Bank of the Philippine Island vs. Reynald Suarez G.R. No. 167750, March 15, 2010

Facts:

Suarez represents a client who wants to buy parcels of land without having to directly deal with the land owners. They made arrangements that Suarez will make the transactions on his behalf to make it appear he is the one buying the lots. The client issued a check from Rizal Commercial Banking Co. to be credited to the checking account of Suarez with BPI in the amount of P19,129,100.00 as consideration to the lots. Knowing that the bank observes a 3-day clearing check policy, he asked his secretary to call BPI if the RCBC check was already credited to his account on the same day the check was issued by his client. Upon the confirmation of his secretary from BPI that the amount was already credited to his account, he subsequently issued 5 checks to the land owners and left to the US for a vacation the next day. He was thereafter informed by his secretary that the 5 checks were dishonored on June 16, 1997, the same day the 5 checks were issued and he incurred charges because of it. On June 19, 1997, the payees again presented the 5 checks and this time they were honored rendering the account of Suarez to be sufficiently funded. Suarez demanded an apology from BPI and for the reversal of the charges incurred from his account. His checks were apparently returned due to “drawn against insufficient funds” (DAIF) instead of “drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD). Upon examination of the checks, Suarez insisted that the checks were tampered where the DAIF mark on the check was changed to DAUD. He sued the bank for damages and rejected the bank’s offer to reverse the charges from his account. The RTC ruled in favor of Suarez awarding him actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the RTC decision after establishing that there were indeed intercalations made on the DAIF marking to make it appear as DAUD. The court finds it proper to award moral and exemplary damages because Suarez could be criminally held liable in violation of BP 22 if the reason of dishonoring the check is due to DAIF. Although he may not have been liable for a criminal prosecution, he also suffered humiliation from his client because the land owners aborted their transaction thinking he is not capable of fulfilling his obligation. The act of reversion of the bank on the charges imposed on Suarez’s account is tantamount to their admission of having committed blunder in handling the account of their client. The bank however insisted that Suarez is liable for paying the charges mandated by Philippine Clearing House Rules and Regulations (PCHRR).

Phil. Banking Corp. vs CA GR. No. 127469

Facts:

Leonilo Marcos filed in court a complaint for sum of money with damages against Phil. Banking Corporation (PBC). Marcos allegedly made a time deposit in 2 occasions the amt. of P664,897.67 and P764,897.67 through the persuasion of his friend Pagsaligan, one of the bank’s officials. The bank issued receipt for the first deposit while a letter-certification was issued for his second deposit by Pagsaligan. Pagsaligan kept the various time deposit certificates. When Marcos wanted to withdraw his time deposit and its accumulated interest Pagsaligan encouraged him to open a letter of credit to the bank by executing 3 trust receipts agreement. He signed blank forms for domestic letter of credits, trust receipts agreements and promissory notes. He was required to deposit 30% of the total amount of credit and his time deposit will secure the remaining 70% of the letters of credit.

He is now accusing the bank for unjustly collecting payment without deducting the 30% of his down payment and charging him with accumulating interests since his time deposit serves as collateral for his remaining obligation. He further denied making a loan of P500,000 with 25% interest per annum covered by a promissory note produced by the bank. The bank explained that the promissory notes he executed are distinct from the trust receipt agreement and denied falsifying the promissory note covering for the loan of P500,000. The evidence presented on the promissory note however is merely a machine copy of the document. The said loan was already paid by offsetting it from his time deposit.

Citibank vs spouses Cabamongan GR No. 146918, May 2, 2006

FACTS:

Spouses Cabamongan opened a joint and/or foreign currency time deposit in favor of their two children with Citibank. On a material date, a person who claimed to be Carmelita sought the pre-termination of the account. She presented identification cards to ascertain her identity to the then account officer. When she left with the money, she left an identification card. She filled up the necessary forms for pre-termination of deposits with the assistance of Account Officer Yeye San Pedro. While the transaction was being processed, she was casually interviewed by San Pedro about her personal circumstances and investment plans. Since the said person failed to surrender the original Certificate of Deposit, she had to execute a notarized release and waiver document in favor of Citibank, pursuant to Citibank's internal procedure, before the money was released to her. The release and waiver document was not notarized on that same day but the money was nonetheless given to the person withdrawing. The transaction lasted for about 40 minutes.

After said person left, San Pedro realized that she left behind an identification card. The account officer then called up the address. The spouses and their family knew of the incident. They were presently residing in the US and there was a prior incident wherein they got robbed in their house with the jewelry box and cards stolen. Spouses made several demands for the return of the amount but Citibank refused to do so.

Philippine Savings Bank v Chowking Food Corp. GR No. 177526, July 4, 2008

Facts:

Rino Manzano, acting accounting manager of Chowking, endorsed and encashed from the petitioner 5 checks amounting to a total of P556,981.86. The checks were encashed without the signatures of the other authorized officials of Chowking but was accepted and honored by Santos. Manzano misappropriated the amount and when Chowking found out it demanded reimbursement from the bank. The bank refused thus the respondent filed a complaint for the sum of money with damages. It impleaded the bank president, Antonio Abacan and the bank branch manager, Santos who in turn filed a cross claim and third party complaint against Manzano. But summon was not served to Manzano and the third party complaint was archived when Santos did not take any further action. The bank maintained it exercised due diligence in the supervision of its employees while Santos denied to be negligent on her job. Abacan invokes that the respondent does not have any cause of action against him because he has no involvement to the transaction. Santos and Abacan both contend that Chowking is estopped from claiming reimbursement and damages because of its negligence for allowing Manzano to take hold, endorse and encash its checks.

First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No. 174134, July 30, 2008

Facts:

The BIR informed the petitioner on its VAT and Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) deficiency for the year 2000. The petitioner protested after receiving the formal assessment notice from the BIR directing it to pay its VAT deficiencies with surcharges and interest. They contend they are not a lending investor within the scope of Section 108 (A) of the National Internal Revenue Code therefore not subject to Vat and that a pawn ticket is not subject to DST because it is not a proof of pledge of transaction. Their protest was denied by the BIR Regional Director and their appeal was likewise denied by the Court of Tax Appeal hence this petition for review.

Security Bank and Trust Co. v Eric Gan GR No. 150464, June 27, 2006

Facts:

Respondent Gan opened a current account to the petitioner which he can draw check from its fund. Under a special agreement with the petitioner manager Mr. Qui, respondent is allowed to transfer fund from his account to another person’s account. His transaction of transferring fund from his account to another account is covered by a debit memo. In December 14, 1982, he was reportedly to have incurred a negative balance in the amount of P153,757.78. By Sept. 15, 1990 his total obligation to the petitioner allegedly amounted to P297,060.01 inclusive of interest. Petitioner filed a complaint to recover the sum of money from the respondent after his refusal to pay contending that the alleged overdraft was made from transactions without his knowledge and consent. Petitioner presented its bookkeeper, Patricio Mercado who handles the respondent’s account and transactions in a ledger. Records show that a transfer of fund from the respondent’s account was made to another person’s account which was made with authority from Qui which resulted to the overdraft of his account. Respondent denied to have authorized such transaction. The lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish with substantial evidence that the respondent does owe them that sum of money. The CA affirmed the lower court decision upon the court hence this petition.

Prudential Bank v Chonney Lim GR No. 136371, November 11, 2005

Facts:

Respondent allegedly made 2 deposits in the amount of P34,000 each on the 14^th and 15^th of March 1988 in his savings account. He availed of the petitioner bank’s automatic transfer system where his savings deposit may be automatically transferred in his checking account in case the latter has insufficient fund to pay for his issued checks. Apparently, respondent received a letter of dishonor for his checks due to insufficient fund. He wrote a letter to the bank opposing their claim that he has an insufficient fund while asserting to have made two separate deposits in the amount of P34,000 to his savings account. The bank denied receiving two separate deposits and verified only that respondent made a deposit only on the 14^th of March and that the deposit slip dated March 15 presented by the respondent is merely a copy of the former. Upon presentation of evidence, it was clear that the two separate deposit slips have the same amount but with different denominations stated therein. This was further attested by the bank teller who admitted to have stamped both deposit slips. The lower court decided in favor of the respondent. Upon appeal by the petitioner, the court of appeals affirmed the lower court decision with some modification on the award of damages hence this petition to the Supreme Court.

Phil. Banking Corp. vs CA GR. No. 127469

Facts:

Leonilo Marcos filed in court a complaint for sum of money with damages against Phil. Banking Corporation (PBC). Marcos allegedly made a time deposit in 2 occasions the amt. of P664,897.67 and P764,897.67 through the persuasion of his friend Pagsaligan, one of the bank’s officials. The bank issued receipt for the first deposit while a letter-certification was issued for his second deposit by Pagsaligan. Pagsaligan kept the various time deposit certificates. When Marcos wanted to withdraw his time deposit and its accumulated interest Pagsaligan encouraged him to open a letter of credit to the bank by executing 3 trust receipts agreement. He signed blank forms for domestic letter of credits, trust receipts agreements and promissory notes. He was required to deposit 30% of the total amount of credit and his time deposit will secure the remaining 70% of the letters of credit.