Far East Bank Vs Gold Palace

FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, - versus - GOLD PALACE JEWELLERY
CO., as represented by Judy L. Yang, Julie Yang-Go and Kho Soon Huat, Respondent
FACTS: Samuel Tagoe, a foreigner, purchased from Gold Palace (SM North) jewelries worth
PHP 258,000.00. As payment, he offered a foreign draft issued by the United Overseas Bank
of Malaysia addressed to Land Bank, and payable to Gold Palace for PHP 380,000.00. Judy
Yang, the assistant GM of Gold Palace inquired from Far East Bank (SM North) regarding the
draft’s nature. The teller told her that it was similar to a manager’s check but advised her to
not release the jewelry until the draft has been cleared. Following the advice, Yang Issued a
cash invoice to Tagoe & told him that the jewelries would be released when the draft had
been cleared. Julie Yang-Go, the manager of Gold Palace, deposited the draft in the
company’s account with Far East Bank SM North. The latter presented it for clearing to LBP,
the drawee bank, who cleared the same. United Overseas account with LBP was debited
and Gold Palace’s account with Far East was credited with the amount stated in the draft.
The pieces of jewelry were then released to Tagoe and because the amount in the draft was
more than the value of the goods, a check for PHP 122,000 was issued to him. It was
encashed by Tagoe.
3 weeks after, LBP informed Far East that the amount in the foreign draft had been
materially-altered from PHP 300.00 to PHP 380,000.00 and that they will be returning it. Far
East thus refunded the amount paid by LBP. Thus, Far East had to seek reimbursement from
Gold Palace but they were only able to debit PHP 168,053.37, which was done without a
prior written notice to Gold Palace as they only informed them by phone. They thus
demanded the difference of PHP 211,946.64 from Gold Palace. As the latter did not respond
favorably, Far East instituted a civil case for sum of money and damages. Gold Palace
denies the allegations in the complaint and claims as their defense that the subject foreign
draft has been cleared and it was not they who caused the alteration. The RTC ruled in favor
of Far East but this was reversed by the CA as Far East failed to undergo the proceedings on
the protest and thus, Far East could not charge Gold Palace on its secondary liability as an
indorser. It further said that the drawee bank had cleared the check and its remedy should
be against the part responsible for the alteration.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT FAR EAST BANK COULD PROCEED AGAINST GOLD
PALACE.
HELD: No.
RATIO: The acceptor, by accepting the instrument, engages that he will pay it according to
the tenor of his acceptance. This provision applies with equal force in case the drawee pays
a bill without having previously accepted it. His actual payment of the amount in the check
implies not only his assent to the order of the drawer and a recognition of his corresponding
obligation to pay the aforementioned sum, but also, his clear compliance with that
obligation. Actual payment by the drawee is greater than his acceptance, which is
merely a promise in writing to pay. The payment of a check includes its acceptance.
Unmistakable herein is the fact that the drawee bank cleared and paid the subject foreign
draft and forwarded the amount thereof to the collecting bank. LBP was liable on its
payment of the check according to the tenor of the check at the time of payment, which was
the raised amount. Thus, LBP could no longer repudiate the payment it erroneously made to
a due course holder. Gold Palace was not a participant in the alteration of the draft, was not
negligent, and was a holder in due course—it received the draft complete and regular on its
face, before it became overdue and without notice of any dishonor, in good faith and for
value, and absent any knowledge of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of
the person negotiating it.
This construction and application of the law is in line with the sound principle that where one
of two innocent parties must suffer a loss, the law will leave the loss where it finds it. It
further reasserts the usefulness, stability and currency of negotiable paper without seriously
endangering accepted banking practices. Banking institutions can readily protect
themselves against liability on altered instruments either by qualifying their acceptance or
certification, or by relying on forgery insurance and special paper which will make alterations
obvious. The drawee bank, in most cases, is in a better position, compared to the holder, to
verify with the drawer the matters stated in the instrument.
Thus, considering that, in this case, Gold Palace is protected by Section 62 of the NIL, its
collecting agent, Far East, should not have debited the money paid by the drawee bank from
respondent company’s account. When Gold Palace deposited the check with Far East, the
latter, under the terms of the deposit and the provisions of the NIL, became an agent of the
former for the collection of the amount in the draft. The subsequent payment by the drawee
bank and the collection of the amount by the collecting bank closed the transaction insofar
as the drawee and the holder of the check or his agent are concerned, converted the check
into a mere voucher, and, as already discussed, foreclosed the recovery by the drawee of
the amount paid. This closure of the transaction is a matter of course.
As the transaction in this case had been closed and the principal-agent relationship between
the payee and the collecting bank had already ceased, the latter in returning the amount to
the drawee bank was already acting on its own and should now be responsible for its own
actions. Neither can petitioner be considered to have acted as the representative of the
drawee bank when it debited respondent’s account, because, as already explained, the
drawee bank had no right to recover what it paid. Likewise, Far East cannot invoke the
warranty of the payee/depositor who indorsed the instrument for collection to shift the
burden it brought upon itself. This is precisely because the said indorsement is only for
purposes of collection which, under Section 36 of the NIL, is a restrictive indorsement. It did
not in any way transfer the title of the instrument to the collecting bank.
CA ruling is affirmed to the extent that Far East could not debit Gold Palace’s account. Its
remedy is not against Gold Palace but against the drawee-bank or the person responsible for
the alteration.

Far East Bank Vs Gold Palace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Far East Bank Vs Gold Palace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Far East Bank Vs Gold Palace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, - versus - GOLD PALACE JEWELLERY

You might also like