISTA (hereinafter called Surety), jointly and severally unconditionally guarantees (sic) to MERCATOR FINANCE COPORATION (hereinafter called Creditor), the full, faithful and prompt payment and discharge of any and all indebtedness of EMBASSY FARMS, INC. (hereinafter called Principal) to the Creditor.

sufficient. A surety is bound by the same consideration that makes the contract effective between the principal parties thereto.27 Having executed the suretyship agreement, there can be no dispute on the personal liability of petitioners. Lastly, the parol evidence rule does not apply in this case.28 We held in Tarnate v. Court of Appeals,29 that where the parties admitted the existence of the loans and the mortgage deeds and the fact of default on the due repayments but raised the contention that they were misled by respondent bank to believe that the loans were longterm accommodations, then the parties could not be allowed to introduce evidence of conditions allegedly agreed upon by them other than those stipulated in the loan documents because when they reduced their agreement in writing, it is presumed that they have made the writing the only repository and memorial of truth, and whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived and abandoned. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed. Treble costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur. Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., on official leave. G.R. No. 167567 September 22, 2010

SMC required him to issue postdated checks equivalent to the value of the products purchased on credit before the same were released to him. Said checks were returned to Puzon when the transactions covered by these checks were paid or settled in full. On December 31, 2000, Puzon purchased products on credit amounting to P11,820,327 for which he issued, and gave to SMC, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check Nos. 27904 (for P309,500.00) and 27903 (forP11,510,827.00) to cover the said transaction. On January 23, 2001, Puzon, together with his accountant, visited the SMC Sales Office in Paraaque City to reconcile his account with SMC. During that visit Puzon allegedly requested to see BPI Check No. 17657. However, when he got hold of BPI Check No. 27903 which was attached to a bond paper together with BPI Check No. 17657 he allegedly immediately left the office with his accountant, bringing the checks with them. SMC sent a letter to Puzon on March 6, 2001 demanding the return of the said checks. Puzon ignored the demand hence SMC filed a complaint against him for theft with the City Prosecutors Office of Paraaque City. Rulings of the Prosecutor and the Secretary of Department of Justice (DOJ) The investigating prosecutor, Elizabeth Yu Guray found that the "relationship between [SMC] and [Puzon] appears to be one of credit or creditor-debtor relationship. The problem lies in the reconciliation of accounts and the non-payment of beer empties which cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for theft."3 Thus, in her July 31, 2001 Resolution,4 she recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of evidence. SMC appealed. On June 4, 2003, the DOJ issued its resolution5 affirming the prosecutors Resolution dismissing the case. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied in the April 23, 2004 DOJ Resolution,6 SMC filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Ruling of the Court of Appeals

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. BARTOLOME PUZON, JR., Respondent. DECISION DEL CASTILLO, J.: This petition for review assails the December 21, 2004 Decision1 and March 28, 2005 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 83905, which dismissed the petition before it and denied reconsideration, respectively. Factual Antecedents Respondent Bartolome V. Puzon, Jr., (Puzon) owner of Bartenmyk Enterprises, was a dealer of beer products of petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) for Paraaque City. Puzon purchased SMC products on credit. To ensure payment and as a business practice,

The CA found that the postdated checks were issued by Puzon merely as a security for the payment of his purchases and that these were not intended to be encashed. It thus concluded that SMC did not acquire ownership of the checks as it was duty bound to return the same checks to Puzon after the transactions covering them were settled. The CA agreed with the prosecutor that there was no theft, considering that a person cannot be charged with theft for taking personal property that belongs to himself. It disposed of the appeal as follows: WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by public respondent, the instant petition is herebyDISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions of public respondent, dated 04 June 2003 and 23 April 2004, areAFFIRMED. No costs at this instance. SO ORDERED.7 The motion for reconsideration of SMC was denied. Hence, the present petition. Issues Petitioner now raises the following issues: I WHETHER X X X PUZON HAD STOLEN FROM SMC ON JANUARY 23, 2001, AMONG OTHERS BPI CHECK NO. 27903 DATED MARCH 30, 2001 IN THE AMOUNT OF PESOS: ELEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN (Php11,510,827.00) II WHETHER X X X THE POSTDATED CHECKS ISSUED BY PUZON, PARTICULARLY BPI CHECK NO. 27903 DATED MARCH 30, 2001 IN THE AMOUNT OF PESOS: ELEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN (Php11,510,827.00), WERE ISSUED IN PAYMENT OF HIS BEER PURCHASES OR WERE USED MERELY AS SECURITY TO ENSURE PAYMENT OF PUZONS OBLIGATION. III

WHETHER X X X THE PRACTICE OF SMC IN RETURNING THE POSTDATED CHECKS ISSUED IN PAYMENT OF BEER PRODUCTS PURCHASED ON CREDIT SHOULD THE TRANSACTIONS COVERED BY THESE CHECKS [BE] SETTLED ON [THE] MATURITY DATES THEREOF COULD BE LIKENED TO A CONTRACT OF PLEDGE. IV WHETHER X X X SMC HAD ESTABLISHED PROBABLE CAUSE TO JUSTIFY THE INDICTMENT OF PUZON FOR THE CRIME OF THEFT PURSUANT TO ART. 308 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.8 Petitioner's Arguments SMC contends that Puzon was positively identified by its employees to have taken the subject postdated checks. It also contends that ownership of the checks was transferred to it because these were issued, not merely as security but were, in payment of Puzons purchases. SMC points out that it has established more than sufficient probable cause to justify the indictment of Puzon for the crime of Theft. Respondents Arguments On the other hand, Puzon contends that SMC raises questions of fact that are beyond the province of an appeal on certiorari. He also insists that there is no probable cause to charge him with theft because the subject checks were issued only as security and he therefore retained ownership of the same.

Our Ruling The petition has no merit. Preliminary Matters At the outset we find that as pointed out by Puzon, SMC raises questions of fact. The resolution of the first issue raised by SMC of whether respondent stole the subject check, which calls for the Court to determine whether respondent is guilty of a felony, first requires that the facts be duly established in the proper forum and in accord with the proper procedure. This issue cannot be resolved based on

mere allegations of facts and affidavits. The same is true with the second issue raised by petitioner, to wit: whether the checks issued by Puzon were payments for his purchases or were intended merely as security to ensure payment. These issues cannot be properly resolved in the present petition for review on certiorari which is rooted merely on the resolution of the prosecutor finding no probable cause for the filing of an information for theft. The third issue raised by petitioner, on the other hand, would entail venturing into constitutional matters for a complete resolution. This route is unnecessary in the present case considering that the main matter for resolution here only concerns grave abuse of discretion and the existence of probable cause for theft, which at this point is more properly resolved through another more clear cut route. Probable Cause for Theft "Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial."9 On the fine points of the determination of probable cause, Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc.10 comprehensively elaborated that: The determination of [the existence or absence of probable cause] lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party. Thus, the decision whether to dismiss a complaint or not is dependent upon the sound discretion of the prosecuting fiscal. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith, if he finds the charge insufficient in form or substance or without any ground. Or he may proceed with the investigation if the complaint in his view is sufficient and in proper form. To emphasize, the determination of probable cause for the filing of information in court is an executive function, one that properly pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct the filing of the corresponding information or move for the dismissal of the case. Ultimately, whether or not a complaint will be dismissed is dependent on the sound discretion of the Secretary of Justice. And unless made with grave abuse of discretion, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review. For this reason, the Court considers it sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary investigations and to leave the Department of Justice ample latitude of discretion in the

determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed offenders. Consistent with this policy, courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on the matter of probable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion. In the present case, we are also not sufficiently convinced to deviate from the general rule of non-interference. Indeed the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari before it, absent grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ Secretary in not finding probable cause against Puzon for theft. The Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latters consent. xxxx "[T]he essential elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) that there be a taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things."11 Considering that the second element is that the thing taken belongs to another, it is relevant to determine whether ownership of the subject check was transferred to petitioner. On this point the Negotiable Instruments Law provides: Sec. 12. Antedated and postdated The instrument is not invalid for the reason only that it is antedated or postdated, provided this is not done for an illegal or fraudulent purpose. The person to whom an instrument so dated is delivered acquires the title thereto as of the date of delivery. (Underscoring supplied.) Note however that delivery as the term is used in the aforementioned provision means that the party delivering did so for the purpose of giving effect thereto.12 Otherwise, it cannot be said that there has been delivery of the negotiable instrument. Once

there is delivery, the person to whom the instrument is delivered gets the title to the instrument completely and irrevocably. If the subject check was given by Puzon to SMC in payment of the obligation, the purpose of giving effect to the instrument is evident thus title to or ownership of the check was transferred upon delivery. However, if the check was not given as payment, there being no intent to give effect to the instrument, then ownership of the check was not transferred to SMC. The evidence of SMC failed to establish that the check was given in payment of the obligation of Puzon. There was no provisional receipt or official receipt issued for the amount of the check. What was issued was a receipt for thedocument, a "POSTDATED CHECK SLIP."13 Furthermore, the petitioner's demand letter sent to respondent states "As per company policies on receivables, all issuances are to be covered by post-dated checks. However, you have deviated from this policy by forcibly taking away the check you have issued to us to cover the December issuance."14 Notably, the term "payment" was not used instead the terms "covered" and "cover" were used. Although the petitioner's witness, Gregorio L. Joven III, states in paragraph 6 of his affidavit that the check was given in payment of the obligation of Puzon, the same is contradicted by his statements in paragraph 4, where he states that "As a standard company operating procedure, all beer purchases by dealers on credit shall be coveredby postdated checks equivalent to the value of the beer products purchased"; in paragraph 9 where he states that "the transaction covered by the said check had not yet been paid for," and in paragraph 8 which clearly shows that partial payment is expected to be made by the return of beer empties, and not by the deposit or encashment of the check.1avvphi1 Clearly the term "cover" was not meant to be used interchangeably with "payment." When taken in conjunction with the counter-affidavit of Puzon where he states that "As the [liquid beer] contents are paid for, SMC return[s] to me the corresponding PDCs or request[s] me to replace them with whatever was the unpaid balance."15 it becomes clear that both parties did not intend for the check to pay for the beer products. The evidence proves that the check was accepted, not as payment, but in accordance with the long-standing policy of SMC to require its dealers to issue postdated checks to cover its receivables. The check was only meant to cover the transaction and in the meantime Puzon was to pay for the transaction by some other

means other than the check. This being so, title to the check did not transfer to SMC; it remained with Puzon. The second element of the felony of theft was therefore not established. Petitioner was not able to show that Puzon took a check that belonged to another. Hence, the prosecutor and the DOJ were correct in finding no probable cause for theft. Consequently, the CA did not err in finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by the DOJ in sustaining the dismissal of the case for theft for lack of probable cause. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The December 21, 2004 Decision and March 28, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 83905 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice