Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
negotiable instrument is presumed to have been given or indorsed for a The trial court held in favor of Salazar.
sufficient consideration unless otherwise contradicted and overcome by
other competent evidence ISSUE:
Those checks in themselves constituted evidence of indebtedness of
Does a collecting bank, over the objections of its depositor, have
Miranda, evidence not successfully overturned or rebutted by private
the authority to withdraw unilaterally from such depositor’s account the
respondent.
amount it had previously paid upon certain unendorsed order instruments
While the Negotiable Instruments Law does refer to accommodation
deposited by the depositor to another account that she later closed?
transactions, no such transaction was here shown
Sec. 29. Liability of accommodation party. — An accommodation party is
HELD:
one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or
In the present case, the records do not support the finding made by the CA
indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending
and the trial court that a prior arrangement existed between Salazar and
his name to some other person. Such a person is liable on the
Templonuevo regarding the transfer of ownership of the checks. This fact is
instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time
crucial as Salazar’s entitlement to the value of the instruments is based on
of taking the instrument, knew him to be only an accommodation party.
the assumption that she is a transferee within the contemplation of Section
Having issued or indorsed the check, the accommodating party has
49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
warranted to the holder in due course that he will pay the same
according to its tenor.
Transferees in this situation do not enjoy the presumption of ownership in
Travel-On obviously was not an accommodated party; it realized no
favor of holders since they are neither payees nor indorsees of such
value on the checks which bounced.
instruments. The weight of authority is that the mere possession of a
negotiable instrument does not in itself conclusively establish either the
D. NEGOTIATION
right of the possessor to receive payment, or of the right of one who has
made payment to be discharged from liability. Thus, something more than
8. Transfer without Indorsement
mere possession by persons who are not payees or indorsers of the
Sec. 49
instrument is necessary to authorize payment to them in the absence
of any other facts from which the authority to receive payment may be
[D 01] BPI vs. CA, 512 SCRA 620 (2007) – KATE
inferred.
FACTS:
Even if the delay in the demand for reimbursement is taken in conjunction
Templonuevo demanded payment from petitioner of a sum of money
with Salazar’s possession of the checks, it cannot be said that the
representing the aggregate value of three checks which were allegedly
presumption of ownership in Templonuevo’s favor as the designated payee
payable to him but which were deposited with the petitioner to Salazar
therein was sufficiently overcome. This is consistent with the principle that
’s account, without his knowledge and corresponding endorsement. Finding
if instruments payable to named payees or to their order have not bee
merit in the demands of Templonuevo, the bank then froze the account of the
n indorsed in blank, only such payees or their indorsees can be holders and
engineering firm as the account of Salazar was already closed or had
entitled to receive payment in their own right.
insufficient funds. Failure of any settlement between Templonuevo and
Salazar, this prompted the bank to debit the account of Salazar and give
The presumption that a negotiable instrument was given for a sufficient
back the money to Templonuevo through cashier’s check. The account of
consideration will not inure to the benefit of Salazar because the term
Salazar was also debited for whatever charges incurred for the issuance of
“given” does not pertain merely to a transfer of physical possession of the
the cashier’s check.
instrument. The phrase “given or indorsed” in the context of a negotiable
instrument refers to the manner in which such instrument may be
negotiated. policy and practice. It must be emphasized that the law imposes a duty of
diligence on the collecting bank to scrutinize checks deposited with it, for the
It is an exception to the general rule for a payee of an order instrument to purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. The collecting bank,
transfer the instrument without indorsement. Precisely because the being primarily engaged in banking, holds itself out to the public as
situation is abnormal, it is but fair to the maker and to prior holders t the expert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a high standard
o of conduct. The taking and collection of a check without the proper
require possessors to prove without the aid of an initial presumption in indorsement amount to a conversion of the check by the bank.
their favor, that they came into possession by virtue of a legitimate More importantly, however, solely upon the prompting of Templonuevo,
transaction with the last holder. Salazar failed to discharge this burden, and with full knowledge of the brewing dispute between Salazar and
and the return of the check proceeds to Templonuevo was therefore Templonuevo, petitioner debited the account held in the name of the sole
warranted under the circumstances despite the fact that Templonuevo may proprietorship of Salazar without even serving due notice upon her. Thi
not have clearly demonstrated that he never authorized Salazar to deposit s ran contrary to petitioner’s assurances to private respondent Salazar that
the checks or to encash the same. Noteworthy also is the fact that the account would remain untouched, pending the resolution of the
petitioner stamped on the back of the checks the words: "All prior controversy between her and Templonuevo. For the above reasons, the
endorsements and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed," thereby makin Court finds no reason to disturb the award of damages granted
g the assurance that it had ascertained the genuineness of all prior by the CA against petitioner. This whole incident would
endorsements. Having assumed the liability of a general indorser, have been avoided had petitioner adhered to the standard of diligence
petitioner’s liability to the designated payee cannot be denied. expected of one engaged in the banking business. A depositor has the right
to recover reasonable moral damages even if the bank’s negligence m
Consequently, petitioner, as the collecting bank, had the right to debit ay
Salazar’s account for the value of the checks it previously credited in her not have been attended with malice and bad faith, if the former suffer
favor. However, the issue of whether it acted judiciously is an entirely ed mental anguish, serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation
different matter. As businesses affected with public interest, and because
of the nature of their functions, banks are under obligation to treat the
accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in min
d
the fiduciary nature of their relationship. In this regard, petitioner was
clearly remiss in its duty to private respondent Salazar as its depositor
.
To begin with, the irregularity appeared plainly on the face of the checks.
Despite the obvious lack of indorsement thereon, petitioner permitted the
encashment of these checks three times on three separate occasions. This
negates petitioner’s claim that it merely made a mistake in crediting th
e value of the checks to Salazar’s account and instead bolsters the
conclusion of the CA that petitioner recognized Salazar’s claim of ownership
of checks
and acted deliberately in paying the same, contrary to ordinary banking