Republic of the Philippines v. Equitable Banking Corporation
A few days later, the remaining warrants were also
G.R. No. L-15894 | 10 SCRA 8 | January 30, 1964 | Concepcion, J
Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari
Petitioners: Republic of the Philippines
Respondents: Equitable Banking Corporation
DOCTRINE
Relevant Provision
Section 14. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure:
Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may be amended,
in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the
accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal
amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
FACTS
a. Petitioner Government
b. Respondent
2. Facts
a. From July to December 1952, the Corporacion de los Padres
Dominicos had acquired the twenty-four treasury warrants by
accommodating its former trusted employee, Jacinto Carranza,
who asked the Corporacion to cash the warrants, alleging that it
was difficult to do so directly with the Government and that his
wife expected a sort of commission for the encashment
b. Corporacion acceded provided that the warrants would first be
deposited with Bank of the Philippine Islands and that actual
payment of the value of the warrants would be made only after
the proceeds thereof would be credited to the account of the
Corporacion
a. Corporacion accepted them "subject to collection only"
b. Warrants each bore the indorsement of the respective
payees and that of the Corporation
c. PI Bank (BPI) then presented the warrants for payment to the
drawee, the Government, through the Clearing Office of the
Central Bank
a. Cleared and credited to Corporacion
d. Corporacion then withdrew said proceeds by means of its own
checks and eventually paid the corresponding amounts to
Jacinto Carranza
e. Subsequently however, the Treasurer returned 3 warrants to the
Central Bank, and demanded, on the ground that they had been
forged, that the value thereof be charged against the accounts of
the PI Bank in the Clearing Office and credited back to the
demand deposit of the Bureau of the Treasury
a.
returned for the same reason with same demands
f. G.R. No. L-15895, a civil case, was instituted against the PI
Bank for the recovery of P342,767.63, while G.R. No. L-15894
was instituted against the Equitable Bank for, the recovery of
P17,100.00
g. Accordingly, the signature thereon of the drawing office and that
of the representative of the Auditor General in that office are
forged.
ISSUES
1. W/N the Treasury can recover the amount
RULING & RATIO
a. No. The Treasury had not only been negligent in clearing its own
warrants, but had, also, thereby induced the PI Bank and the
Equitable Bank to pay the amounts thereof to said depositors.
a. Such negligence becomes more apparent when each one of
the twenty-four (24) warrants was for over P5,000, and,
hence; beyond the authority of the auditor of the Treasury
b. In other words, the irregularity of said warrants was apparent
the face thereof, from the viewpoint of the Treasury.
b. Where a loss, which must be borne by one of two parties alike
innocent of forgery, can be traced to the neglect or fault of either, it is
reasonable that it would be borne by him, even if innocent of any
intentional fraud, through whose means it has succeeded
c. Generally, where a drawee bank otherwise would have a right of
recovery against a collecting or indorsing bank for its payment of a
forged check, its action will be barred if it is guilty of an unreasonable
delay in discovering the forgery and in giving notice
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
Page 1 of 1