G.R. No.

16454

September 29, 1921

GEORGE A. KAUFFMAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, defendant-appellant. Roman J. Lacson for appellant. Ross and Lawrence for appellee. STREET, J.: At the time of the transaction which gave rise to this litigation the plaintiff, George A. Kauffman, was the president of a domestic corporation engaged chiefly in the exportation of hemp from the Philippine Islands and known as the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company, of which company the plaintiff apparently held in his own right nearly the entire issue of capital stock. On February 5, 1918, the board of directors of said company, declared a dividend of P100,000 from its surplus earnings for the year 1917, of which the plaintiff was entitled to the sum of P98,000. This amount was accordingly placed to his credit on the books of the company, and so remained until in October of the same year when an unsuccessful effort was made to transmit the whole, or a greater part thereof, to the plaintiff in New York City. In this connection it appears that on October 9, 1918, George B. Wicks, treasurer of the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company, presented himself in the exchange department of the Philippine National Bank in Manila and requested that a telegraphic transfer of $45,000 should be made to the plaintiff in New York City, upon account of the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company. He was informed that the total cost of said transfer, including exchange and cost of message, would be P90,355.50. Accordingly, Wicks, as treasurer of the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company, thereupon drew and delivered a check for that amount on the Philippine National Bank; and the same was accepted by the officer selling the exchange in payment of the transfer in question. As evidence of this transaction a document was made out and delivered to Wicks, which is referred to by the bank's assistant cashier as its official receipt. This memorandum receipt is in the following language: October 9th, 1918. CABLE TRANSFER BOUGHT FROM PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Manila, P.I. Stamp P18 Foreign $45,000. Amount 3/8 % Rate P90,337.50

Payable through Philippine National Bank, New York. To G. A. Kauffman, New York. Total P90,355.50. Account of Philippine Fiber and Produce Company. Sold to Messrs. Philippine Fiber and Produce Company, Manila. (Sgd.) Y LERMA, Manager, Foreign Department.

On the same day the Philippine National Bank dispatched to its New York agency a cablegram to the following effect: Pay George A. Kauffman, New York, account Philippine Fiber Produce Co., $45,000. (Sgd.) PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Manila. Upon receiving this telegraphic message, the bank's representative in New York sent a cable message in reply suggesting the advisability of withholding this money from Kauffman, in view of his reluctance to accept certain bills of the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company. The Philippine National Bank acquiesced in this and on October 11 dispatched to its New York agency another message to withhold the Kauffman payment as suggested. Meanwhile Wicks, the treasurer of the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company, cabled to Kauffman in New York, advising him that $45,000 had been placed to his credit in the New York agency of the Philippine National Bank; and in response to this advice Kauffman presented himself at the office of the Philippine National Bank in New York City on October 15, 1918, and demanded the money. By this time, however, the message from the Philippine National Bank of October 11, directing the withholding of payment had been received in New York, and payment was therefore refused. In view of these facts, the plaintiff Kauffman instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover said sum, with interest and costs; and judgment having been there entered favorably to the plaintiff, the defendant appealed. Among additional facts pertinent to the case we note the circumstance that at the time of the transaction above-mentioned, the Philippines Fiber and Produce Company did not have on deposit in the Philippine National Bank money adequate to pay the check for P90,355.50, which was delivered in payment of the telegraphic order; but the company did have credit to that extent, or more, for overdraft in current account, and the check in question was charged as an overdraft against the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company and has remained on the books of the bank as an interest-bearing item in the account of said company. It is furthermore noteworthy that no evidence has been introduced tending to show failure of consideration with respect to the amount paid for said telegraphic order. It is true that in the defendant's answer it is suggested that the failure of the bank to pay over the amount of this remittance to the plaintiff in New York City, pursuant to its agreement, was due to a desire to protect the bank in its relations with the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company, whose credit was secured at the bank by warehouse receipts on Philippine products; and it is alleged that after the exchange in question was sold the bank found that it did not have sufficient to warrant payment of the remittance. In view, however, of the failure of the bank to substantiate these allegations, or to offer any other proof showing failure of consideration, it must be assumed that the obligation of the bank was supported by adequate consideration. In this court the defense is mainly, if not exclusively, based upon the proposition that, inasmuch as the plaintiff Kauffman was not a party to the contract with the bank for the transmission of this credit, no right of action can be vested in him for the breach thereof. "In this situation," we here quote the words of the appellant's brief, "if there exists a cause of action against the defendant, it would not be in favor of the plaintiff who had taken no part at all in the transaction nor had entered into any contract with the plaintiff, but in favor of the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company, the party which contracted in its own name with the defendant." The question thus placed before us is one purely of law; and at the very threshold of the discussion it can be stated that the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law can come into operation there

must be a document in existence of the character described in section 1 of the Law; and no rights properly speaking arise in respect to said instrument until it is delivered. In the case before us there was an order, it is true, transmitted by the defendant bank to its New York branch, for the payment of a specified sum of money to George A. Kauffman. But this order was not made payable "to order or "to bearer," as required in subsection (d) of that Act; and inasmuch as it never left the possession of the bank, or its representative in New York City, there was no delivery in the sense intended in section 16 of the same Law. In this connection it is unnecessary to point out that the official receipt delivered by the bank to the purchaser of the telegraphic order, and already set out above, cannot itself be viewed in the light of a negotiable instrument, although it affords complete proof of the obligation actually assumed by the bank. Stated in bare simplicity the admitted facts show that the defendant bank for a valuable consideration paid by the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company agreed on October 9, 1918, to cause a sum of money to be paid to the plaintiff in New York City; and the question is whether the plaintiff can maintain an action against the bank for the nonperformance of said undertaking. In other words, is the lack of privity with the contract on the part of the plaintiff fatal to the maintenance of an action by him? The only express provision of law that has been cited as bearing directly on this question is the second paragraph of article 1257 of the Civil Code; and unless the present action can be maintained under the provision, the plaintiff admittedly has no case. This provision states an exception to the more general rule expressed in the first paragraph of the same article to the effect that contracts are productive of effects only between the parties who execute them; and in harmony with this general rule are numerous decisions of this court (Wolfson vs. Estate of Martinez, 20 Phil., 340; Ibaez de Aldecoa vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, 22 Phil., 572, 584; Manila Railroad Co. vs. Compaia Trasatlantica and Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 38 Phil., 873, 894.) The paragraph introducing the exception which we are now to consider is in these words: Should the contract contain any stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment, provided he has given notice of his acceptance to the person bound before the stipulation has been revoked. (Art. 1257, par. 2, Civ. Code.) In the case of Uy Tam and Uy Yet vs. Leonard (30 Phil., 471), is found an elaborate dissertation upon the history and interpretation of the paragraph above quoted and so complete is the discussion contained in that opinion that it would be idle for us here to go over the same matter. Suffice it to say that Justice Trent, speaking for the court in that case, sums up its conclusions upon the conditions governing the right of the person for whose benefit a contract is made to maintain an action for the breach thereof in the following words: So, we believe the fairest test, in this jurisdiction at least, whereby to determine whether the interest of a third person in a contract is a stipulation pour autrui, or merely an incidental interest, is to rely upon the intention of the parties as disclosed by their contract. If a third person claims an enforcible interest in the contract, the question must be settled by determining whether the contracting parties desired to tender him such an interest. Did they deliberately insert terms in their agreement with the avowed purpose of conferring a favor upon such third person? In resolving this question, of course, the ordinary rules of construction and interpretation of writings must be observed. (Uy Tam and Uy Yet vs. Leonard, supra.)

Further on in the same opinion he adds: "In applying this test to a stipulation pour autrui, it matters not whether the stipulation is in the nature of a gift or whether there is an obligation owing from the promise to the third person. That no such obligation exists may in some degree assist in determining whether the parties intended to benefit a third person, whether they stipulated for him." (Uy Tam and Uy Yet vs. Leonard, supra.) In the light of the conclusion thus stated, the right of the plaintiff to maintain the present action is clear enough; for it is undeniable that the bank's promise to cause a definite sum of money to be paid to the plaintiff in New York City is a stipulation in his favor within the meaning of the paragraph above quoted; and the circumstances under which that promise was given disclose an evident intention on the part of the contracting parties that the plaintiff should have the money upon demand in New York City. The recognition of this unqualified right in the plaintiff to receive the money implies in our opinion the right in him to maintain an action to recover it; and indeed if the provision in question were not applicable to the facts now before us, it would be difficult to conceive of a case arising under it. It will be noted that under the paragraph cited a third person seeking to enforce compliance with a stipulation in his favor must signify his acceptance before it has been revoked. In this case the plaintiff clearly signified his acceptance to the bank by demanding payment; and although the Philippine National Bank had already directed its New York agency to withhold payment when this demand was made, the rights of the plaintiff cannot be considered to as there used, must be understood to imply revocation by the mutual consent of the contracting parties, or at least by direction of the party purchasing he exchange. In the course of the argument attention was directed to the case of Legniti vs. Mechanics, etc. Bank (130 N.E. Rep., 597), decided by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York on March 1, 1921, wherein it is held that, by selling a cable transfer of funds on a foreign country in ordinary course, a bank incurs a simple contractual obligation, and cannot be considered as holding the money which was paid for the transfer in the character of a specific trust. Thus, it was said, "Cable transfers, therefore, mean a method of transmitting money by cable wherein the seller engages that he has the balance at the point on which the payment is ordered and that on receipt of the cable directing the transfer his correspondent at such point will make payment to the beneficiary described in the cable. All these transaction are matters of purchase and sale create no trust relationship." As we view it there is nothing in the decision referred to decisive of the question now before us, wish is merely that of the right of the beneficiary to maintain an action against the bank selling the transfer. Upon the considerations already stated, we are of the opinion that the right of action exists, and the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered, with costs against the appellant. Interest will be computed as prescribed in section 510 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

G.R. No. 111190 June 27, 1995 LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA, as City Fiscal of Mandaue City and in his personal capacity as garnishee,petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE P. BURGOS, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. XVII, Cebu City, and RAUL H. SESBREO, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.: RAUL H. SESBREO filed a complaint for damages against Assistant City Fiscals Bienvenido N. Mabanto, Jr., and Dario D. Rama, Jr., before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. After trial judgment was rendered ordering the defendants to pay P11,000.00 to the plaintiff, private respondent herein. The decision having become final and executory, on motion of the latter, the trial court ordered its execution. This order was questioned by the defendants before the Court of Appeals. However, on 15 January 1992 a writ of execution was issued. On 4 February 1992 a notice of garnishment was served on petitioner Loreto D. de la Victoria as City Fiscal of Mandaue City where defendant Mabanto, Jr., was then detailed. The notice directed petitioner not to disburse, transfer, release or convey to any other person except to the deputy sheriff concerned the salary checks or other checks, monies, or cash due or belonging to Mabanto, Jr., under penalty of law. 1 On 10 March 1992 private respondent filed a motion before the trial court for
examination of the garnishees.

On 25 May 1992 the petition pending before the Court of Appeals was dismissed. Thus the trial court, finding no more legal obstacle to act on the motion for examination of the garnishees, directed petitioner on 4 November 1992 to submit his report showing the amount of the garnished salaries of Mabanto, Jr., within fifteen (15) days from receipt 2 taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. 12,
pars. (f) and (i), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

On 24 November 1992 private respondent filed a motion to require petitioner to explain why he should not be cited in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order of 4 November 1992. On the other hand, on 19 January 1993 petitioner moved to quash the notice of garnishment claiming that he was not in possession of any money, funds, credit, property or anything of value belonging to Mabanto, Jr., except his salary and RATA checks, but that said checks were not yet properties of Mabanto, Jr., until delivered to him. He further claimed that, as such, they were still public funds which could not be subject to garnishment. On 9 March 1993 the trial court denied both motions and ordered petitioner to immediately comply with its order of 4 November 1992. 3 It opined that the checks of Mabanto, Jr., had already been
released through petitioner by the Department of Justice duly signed by the officer concerned. Upon service of the writ of garnishment, petitioner as custodian of the checks was under obligation to hold them for the judgment creditor. Petitioner became a virtual party to, or a forced intervenor in, the case and the trial court thereby acquired jurisdiction to bind him to its orders and processes with a view to the complete satisfaction of the judgment. Additionally, there was no sufficient reason for petitioner to hold the checks because they were no longer government funds and presumably delivered to the payee, conformably with the last sentence of Sec. 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

With regard to the contempt charge, the trial court was not morally convinced of petitioner's guilt. For, while his explanation suffered from procedural infirmities nevertheless he took pains in enlightening the court by sending a written explanation dated 22 July 1992 requesting for the lifting of the notice of garnishment on the ground that the notice should have been sent to the Finance Officer of the Department of Justice. Petitioner insists that he had no authority to segregate a portion of the salary of Mabanto, Jr. The explanation however was not submitted to the trial court for action since the stenographic reporter failed to attach it to the record. 4 On 20 April 1993 the motion for reconsideration was denied. The trial court explained that it was not the duty of the garnishee to inquire or judge for himself whether the issuance of the order of execution, writ of execution and notice of garnishment was justified. His only duty was to turn over the garnished checks to the trial court which issued the order of execution. 5 Petitioner raises the following relevant issues: (1) whether a check still in the hands of the maker or its duly authorized representative is owned by the payee before physical delivery to the latter: and, (2) whether the salary check of a government official or employee funded with public funds can be subject to garnishment. Petitioner reiterates his position that the salary checks were not owned by Mabanto, Jr., because they were not yet delivered to him, and that petitioner as garnishee has no legal obligation to hold and deliver them to the trial court to be applied to Mabanto, Jr.'s judgment debt. The thesis of petitioner is that the salary checks still formed part of public funds and therefore beyond the reach of garnishment proceedings. Petitioner has well argued his case. Garnishment is considered as a species of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the judgment debtor owing to him from a stranger to the litigation. 6 Emphasis is laid on the phrase
"belonging to the judgment debtor" since it is the focal point in resolving the issues raised.

As Assistant City Fiscal, the source of the salary of Mabanto, Jr., is public funds. He receives his compensation in the form of checks from the Department of Justice through petitioner as City Fiscal of Mandaue City and head of office. Under Sec. 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As ordinarily understood, delivery means the transfer of the possession of the instrument by the maker or drawer with intent to transfer title to the payee and recognize him as the holder thereof. 7 According to the trial court, the checks of Mabanto, Jr., were already released by the Department of Justice duly signed by the officer concerned through petitioner and upon service of the writ of garnishment by the sheriff petitioner was under obligation to hold them for the judgment creditor. It recognized the role of petitioner ascustodian of the checks. At the same time however it considered the checks as no longer government funds and presumed delivered to the payee based on the last sentence of Sec. 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which states: "And where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed." Yet, the presumption is not conclusive because the last portion of the provision says "until the contrary is proved." However this phrase was deleted by the trial court for no apparent reason. Proof to the contrary is its own finding that the checks were in the custody of petitioner. Inasmuch as said checks had not yet been delivered to Mabanto, Jr., they did not belong to him and still had the character of public funds. In Tiro v. Hontanosas 8 we ruled that

The salary check of a government officer or employee such as a teacher does not belong to him before it is physically delivered to him. Until that time the check belongs to the government. Accordingly, before there is actual delivery of the check, the payee has no power over it; he cannot assign it without the consent of the Government. As a necessary consequence of being public fund, the checks may not be garnished to satisfy the judgment. 9 The rationale behind this doctrine is obvious consideration of public policy. The Court
succinctly stated in Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego 10 that

The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law. In denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the trial court expressed the additional ratiocination that it was not the duty of the garnishee to inquire or judge for himself whether the issuance of the order of execution, the writ of execution, and the notice of garnishment was justified, citing our ruling in Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank v. Court of Appeals. 11 Our precise ruling in
that case was that "[I]t is not incumbent upon the garnishee to inquire or to judge for itself whether or not the order for the advance execution of a judgment is valid." But that is invoking only the general rule. We have also established therein the compelling reasons, as exceptions thereto, which were not taken into account by the trial court, e.g., a defect on the face of the writ or actual knowledge by the garnishee of lack of entitlement on the part of the garnisher. It is worth to note that the ruling referred to the validity of advance execution of judgments, but a careful scrutiny of that case and similar cases reveals that it was applicable to a notice of garnishment as well. In the case at bench, it was incumbent upon petitioner to inquire into the validity of the notice of garnishment as he had actual knowledge of the non-entitlement of private respondent to the checks in question. Consequently, we find no difficulty concluding that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the notice of garnishment concerning the salary checks of Mabanto, Jr., in the possession of petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders of 9 March 1993 and 20 April 1993 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Br. 17, subject of the petition are SET ASIDE. The notice of garnishment served on petitioner dated 3 February 1992 is ordered DISCHARGED. SO ORDERED. Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring and dissenting: This Court may take judicial notice of the fact that checks for salaries of employees of various Departments all over the country are prepared in Manila not at the end of the payroll period, but days

before it to ensure that they reach the employees concerned not later than the end of the payroll period. As to the employees in the provinces or cities, the checks are sent through the heads of the corresponding offices of the Departments. Thus, in the case of Prosecutors and Assistant Prosecutors of the Department of Justice, the checks are sent through the Provincial Prosecutors or City Prosecutors, as the case may be, who shall then deliver the checks to the payees. Involved in the instant case are the salary and RATA checks of then Assistant City Fiscal Bienvenido Mabanto, Jr., who was detailed in the Office of the City Fiscal (now Prosecutor) of Mandaue City. Conformably with the aforesaid practice, these checks were sent to Mabanto thru the petitioner who was then the City Fiscal of Mandaue City. The ponencia failed to indicate the payroll period covered by the salary check and the month to which the RATA check corresponds. I respectfully submit that if these salary and RATA checks corresponded, respectively, to a payroll period and to a month which had already lapsed at the time the notice of garnishment was served, the garnishment would be valid, as the checks would then cease to be property of the Government and would become property of Mabanto. Upon the expiration of such period and month, the sums indicated therein were deemed automatically segregated from the budgetary allocations for the Department of Justice under the General Appropriations Act. It must be recalled that the public policy against execution, attachment, or garnishment is directed to public funds. Thus, in the case of Director of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry vs. Concepcion 1 where the
core issue was whether or not the salary due from the Government to a public officer or employee can, by garnishment, be seized before being paid to him and appropriated to the payment of his judgment debts, this Court held:

A rule, which has never been seriously questioned, is that money in the hands of public officers, although it may be due government employees, is not liable to the creditors of these employees in the process of garnishment. One reason is, that the State, by virtue of its sovereignty, may not be sued in its own courts except by express authorization by the Legislature, and to subject its officers to garnishment would be to permit indirectly what is prohibited directly. Another reason is that moneys sought to be garnished, as long as they remain in the hands of the disbursing officer of the Government, belong to the latter, although the defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific portion thereof. And still another reason which covers both of the foregoing is that every consideration of public policy forbids it. The United States Supreme Court, in the leading case of Buchanan vs. Alexander ([1846], 4 How., 19), in speaking of the right of creditors of seamen, by process of attachment, to divert the public money from its legitimate and appropriate object, said: To state such a principle is to refute it. No government can sanction it. At all times it would be found embarrassing, and under some circumstances it might be fatal to the public service. . . . So long as money remains in the hands of a disbursing officer, it is as much the money of the United States, as if it had not been drawn from the treasury. Until paid over by the agent of the government to the person

entitled to it, the fund cannot, in any legal sense, be considered a part of his effects." (See, further, 12 R.C.L., p. 841; Keene vs. Smith [1904], 44 Ore., 525; Wild vs. Ferguson [1871], 23 La. Ann., 752; Bank of Tennessee vs. Dibrell [1855], 3 Sneed [Tenn.], 379). (emphasis supplied) The authorities cited in the ponencia are inapplicable. Garnished or levied on therein were public funds, to wit: (a) the pump irrigation trust fund deposited with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the account of the Irrigation Service Unit in Republic vs. Palacio; 2 (b) the deposits of the National
Media Production Center in Traders Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court; 3 and (c) the deposits of the Bureau of Public Highways with the PNB under a current account, which may be expended only for their legitimate object as authorized by the corresponding legislative appropriation in Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Diego. 4

Neither is Tiro vs. Hontanosas 5 squarely in point. The said case involved the validity of Circular No. 21,
series of 1969, issued by the Director of Public Schools which directed that "henceforth no cashier or disbursing officer shall pay to attorneys-in-fact or other persons who may be authorized under a power of attorney or other forms of authority to collect the salary of an employee, except when the persons so designated and authorized is an immediate member of the family of the employee concerned, and in all other cases except upon proper authorization of the Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal and Administrative Matters, with the recommendation of the Financial Assistant." Private respondent Zafra Financing Enterprise, which had extended loans to public school teachers in Cebu City and obtained from the latter promissory notes and special powers of attorney authorizing it to take and collect their salary checks from the Division Office in Cebu City of the Bureau of Public Schools, sought, inter alia, to nullify the Circular. It is clear that the teachers had in fact assigned to or waived in favor of Zafra their future salaries which were still public funds. That assignment or waiver was contrary to public policy.

I would therefore vote to grant the petition only if the salary and RATA checks garnished corresponds to an unexpired payroll period and RATA month, respectively. Padilla, J., concurs.

Separate Opinions DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring and dissenting: This Court may take judicial notice of the fact that checks for salaries of employees of various Departments all over the country are prepared in Manila not at the end of the payroll period, but days before it to ensure that they reach the employees concerned not later than the end of the payroll period. As to the employees in the provinces or cities, the checks are sent through the heads of the corresponding offices of the Departments. Thus, in the case of Prosecutors and Assistant Prosecutors of the Department of Justice, the checks are sent through the Provincial Prosecutors or City Prosecutors, as the case may be, who shall then deliver the checks to the payees. Involved in the instant case are the salary and RATA checks of then Assistant City Fiscal Bienvenido Mabanto, Jr., who was detailed in the Office of the City Fiscal (now Prosecutor) of Mandaue City. Conformably with the aforesaid practice, these checks were sent to Mabanto thru the petitioner who was then the City Fiscal of Mandaue City.

The ponencia failed to indicate the payroll period covered by the salary check and the month to which the RATA check corresponds. I respectfully submit that if these salary and RATA checks corresponded, respectively, to a payroll period and to a month which had already lapsed at the time the notice of garnishment was served, the garnishment would be valid, as the checks would then cease to be property of the Government and would become property of Mabanto. Upon the expiration of such period and month, the sums indicated therein were deemed automatically segregated from the budgetary allocations for the Department of Justice under the General Appropriations Act. It must be recalled that the public policy against execution, attachment, or garnishment is directed to public funds. Thus, in the case of Director of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry vs. Concepcion 1 where the
core issue was whether or not the salary due from the Government to a public officer or employee can, by garnishment, be seized before being paid to him and appropriated to the payment of his judgment debts, this Court held:

A rule, which has never been seriously questioned, is that money in the hands of public officers, although it may be due government employees, is not liable to the creditors of these employees in the process of garnishment. One reason is, that the State, by virtue of its sovereignty, may not be sued in its own courts except by express authorization by the Legislature, and to subject its officers to garnishment would be to permit indirectly what is prohibited directly. Another reason is that moneys sought to be garnished, as long as they remain in the hands of the disbursing officer of the Government, belong to the latter, although the defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific portion thereof. And still another reason which covers both of the foregoing is that every consideration of public policy forbids it. The United States Supreme Court, in the leading case of Buchanan vs. Alexander ([1846], 4 How., 19), in speaking of the right of creditors of seamen, by process of attachment, to divert the public money from its legitimate and appropriate object, said: To state such a principle is to refute it. No government can sanction it. At all times it would be found embarrassing, and under some circumstances it might be fatal to the public service. . . . So long as money remains in the hands of a disbursing officer, it is as much the money of the United States, as if it had not been drawn from the treasury. Until paid over by the agent of the government to the person entitled to it, the fund cannot, in any legal sense, be considered a part of his effects." (See, further, 12 R.C.L., p. 841; Keene vs. Smith [1904], 44 Ore., 525; Wild vs. Ferguson [1871], 23 La. Ann., 752; Bank of Tennessee vs. Dibrell [1855], 3 Sneed [Tenn.], 379). (emphasis supplied) The authorities cited in the ponencia are inapplicable. Garnished or levied on therein were public funds, to wit: (a) the pump irrigation trust fund deposited with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the account of the Irrigation Service Unit in Republic vs. Palacio; 2 (b) the deposits of the National
Media Production Center in Traders Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court; 3 and (c) the deposits of the Bureau of Public Highways with the PNB under a current account, which may be expended only for

their legitimate object as authorized by the corresponding legislative appropriation in Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Diego. 4

Neither is Tiro vs. Hontanosas 5 squarely in point. The said case involved the validity of Circular No. 21,
series of 1969, issued by the Director of Public Schools which directed that "henceforth no cashier or disbursing officer shall pay to attorneys-in-fact or other persons who may be authorized under a power of attorney or other forms of authority to collect the salary of an employee, except when the persons so designated and authorized is an immediate member of the family of the employee concerned, and in all other cases except upon proper authorization of the Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal and Administrative Matters, with the recommendation of the Financial Assistant." Private respondent Zafra Financing Enterprise, which had extended loans to public school teachers in Cebu City and obtained from the latter promissory notes and special powers of attorney authorizing it to take and collect their salary checks from the Division Office in Cebu City of the Bureau of Public Schools, sought, inter alia, to nullify the Circular. It is clear that the teachers had in fact assigned to or waived in favor of Zafra their future salaries which were still public funds. That assignment or waiver was contrary to public policy.

I would therefore vote to grant the petition only if the salary and RATA checks garnished corresponds to an unexpired payroll period and RATA month, respectively. Padilla, J., concurs.

G.R. No. 85419 March 9, 1993 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL, plaintiff-petitioner, vs. SIMA WEI and/or LEE KIAN HUAT, MARY CHENG UY, SAMSON TUNG, ASIAN INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC CORPORATION and PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendantsrespondents. Yngson & Associates for petitioner. Henry A. Reyes & Associates for Samso Tung & Asian Industrial Plastic Corporation. Eduardo G. Castelo for Sima Wei. Monsod, Tamargo & Associates for Producers Bank. Rafael S. Santayana for Mary Cheng Uy.

CAMPOS, JR., J.: On July 6, 1986, the Development Bank of Rizal (petitioner Bank for brevity) filed a complaint for a sum of money against respondents Sima Wei and/or Lee Kian Huat, Mary Cheng Uy, Samson Tung, Asian Industrial Plastic Corporation (Plastic Corporation for short) and the Producers Bank of the Philippines, on two causes of action: (1) To enforce payment of the balance of P1,032,450.02 on a promissory note executed by respondent Sima Wei on June 9, 1983; and (2) To enforce payment of two checks executed by Sima Wei, payable to petitioner, and drawn against the China Banking Corporation, to pay the balance due on the promissory note. Except for Lee Kian Huat, defendants filed their separate Motions to Dismiss alleging a common ground that the complaint states no cause of action. The trial court granted the defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, * to which the petitioner Bank, represented by its Legal Liquidator, filed this Petition for Review by Certiorari, assigning the following as the alleged errors of the Court of Appeals: 1 (1) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFFPETITIONER HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTSRESPONDENTS HEREIN. (2) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SECTION 13, RULE 3 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT ON ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO HEREIN DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. The antecedent facts of this case are as follows: In consideration for a loan extended by petitioner Bank to respondent Sima Wei, the latter executed and delivered to the former a promissory note, engaging to pay the petitioner Bank or order the amount of P1,820,000.00 on or before June 24, 1983 with interest at 32% per annum. Sima Wei made partial payments on the note, leaving a balance of P1,032,450.02. On November 18, 1983, Sima Wei issued two crossed checks payable to petitioner Bank drawn against China Banking Corporation, bearing respectively the serial numbers 384934, for the amount of P550,000.00 and 384935, for the amount of P500,000.00. The said checks were allegedly issued in full settlement of the drawer's account evidenced by the promissory note. These two checks were not delivered to the petitioner-payee or to any of its authorized representatives. For reasons not shown, these checks came into the possession of respondent Lee Kian Huat, who deposited the checks without the petitioner-payee's indorsement (forged or otherwise) to the account of respondent Plastic Corporation, at the Balintawak branch, Caloocan City, of the Producers Bank. Cheng Uy, Branch Manager of the Balintawak branch of Producers Bank, relying on the assurance of respondent Samson Tung, President of Plastic Corporation, that the transaction was legal and regular, instructed the cashier of Producers Bank to accept the checks for deposit and to credit them to the account of said Plastic Corporation, inspite of the fact that the checks were crossed and payable to petitioner Bank and bore no indorsement of the latter. Hence, petitioner filed the complaint as aforestated. The main issue before Us is whether petitioner Bank has a cause of action against any or all of the defendants, in the alternative or otherwise.

A cause of action is defined as an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of another. The essential elements are: (1) legal right of the plaintiff; (2) correlative obligation of the defendant; and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 2 The normal parties to a check are the drawer, the payee and the drawee bank. Courts have long recognized the business custom of using printed checks where blanks are provided for the date of issuance, the name of the payee, the amount payable and the drawer's signature. All the drawer has to do when he wishes to issue a check is to properly fill up the blanks and sign it. However, the mere fact that he has done these does not give rise to any liability on his part, until and unless the check is delivered to the payee or his representative. A negotiable instrument, of which a check is, is not only a written evidence of a contract right but is also a species of property. Just as a deed to a piece of land must be delivered in order to convey title to the grantee, so must a negotiable instrument be delivered to the payee in order to evidence its existence as a binding contract. Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, which governs checks, provides in part: Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. . . . Thus, the payee of a negotiable instrument acquires no interest with respect thereto until its delivery to him. 3Delivery of an instrument means transfer of possession, actual or constructive, from one person
to another. 4 Without the initial delivery of the instrument from the drawer to the payee, there can be no liability on the instrument. Moreover, such delivery must be intended to give effect to the instrument.

The allegations of the petitioner in the original complaint show that the two (2) China Bank checks, numbered 384934 and 384935, were not delivered to the payee, the petitioner herein. Without the delivery of said checks to petitioner-payee, the former did not acquire any right or interest therein and cannot therefore assert any cause of action, founded on said checks, whether against the drawer Sima Wei or against the Producers Bank or any of the other respondents. In the original complaint, petitioner Bank, as plaintiff, sued respondent Sima Wei on the promissory note, and the alternative defendants, including Sima Wei, on the two checks. On appeal from the orders of dismissal of the Regional Trial Court, petitioner Bank alleged that its cause of action was not based on collecting the sum of money evidenced by the negotiable instruments stated but on quasi-delict a claim for damages on the ground of fraudulent acts and evident bad faith of the alternative respondents. This was clearly an attempt by the petitioner Bank to change not only the theory of its case but the basis of his cause of action. It is well-settled that a party cannot change his theory on appeal, as this would in effect deprive the other party of his day in court. 5 Notwithstanding the above, it does not necessarily follow that the drawer Sima Wei is freed from liability to petitioner Bank under the loan evidenced by the promissory note agreed to by her. Her allegation that she has paid the balance of her loan with the two checks payable to petitioner Bank has no merit for, as We have earlier explained, these checks were never delivered to petitioner Bank. And even granting, without admitting, that there was delivery to petitioner Bank, the delivery of checks in payment of an obligation does not constitute payment unless they are cashed or their value is impaired through the fault of the creditor. 6 None of these exceptions were alleged by
respondent Sima Wei.

Therefore, unless respondent Sima Wei proves that she has been relieved from liability on the promissory note by some other cause, petitioner Bank has a right of action against her for the balance due thereon.

However, insofar as the other respondents are concerned, petitioner Bank has no privity with them. Since petitioner Bank never received the checks on which it based its action against said respondents, it never owned them (the checks) nor did it acquire any interest therein. Thus, anything which the respondents may have done with respect to said checks could not have prejudiced petitioner Bank. It had no right or interest in the checks which could have been violated by said respondents. Petitioner Bank has therefore no cause of action against said respondents, in the alternative or otherwise. If at all, it is Sima Wei, the drawer, who would have a cause of action against her co-respondents, if the allegations in the complaint are found to be true. With respect to the second assignment of error raised by petitioner Bank regarding the applicability of Section 13, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, We find it unnecessary to discuss the same in view of Our finding that the petitioner Bank did not acquire any right or interest in the checks due to lack of delivery. It therefore has no cause of action against the respondents, in the alternative or otherwise. In the light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioner's complaint is AFFIRMED insofar as the second cause of action is concerned. On the first cause of action, the case is REMANDED to the trial court for a trial on the merits, consistent with this decision, in order to determine whether respondent Sima Wei is liable to the Development Bank of Rizal for any amount under the promissory note allegedly signed by her. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents. Bito, Lozada, Ortega & Castillo for petitioners. Nepomuceno, Hofilea & Guingona for private.

REGALADO, J.: This petition for review on certiorari impugns and seeks the reversal of the decision promulgated by respondent court on March 8, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No. 23615 1 affirming with modifications, the earlier
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XLII, 2 which dismissed the complaint filed therein by herein petitioner against respondent bank.

The undisputed background of this case, as found by the court a quo and adopted by respondent court, appears of record: 1. On various dates, defendant, a commercial banking institution, through its Sucat Branch issued 280 certificates of time deposit (CTDs) in favor of one Angel dela Cruz who deposited with herein defendant the aggregate amount of P1,120,000.00, as follows: (Joint Partial Stipulation of Facts and Statement of Issues, Original Records, p. 207; Defendant's Exhibits 1 to 280); CTD CTD Dates Serial Nos. Quantity Amount 22 Feb. 82 90101 to 90120 20 P80,000 26 Feb. 82 74602 to 74691 90 360,000 2 Mar. 82 74701 to 74740 40 160,000 4 Mar. 82 90127 to 90146 20 80,000 5 Mar. 82 74797 to 94800 4 16,000 5 Mar. 82 89965 to 89986 22 88,000 5 Mar. 82 70147 to 90150 4 16,000 8 Mar. 82 90001 to 90020 20 80,000 9 Mar. 82 90023 to 90050 28 112,000 9 Mar. 82 89991 to 90000 10 40,000 9 Mar. 82 90251 to 90272 22 88,000 Total 280 P1,120,000 ===== ======== 2. Angel dela Cruz delivered the said certificates of time (CTDs) to herein plaintiff in connection with his purchased of fuel products from the latter (Original Record, p. 208). 3. Sometime in March 1982, Angel dela Cruz informed Mr. Timoteo Tiangco, the Sucat Branch Manger, that he lost all the certificates of time deposit in dispute. Mr. Tiangco advised said depositor to execute and submit a notarized Affidavit of Loss, as required by defendant bank's procedure, if he desired replacement of said lost CTDs (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 48-50). 4. On March 18, 1982, Angel dela Cruz executed and delivered to defendant bank the required Affidavit of Loss (Defendant's Exhibit 281). On the basis of said affidavit of loss, 280 replacement CTDs were issued in favor of said depositor (Defendant's Exhibits 282-561). 5. On March 25, 1982, Angel dela Cruz negotiated and obtained a loan from defendant bank in the amount of Eight Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P875,000.00). On the same date, said depositor executed a notarized Deed of Assignment of Time Deposit (Exhibit 562) which stated, among others, that he (de la Cruz) surrenders to defendant bank "full control of the indicated time deposits from and after date" of the assignment and further authorizes said bank to pre-terminate, set-off and "apply the said time deposits to the payment of whatever amount or amounts may be due" on the loan upon its maturity (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 6062).

6. Sometime in November, 1982, Mr. Aranas, Credit Manager of plaintiff Caltex (Phils.) Inc., went to the defendant bank's Sucat branch and presented for verification the CTDs declared lost by Angel dela Cruz alleging that the same were delivered to herein plaintiff "as security for purchases made with Caltex Philippines, Inc." by said depositor (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 54-68). 7. On November 26, 1982, defendant received a letter (Defendant's Exhibit 563) from herein plaintiff formally informing it of its possession of the CTDs in question and of its decision to pre-terminate the same. 8. On December 8, 1982, plaintiff was requested by herein defendant to furnish the former "a copy of the document evidencing the guarantee agreement with Mr. Angel dela Cruz" as well as "the details of Mr. Angel dela Cruz" obligation against which plaintiff proposed to apply the time deposits (Defendant's Exhibit 564). 9. No copy of the requested documents was furnished herein defendant. 10. Accordingly, defendant bank rejected the plaintiff's demand and claim for payment of the value of the CTDs in a letter dated February 7, 1983 (Defendant's Exhibit 566). 11. In April 1983, the loan of Angel dela Cruz with the defendant bank matured and fell due and on August 5, 1983, the latter set-off and applied the time deposits in question to the payment of the matured loan (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 130-131). 12. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff filed the instant complaint, praying that defendant bank be ordered to pay it the aggregate value of the certificates of time deposit of P1,120,000.00 plus accrued interest and compounded interest therein at 16% per annum, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. After trial, the court a quo rendered its decision dismissing the instant complaint. 3 On appeal, as earlier stated, respondent court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint, hence this petition wherein petitioner faults respondent court in ruling (1) that the subject certificates of deposit are non-negotiable despite being clearly negotiable instruments; (2) that petitioner did not become a holder in due course of the said certificates of deposit; and (3) in disregarding the pertinent provisions of the Code of Commerce relating to lost instruments payable to bearer. 4 The instant petition is bereft of merit. A sample text of the certificates of time deposit is reproduced below to provide a better understanding of the issues involved in this recourse. SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 6778 Ayala Ave., Makati No. 90101 Metro Manila, Philippines SUCAT OFFICEP 4,000.00 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT Rate 16%

Date of Maturity FEB. 23, 1984 FEB 22, 1982, 19____ This is to Certify that B E A R E R has deposited in this Bank the sum of PESOS: FOUR THOUSAND ONLY, SECURITY BANK SUCAT OFFICE P4,000 & 00 CTS Pesos, Philippine Currency, repayable to said depositor 731 days. after date, upon presentation and surrender of this certificate, with interest at the rate of 16% per cent per annum. (Sgd. Illegible) (Sgd. Illegible) AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES 5 Respondent court ruled that the CTDs in question are non-negotiable instruments, nationalizing as follows: . . . While it may be true that the word "bearer" appears rather boldly in the CTDs issued, it is important to note that after the word "BEARER" stamped on the space provided supposedly for the name of the depositor, the words "has deposited" a certain amount follows. The document further provides that the amount deposited shall be "repayable to said depositor" on the period indicated. Therefore, the text of the instrument(s) themselves manifest with clarity that they are payable, not to whoever purports to be the "bearer" but only to the specified person indicated therein, the depositor. In effect, the appellee bank acknowledges its depositor Angel dela Cruz as the person who made the deposit and further engages itself to pay said depositor the amount indicated thereon at the stipulated date. 6 We disagree with these findings and conclusions, and hereby hold that the CTDs in question are negotiable instruments. Section 1 Act No. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, enumerates the requisites for an instrument to become negotiable, viz: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty. The CTDs in question undoubtedly meet the requirements of the law for negotiability. The parties' bone of contention is with regard to requisite (d) set forth above. It is noted that Mr. Timoteo P. Tiangco, Security Bank's Branch Manager way back in 1982, testified in open court that the depositor reffered to in the CTDs is no other than Mr. Angel de la Cruz. xxx xxx xxx Atty. Calida:

q In other words Mr. Witness, you are saying that per books of the bank, the depositor referred (sic) in these certificates states that it was Angel dela Cruz? witness: a Yes, your Honor, and we have the record to show that Angel dela Cruz was the one who cause (sic) the amount. Atty. Calida: q And no other person or entity or company, Mr. Witness? witness: a None, your Honor. 7
xxx xxx xxx

Atty. Calida: q Mr. Witness, who is the depositor identified in all of these certificates of time deposit insofar as the bank is concerned? witness: a Angel dela Cruz is the depositor. 8
xxx xxx xxx

On this score, 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. 9 In the construction of a bill
or note, the intention of the parties is to control, if it can be legally ascertained. 10 While the writing may be read in the light of surrounding circumstances 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. 11

Contrary to what respondent court held, the CTDs are negotiable instruments. The documents provide that the amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor. And who, according to the document, is the depositor? It is the "bearer." The documents do not say that the depositor is Angel de la Cruz and that the amounts deposited are repayable specifically to him. Rather, the amounts are to be repayable to the bearer of the documents or, for that matter, whosoever may be the bearer at the time of presentment. If it was really the intention of respondent bank to pay the amount to Angel de la Cruz only, it could have with facility so expressed that fact in clear and categorical terms in the documents, instead of having the word "BEARER" stamped on the space provided for the name of the depositor in each CTD. On the wordings of the documents, therefore, the amounts deposited are repayable to

whoever may be the bearer thereof. Thus, petitioner's aforesaid witness merely declared that Angel de la Cruz is the depositor "insofar as the bank is concerned," but obviously other parties not privy to the transaction between them would not be in a position to know that the depositor is not the bearer stated in the CTDs. Hence, the situation would require any party dealing with the CTDs to go behind the plain import of what is written thereon to unravel the agreement of the parties thereto through facts aliunde. This need for resort to extrinsic evidence is what is sought to be avoided by the Negotiable Instruments Law and calls for the application of the elementary rule that the interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. 12 The next query is whether petitioner can rightfully recover on the CTDs. This time, the answer is in the negative. The records reveal that Angel de la Cruz, whom petitioner chose not to implead in this suit for reasons of its own, delivered the CTDs amounting to P1,120,000.00 to petitioner without informing respondent bank thereof at any time. Unfortunately for petitioner, although the CTDs are bearer instruments, a valid negotiation thereof for the true purpose and agreement between it and De la Cruz, as ultimately ascertained, requires both delivery and indorsement. For, although petitioner seeks to deflect this fact, the CTDs were in reality delivered to it as a security for De la Cruz' purchases of its fuel products. Any doubt as to whether the CTDs were delivered as payment for the fuel products or as a security has been dissipated and resolved in favor of the latter by petitioner's own authorized and responsible representative himself. In a letter dated November 26, 1982 addressed to respondent Security Bank, J.Q. Aranas, Jr., Caltex Credit Manager, wrote: ". . . These certificates of deposit were negotiated to us by Mr. Angel dela Cruz to guarantee his purchases of fuel products" (Emphasis ours.) 13 This admission is
conclusive upon petitioner, its protestations notwithstanding. Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. 14 A party may not go back on his own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. 15 In the law of evidence, whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it.16

If it were true that the CTDs were delivered as payment and not as security, petitioner's credit manager could have easily said so, instead of using the words "to guarantee" in the letter aforequoted. Besides, when respondent bank, as defendant in the court below, moved for a bill of particularity therein 17 praying, among others, that petitioner, as plaintiff, be required to aver with
sufficient definiteness or particularity (a) the due date or dates of payment of the alleged indebtedness of Angel de la Cruz to plaintiff and (b) whether or not it issued a receipt showing that the CTDs were delivered to it by De la Cruz as payment of the latter's alleged indebtedness to it, plaintiff corporation opposed the motion. 18Had it produced the receipt prayed for, it could have proved, if such truly was the fact, that the CTDs were delivered as payment and not as security. Having opposed the motion, petitioner now labors under the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. 19

Under the foregoing circumstances, this disquisition in Intergrated Realty Corporation, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. 20 is apropos: . . . Adverting again to the Court's pronouncements in Lopez, supra, we quote therefrom: The character of the transaction between the parties is to be determined by their intention, regardless of what language was used or what the form of the transfer was. If it was intended to secure the payment of money, it must be construed as a pledge; but if there was some other intention, it is not a pledge. However, even though a

transfer, if regarded by itself, appears to have been absolute, its object and character might still be qualified and explained by contemporaneous writing declaring it to have been a deposit of the property as collateral security. It has been said that a transfer of property by the debtor to a creditor, even if sufficient on its face to make an absolute conveyance, should be treated as a pledge if the debt continues in inexistence and is not discharged by the transfer, and that accordingly the use of the terms ordinarily importing conveyance of absolute ownership will not be given that effect in such a transaction if they are also commonly used in pledges and mortgages and therefore do not unqualifiedly indicate a transfer of absolute ownership, in the absence of clear and unambiguous language or other circumstances excluding an intent to pledge. Petitioner's insistence that the CTDs were negotiated to it begs the question. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, an instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof, 21 and a holder may be the payee or
indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. 22 In the present case, however, there was no negotiation in the sense of a transfer of the legal title to the CTDs in favor of petitioner in which situation, for obvious reasons, mere delivery of the bearer CTDs would have sufficed. Here, the delivery thereof only as security for the purchases of Angel de la Cruz (and we even disregard the fact that the amount involved was not disclosed) could at the most constitute petitioner only as a holder for value by reason of his lien. Accordingly, a negotiation for such purpose cannot be effected by mere delivery of the instrument since, necessarily, the terms thereof and the subsequent disposition of such security, in the event of non-payment of the principal obligation, must be contractually provided for.

The pertinent law on this point is that where the holder has a lien on the instrument arising from contract, he is deemed a holder for value to the extent of his lien. 23 As such holder of collateral
security, he would be a pledgee but the requirements therefor and the effects thereof, not being provided for by the Negotiable Instruments Law, shall be governed by the Civil Code provisions on pledge of incorporeal rights, 24 which inceptively provide:

Art. 2095. Incorporeal rights, evidenced by negotiable instruments, . . . may also be pledged. The instrument proving the right pledged shall be delivered to the creditor, and if negotiable, must be indorsed. Art. 2096. A pledge shall not take effect against third persons if a description of the thing pledged and the date of the pledge do not appear in a public instrument. Aside from the fact that the CTDs were only delivered but not indorsed, the factual findings of respondent court quoted at the start of this opinion show that petitioner failed to produce any document evidencing any contract of pledge or guarantee agreement between it and Angel de la Cruz. 25 Consequently, the mere delivery of the CTDs did not legally vest in petitioner any right effective
against and binding upon respondent bank. The requirement under Article 2096 aforementioned is not a mere rule of adjective law prescribing the mode whereby proof may be made of the date of a pledge contract, but a rule of substantive law prescribing a condition without which the execution of a pledge contract cannot affect third persons adversely. 26

On the other hand, the assignment of the CTDs made by Angel de la Cruz in favor of respondent bank was embodied in a public instrument. 27 With regard to this other mode of transfer, the Civil Code
specifically declares:

Art. 1625. An assignment of credit, right or action shall produce no effect as against third persons, unless it appears in a public instrument, or the instrument is recorded in the Registry of Property in case the assignment involves real property. Respondent bank duly complied with this statutory requirement. Contrarily, petitioner, whether as purchaser, assignee or lien holder of the CTDs, neither proved the amount of its credit or the extent of its lien nor the execution of any public instrument which could affect or bind private respondent. Necessarily, therefore, as between petitioner and respondent bank, the latter has definitely the better right over the CTDs in question. Finally, petitioner faults respondent court for refusing to delve into the question of whether or not private respondent observed the requirements of the law in the case of lost negotiable instruments and the issuance of replacement certificates therefor, on the ground that petitioner failed to raised that issue in the lower court. 28 On this matter, we uphold respondent court's finding that the aspect of alleged negligence of private respondent was not included in the stipulation of the parties and in the statement of issues submitted by them to the trial court.29 The issues agreed upon by them for resolution in this case are: 1. Whether or not the CTDs as worded are negotiable instruments. 2. Whether or not defendant could legally apply the amount covered by the CTDs against the depositor's loan by virtue of the assignment (Annex "C"). 3. Whether or not there was legal compensation or set off involving the amount covered by the CTDs and the depositor's outstanding account with defendant, if any. 4. Whether or not plaintiff could compel defendant to preterminate the CTDs before the maturity date provided therein. 5. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to the proceeds of the CTDs. 6. Whether or not the parties can recover damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses from each other. As respondent court correctly observed, with appropriate citation of some doctrinal authorities, the foregoing enumeration does not include the issue of negligence on the part of respondent bank. An issue raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower court is barred by estoppel. 30 Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed by the parties and,
consequently, issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
31

Pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a case are properly raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privileged or impeaching matters. The determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions on appeal.32 To accept petitioner's suggestion that respondent bank's supposed negligence may be considered encompassed by the issues on its right to preterminate and receive the proceeds of the CTDs would be tantamount to saying that petitioner could raise on appeal any issue. We agree with private respondent that the broad ultimate issue of petitioner's entitlement to the proceeds of the questioned

certificates can be premised on a multitude of other legal reasons and causes of action, of which respondent bank's supposed negligence is only one. Hence, petitioner's submission, if accepted, would render a pre-trial delimitation of issues a useless exercise. 33 Still, even assuming arguendo that said issue of negligence was raised in the court below, petitioner still cannot have the odds in its favor. A close scrutiny of the provisions of the Code of Commerce laying down the rules to be followed in case of lost instruments payable to bearer, which it invokes, will reveal that said provisions, even assuming their applicability to the CTDs in the case at bar, are merely permissive and not mandatory. The very first article cited by petitioner speaks for itself. Art 548. The dispossessed owner, no matter for what cause it may be, may apply to the judge or court of competent jurisdiction, asking that the principal, interest or dividends due or about to become due, be not paid a third person, as well as in order to prevent the ownership of the instrument that a duplicate be issued him. (Emphasis ours.) xxx xxx xxx The use of the word "may" in said provision shows that it is not mandatory but discretionary on the part of the "dispossessed owner" to apply to the judge or court of competent jurisdiction for the issuance of a duplicate of the lost instrument. Where the provision reads "may," this word shows that it is not mandatory but discretional. 34 The word "may" is usually permissive, not mandatory. 35 It is an
auxiliary verb indicating liberty, opportunity, permission and possibility.
36

Moreover, as correctly analyzed by private respondent, 37 Articles 548 to 558 of the Code of
Commerce, on which petitioner seeks to anchor respondent bank's supposed negligence, merely established, on the one hand, a right of recourse in favor of a dispossessed owner or holder of a bearer instrument so that he may obtain a duplicate of the same, and, on the other, an option in favor of the party liable thereon who, for some valid ground, may elect to refuse to issue a replacement of the instrument. Significantly, none of the provisions cited by petitioner categorically restricts or prohibits the issuance a duplicate or replacement instrument sans compliance with the procedure outlined therein, and none establishes a mandatory precedent requirement therefor.

WHEREFORE, on the modified premises above set forth, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 192413

June 13, 2012

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa, Respondents. DECISION SERENO, J.: Before the Court is a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) against respondents Hi-Tri Development Corporation (Hi-Tri) and Luz R. Bakunawa (Bakunawa). Petitioner seeks to appeal from the 26 November 2009 Decision and 27 May 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA),1 which reversed and set aside the 19 May 2008 Decision and 3 November 2008 Order of the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 06-244.2 The case before the RTC involved the Complaint for Escheat filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) pursuant to Act No. 3936, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 679 (P.D. 679), against certain deposits, credits, and unclaimed balances held by the branches of various banks in the Philippines. The trial court declared the amounts, subject of the special proceedings, escheated to the Republic and ordered them deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines (Treasurer) and credited in favor of the Republic.3 The assailed RTC judgments included an unclaimed balance in the amount of P 1,019,514.29, maintained by RCBC in its Ermita Business Center branch. We quote the narration of facts of the CA4 as follows: x x x Luz [R.] Bakunawa and her husband Manuel, now deceased ("Spouses Bakunawa") are registered owners of six (6) parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 324985 and 324986 of the Quezon City Register of Deeds, and TCT Nos. 103724, 98827, 98828 and 98829 of the Marikina Register of Deeds. These lots were sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government [(PCGG)]. Sometime in 1990, a certain Teresita Millan ("Millan"), through her representative, Jerry Montemayor, offered to buy said lots for "P 6,724,085.71", with the promise that she will take care of clearing whatever preliminary obstacles there may[]be to effect a "completion of the sale". The Spouses Bakunawa gave to Millan the Owners Copies of said TCTs and in turn, Millan made a down[]payment of "P 1,019,514.29" for the intended purchase. However, for one reason or another, Millan was not able to clear said obstacles. As a result, the Spouses Bakunawa rescinded the sale and offered to return to Millan her down[]payment of P 1,019,514.29. However, Millan refused to accept back the P 1,019,514.29 down[]payment. Consequently, the Spouses Bakunawa, through their company, the Hi-Tri Development Corporation ("Hi-Tri") took out on October 28, 1991, a Managers Check from RCBC-Ermita in the amount of P 1,019,514.29, payable to Millans company Rosmil Realty and Development Corporation ("Rosmil") c/o Teresita Millan and used this as one of their basis for a complaint against Millan and Montemayor which they filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 99, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-10719 [in 1991], praying that: 1. That the defendants Teresita Mil[l]an and Jerry Montemayor may be ordered to return to plaintiffs spouses the Owners Copies of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 324985, 324986, 103724, 98827, 98828 and 98829; 2. That the defendant Teresita Mil[l]an be correspondingly ordered to receive the amount of One Million Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Fourteen Pesos and Twenty Nine Centavos (P 1,019,514.29);

3. That the defendants be ordered to pay to plaintiffs spouses moral damages in the amount of P2,000,000.00; and 4. That the defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs attorneys fees in the amount of P 50,000.00. Being part and parcel of said complaint, and consistent with their prayer in Civil Case No. Q-9110719 that "Teresita Mil[l]an be correspondingly ordered to receive the amount of One Million Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Fourteen Pesos and Twenty Nine [Centavos] ("P 1,019,514.29")["], the Spouses Bakunawa, upon advice of their counsel, retained custody of RCBC Managers Check No. ER 034469 and refrained from canceling or negotiating it. All throughout the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-91-10719, especially during negotiations for a possible settlement of the case, Millan was informed that the Managers Check was available for her withdrawal, she being the payee. On January 31, 2003, during the pendency of the abovementioned case and without the knowledge of [Hi-Tri and Spouses Bakunawa], x x x RCBC reported the "P 1,019,514.29-credit existing in favor of Rosmil" to the Bureau of Treasury as among its "unclaimed balances" as of January 31, 2003. Allegedly, a copy of the Sworn Statement executed by Florentino N. Mendoza, Manager and Head of RCBCs Asset Management, Disbursement & Sundry Department ("AMDSD") was posted within the premises of RCBC-Ermita. On December 14, 2006, x x x Republic, through the [Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)], filed with the RTC the action below for Escheat [(Civil Case No. 06-244)]. On April 30, 2008, [Spouses Bakunawa] settled amicably their dispute with Rosmil and Millan. Instead of only the amount of "P 1,019,514.29", [Spouses Bakunawa] agreed to pay Rosmil and Millan the amount of "P3,000,000.00", [which is] inclusive [of] the amount of ["]P 1,019,514.29". But during negotiations and evidently prior to said settlement, [Manuel Bakunawa, through Hi-Tri] inquired from RCBC-Ermita the availability of the P1,019,514.29 under RCBC Managers Check No. ER 034469. [Hi-Tri and Spouses Bakunawa] were however dismayed when they were informed that the amount was already subject of the escheat proceedings before the RTC. On April 17, 2008, [Manuel Bakunawa, through Hi-Tri] wrote x x x RCBC, viz: "We understand that the deposit corresponding to the amount of Php 1,019,514.29 stated in the Managers Check is currently the subject of escheat proceedings pending before Branch 150 of the Makati Regional Trial Court. Please note that it was our impression that the deposit would be taken from [Hi-Tris] RCBC bank account once an order to debit is issued upon the payees presentation of the Managers Check. Since the payee rejected the negotiated Managers Check, presentation of the Managers Check was never made. Consequently, the deposit that was supposed to be allocated for the payment of the Managers Check was supposed to remain part of the Corporation[s] RCBC bank account, which, thereafter, continued to be actively maintained and operated. For this reason, We hereby demand your confirmation that the amount of Php 1,019,514.29 continues to form part of the funds in the Corporations RCBC bank account, since pay-out of said amount was never ordered. We wish to point out that if there was any attempt on the part of RCBC to consider the amount indicated in the Managers Check separate from the Corporations bank account, RCBC would have issued a

statement to that effect, and repeatedly reminded the Corporation that the deposit would be considered dormant absent any fund movement. Since the Corporation never received any statements of account from RCBC to that effect, and more importantly, never received any single letter from RCBC noting the absence of fund movement and advising the Corporation that the deposit would be treated as dormant." On April 28, 2008, [Manuel Bakunawa] sent another letter to x x x RCBC reiterating their position as above-quoted. In a letter dated May 19, 2008, x x x RCBC replied and informed [Hi-Tri and Spouses Bakunawa] that: "The Banks Ermita BC informed Hi-Tri and/or its principals regarding the inclusion of Managers Check No. ER034469 in the escheat proceedings docketed as Civil Case No. 06-244, as well as the status thereof, between 28 January 2008 and 1 February 2008. xxx xxx xxx

Contrary to what Hi-Tri hopes for, the funds covered by the Managers Check No. ER034469 does not form part of the Banks own account. By simple operation of law, the funds covered by the managers check in issue became a deposit/credit susceptible for inclusion in the escheat case initiated by the OSG and/or Bureau of Treasury. xxx xxx xxx

Granting arguendo that the Bank was duty-bound to make good the check, the Banks obligation to do so prescribed as early as October 2001." (Emphases, citations, and annotations were omitted.) The RTC Ruling The escheat proceedings before the Makati City RTC continued. On 19 May 2008, the trial court rendered its assailed Decision declaring the deposits, credits, and unclaimed balances subject of Civil Case No. 06-244 escheated to the Republic. Among those included in the order of forfeiture was the amount of P 1,019,514.29 held by RCBC as allocated funds intended for the payment of the Managers Check issued in favor of Rosmil. The trial court ordered the deposit of the escheated balances with the Treasurer and credited in favor of the Republic. Respondents claim that they were not able to participate in the trial, as they were not informed of the ongoing escheat proceedings. Consequently, respondents filed an Omnibus Motion dated 11 June 2008, seeking the partial reconsideration of the RTC Decision insofar as it escheated the fund allocated for the payment of the Managers Check. They asked that they be included as party-defendants or, in the alternative, allowed to intervene in the case and their motion considered as an answer-in-intervention. Respondents argued that they had meritorious grounds to ask reconsideration of the Decision or, alternatively, to seek intervention in the case. They alleged that the deposit was subject of an ongoing dispute (Civil Case No. Q-91-10719) between them and Rosmil since 1991, and that they were interested parties to that case.5 On 3 November 2008, the RTC issued an Order denying the motion of respondents. The trial court explained that the Republic had proven compliance with the requirements of publication and notice,

which served as notice to all those who may be affected and prejudiced by the Complaint for Escheat. The RTC also found that the motion failed to point out the findings and conclusions that were not supported by the law or the evidence presented, as required by Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. Finally, it ruled that the alternative prayer to intervene was filed out of time. The CA Ruling On 26 November 2009, the CA issued its assailed Decision reversing the 19 May 2008 Decision and 3 November 2008 Order of the RTC. According to the appellate court,6 RCBC failed to prove that the latter had communicated with the purchaser of the Managers Check (Hi-Tri and/or Spouses Bakunawa) or the designated payee (Rosmil) immediately before the bank filed its Sworn Statement on the dormant accounts held therein. The CA ruled that the banks failure to notify respondents deprived them of an opportunity to intervene in the escheat proceedings and to present evidence to substantiate their claim, in violation of their right to due process. Furthermore, the CA pronounced that the Makati City RTC Clerk of Court failed to issue individual notices directed to all persons claiming interest in the unclaimed balances, as well as to require them to appear after publication and show cause why the unclaimed balances should not be deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines. It explained that the jurisdictional requirement of individual notice by personal service was distinct from the requirement of notice by publication. Consequently, the CA held that the Decision and Order of the RTC were void for want of jurisdiction. Issue After a perusal of the arguments presented by the parties, we cull the main issues as follows: I. Whether the Decision and Order of the RTC were void for failure to send separate notices to respondents by personal service II. Whether petitioner had the obligation to notify respondents immediately before it filed its Sworn Statement with the Treasurer III. Whether or not the allocated funds may be escheated in favor of the Republic Discussion Petitioner bank assails7 the CA judgments insofar as they ruled that notice by personal service upon respondents is a jurisdictional requirement in escheat proceedings. Petitioner contends that respondents were not the owners of the unclaimed balances and were thus not entitled to notice from the RTC Clerk of Court. It hinges its claim on the theory that the funds represented by the Managers Check were deemed transferred to the credit of the payee or holder upon its issuance. We quote the pertinent provision of Act No. 3936, as amended, on the rule on service of processes, to wit: Sec. 3. Whenever the Solicitor General shall be informed of such unclaimed balances, he shall commence an action or actions in the name of the People of the Republic of the Philippines in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the bank, building and loan association or trust corporation is located, in which shall be joined as parties the bank, building and loan association or trust corporation and all such creditors or depositors. All or any of such creditors or depositors or banks, building and loan association or trust corporations may be included in one action. Service of process in such action or actions shall be made by delivery of a copy of the complaint and summons

to the president, cashier, or managing officer of each defendant bank, building and loan association or trust corporation and by publication of a copy of such summons in a newspaper of general circulation, either in English, in Filipino, or in a local dialect, published in the locality where the bank, building and loan association or trust corporation is situated, if there be any, and in case there is none, in the City of Manila, at such time as the court may order. Upon the trial, the court must hear all parties who have appeared therein, and if it be determined that such unclaimed balances in any defendant bank, building and loan association or trust corporation are unclaimed as hereinbefore stated, then the court shall render judgment in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, declaring that said unclaimed balances have escheated to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and commanding said bank, building and loan association or trust corporation to forthwith deposit the same with the Treasurer of the Philippines to credit of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to be used as the National Assembly may direct. At the time of issuing summons in the action above provided for, the clerk of court shall also issue a notice signed by him, giving the title and number of said action, and referring to the complaint therein, and directed to all persons, other than those named as defendants therein, claiming any interest in any unclaimed balance mentioned in said complaint, and requiring them to appear within sixty days after the publication or first publication, if there are several, of such summons, and show cause, if they have any, why the unclaimed balances involved in said action should not be deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines as in this Act provided and notifying them that if they do not appear and show cause, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines will apply to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint. A copy of said notice shall be attached to, and published with the copy of, said summons required to be published as above, and at the end of the copy of such notice so published, there shall be a statement of the date of publication, or first publication, if there are several, of said summons and notice. Any person interested may appear in said action and become a party thereto. Upon the publication or the completion of the publication, if there are several, of the summons and notice, and the service of the summons on the defendant banks, building and loan associations or trust corporations, the court shall have full and complete jurisdiction in the Republic of the Philippines over the said unclaimed balances and over the persons having or claiming any interest in the said unclaimed balances, or any of them, and shall have full and complete jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues herein, and render the appropriate judgment thereon. (Emphasis supplied.) Hence, insofar as banks are concerned, service of processes is made by delivery of a copy of the complaint and summons upon the president, cashier, or managing officer of the defendant bank.8 On the other hand, as to depositors or other claimants of the unclaimed balances, service is made by publication of a copy of the summons in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality where the institution is situated.9 A notice about the forthcoming escheat proceedings must also be issued and published, directing and requiring all persons who may claim any interest in the unclaimed balances to appear before the court and show cause why the dormant accounts should not be deposited with the Treasurer. Accordingly, the CA committed reversible error when it ruled that the issuance of individual notices upon respondents was a jurisdictional requirement, and that failure to effect personal service on them rendered the Decision and the Order of the RTC void for want of jurisdiction. Escheat proceedings are actions in rem,10whereby an action is brought against the thing itself instead of the person.11 Thus, an action may be instituted and carried to judgment without personal service upon the depositors or other claimants.12 Jurisdiction is secured by the power of the court over the res.13 Consequently, a judgment of escheat is conclusive upon persons notified by advertisement, as publication is considered a general and constructive notice to all persons interested.14 Nevertheless, we find sufficient grounds to affirm the CA on the exclusion of the funds allocated for the payment of the Managers Check in the escheat proceedings.

Escheat proceedings refer to the judicial process in which the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims abandoned, left vacant, or unclaimed property, without there being an interested person having a legal claim thereto.15 In the case of dormant accounts, the state inquires into the status, custody, and ownership of the unclaimed balance to determine whether the inactivity was brought about by the fact of death or absence of or abandonment by the depositor.16 If after the proceedings the property remains without a lawful owner interested to claim it, the property shall be reverted to the state "to forestall an open invitation to self-service by the first comers."17 However, if interested parties have come forward and lain claim to the property, the courts shall determine whether the credit or deposit should pass to the claimants or be forfeited in favor of the state.18 We emphasize that escheat is not a proceeding to penalize depositors for failing to deposit to or withdraw from their accounts. It is a proceeding whereby the state compels the surrender to it of unclaimed deposit balances when there is substantial ground for a belief that they have been abandoned, forgotten, or without an owner.19 Act No. 3936, as amended, outlines the proper procedure to be followed by banks and other similar institutions in filing a sworn statement with the Treasurer concerning dormant accounts: Sec. 2. Immediately after the taking effect of this Act and within the month of January of every odd year, all banks, building and loan associations, and trust corporations shall forward to the Treasurer of the Philippines a statement, under oath, of their respective managing officers, of all credits and deposits held by them in favor of persons known to be dead, or who have not made further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten years or more, arranged in alphabetical order according to the names of creditors and depositors, and showing: (a) The names and last known place of residence or post office addresses of the persons in whose favor such unclaimed balances stand; (b) The amount and the date of the outstanding unclaimed balance and whether the same is in money or in security, and if the latter, the nature of the same; (c) The date when the person in whose favor the unclaimed balance stands died, if known, or the date when he made his last deposit or withdrawal; and (d) The interest due on such unclaimed balance, if any, and the amount thereof. A copy of the above sworn statement shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises of the bank, building and loan association, or trust corporation concerned for at least sixty days from the date of filing thereof: Provided, That immediately before filing the above sworn statement, the bank, building and loan association, and trust corporation shall communicate with the person in whose favor the unclaimed balance stands at his last known place of residence or post office address. It shall be the duty of the Treasurer of the Philippines to inform the Solicitor General from time to time the existence of unclaimed balances held by banks, building and loan associations, and trust corporations. (Emphasis supplied.) As seen in the afore-quoted provision, the law sets a detailed system for notifying depositors of unclaimed balances. This notification is meant to inform them that their deposit could be escheated if left unclaimed. Accordingly, before filing a sworn statement, banks and other similar institutions are under obligation to communicate with owners of dormant accounts. The purpose of this initial notice is for a bank to determine whether an inactive account has indeed been unclaimed, abandoned, forgotten, or left without an owner. If the depositor simply does not wish to touch the funds in the meantime, but still asserts ownership and dominion over the dormant account, then the bank is no

longer obligated to include the account in its sworn statement.20 It is not the intent of the law to force depositors into unnecessary litigation and defense of their rights, as the state is only interested in escheating balances that have been abandoned and left without an owner. In case the bank complies with the provisions of the law and the unclaimed balances are eventually escheated to the Republic, the bank "shall not thereafter be liable to any person for the same and any action which may be brought by any person against in any bank xxx for unclaimed balances so deposited xxx shall be defended by the Solicitor General without cost to such bank."21 Otherwise, should it fail to comply with the legally outlined procedure to the prejudice of the depositor, the bank may not raise the defense provided under Section 5 of Act No. 3936, as amended. Petitioner asserts22 that the CA committed a reversible error when it required RCBC to send prior notices to respondents about the forthcoming escheat proceedings involving the funds allocated for the payment of the Managers Check. It explains that, pursuant to the law, only those "whose favor such unclaimed balances stand" are entitled to receive notices. Petitioner argues that, since the funds represented by the Managers Check were deemed transferred to the credit of the payee upon issuance of the check, the proper party entitled to the notices was the payee Rosmil and not respondents. Petitioner then contends that, in any event, it is not liable for failing to send a separate notice to the payee, because it did not have the address of Rosmil. Petitioner avers that it was not under any obligation to record the address of the payee of a Managers Check. In contrast, respondents Hi-Tri and Bakunawa allege23 that they have a legal interest in the fund allocated for the payment of the Managers Check. They reason that, since the funds were part of the Compromise Agreement between respondents and Rosmil in a separate civil case, the approval and eventual execution of the agreement effectively reverted the fund to the credit of respondents. Respondents further posit that their ownership of the funds was evidenced by their continued custody of the Managers Check. An ordinary check refers to a bill of exchange drawn by a depositor (drawer) on a bank (drawee),24 requesting the latter to pay a person named therein (payee) or to the order of the payee or to the bearer, a named sum of money.25 The issuance of the check does not of itself operate as an assignment of any part of the funds in the bank to the credit of the drawer.26 Here, the bank becomes liable only after it accepts or certifies the check.27After the check is accepted for payment, the bank would then debit the amount to be paid to the holder of the check from the account of the depositor-drawer. There are checks of a special type called managers or cashiers checks. These are bills of exchange drawn by the banks manager or cashier, in the name of the bank, against the bank itself.28 Typically, a managers or a cashiers check is procured from the bank by allocating a particular amount of funds to be debited from the depositors account or by directly paying or depositing to the bank the value of the check to be drawn. Since the bank issues the check in its name, with itself as the drawee, the check is deemed accepted in advance.29Ordinarily, the check becomes the primary obligation of the issuing bank and constitutes its written promise to pay upon demand.30 Nevertheless, the mere issuance of a managers check does not ipso facto work as an automatic transfer of funds to the account of the payee. In case the procurer of the managers or cashiers check retains custody of the instrument, does not tender it to the intended payee, or fails to make an effective delivery, we find the following provision on undelivered instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Law applicable:31

Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when presumed. Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As between immediate parties and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the party making, drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as the case may be; and, in such case, the delivery may be shown to have been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the instrument. But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed. And where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved. (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner acknowledges that the Managers Check was procured by respondents, and that the amount to be paid for the check would be sourced from the deposit account of Hi-Tri.32 When Rosmil did not accept the Managers Check offered by respondents, the latter retained custody of the instrument instead of cancelling it. As the Managers Check neither went to the hands of Rosmil nor was it further negotiated to other persons, the instrument remained undelivered. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that respondents retained custody of the instrument.33 Since there was no delivery, presentment of the check to the bank for payment did not occur. An order to debit the account of respondents was never made. In fact, petitioner confirms that the Managers Check was never negotiated or presented for payment to its Ermita Branch, and that the allocated fund is still held by the bank.34 As a result, the assigned fund is deemed to remain part of the account of Hi-Tri, which procured the Managers Check. The doctrine that the deposit represented by a managers check automatically passes to the payee is inapplicable, because the instrument although accepted in advance remains undelivered. Hence, respondents should have been informed that the deposit had been left inactive for more than 10 years, and that it may be subjected to escheat proceedings if left unclaimed.
1wphi1

After a careful review of the RTC records, we find that it is no longer necessary to remand the case for hearing to determine whether the claim of respondents was valid. There was no contention that they were the procurers of the Managers Check. It is undisputed that there was no effective delivery of the check, rendering the instrument incomplete. In addition, we have already settled that respondents retained ownership of the funds. As it is obvious from their foregoing actions that they have not abandoned their claim over the fund, we rule that the allocated deposit, subject of the Managers Check, should be excluded from the escheat proceedings. We reiterate our pronouncement that the objective of escheat proceedings is state forfeiture of unclaimed balances. We further note that there is nothing in the records that would show that the OSG appealed the assailed CA judgments. We take this failure to appeal as an indication of disinterest in pursuing the escheat proceedings in favor of the Republic. WHEREFORE the Petition is DENIED. The 26 November 2009 Decision and 27 May 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107261 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 17230

March 17, 1922

JOSE VELASCO, plaintiff-appelle, vs. TAN LIUAN & CO., TAN LIUAN, UY TENGPIAO, and AW YONG CHIOW SOO, defendants. AW YONG CHIOW SOO, appellant. Jesus E. Blanco for appellant. De Joya and Espiritu for appellee. STATEMENT The defendant Tan Liuan and Co. executed to the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo four certain promissory notes: The first, for P12,000, dated February 18th, the second, for P16,000, dated February 23d, the third, for P38,000, dated March 17th, and the fourth, for P21,000, dated March 27th, all in the year 1919, and each payable six months after its respective date. March 17, 1919, the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo drew a bill of exchange or sight draft, for P33,500 Yen on Jing Kee and Co., 2 Kaisandori 5-Chone, Kobe, in favor of the Philippine National Bank, which at first it refused to cash. The plaintiff was then induced to, and did, endorse it, and the bank cashed the draft, no part of which plaintiff received, and it is claimed that all of the money was paid to Tan Liauan and Co. In the ordinary course of business, the draft was dishonored when presented, and later the plaintiff was requested to, and did, personally execute to the Philippine National Bank his promissory note, for the amount of the draft, interest and expenses. August 18, 1991, Tan Liuan made the following written statement: In consideration for the indorsement by Jose Velasco at my request of a draft drawn by Aw Yong Chiow Soo on Messrs. Jing Kee and Co., 2 Kaisandori 5-Chone, Kobe, Japan, for the payment of which he became liable upon his indorsement for the sum of 33,500 Yen, I promise to pay to Jose Velasco, or oder, within ten days after he shall have been obligated to pay the amount of said draft, or any part thereof, the full amount with all costs, expenses and attorney's fees which he shall pay on account of his indorsement of said draft, with interest on the amount paid by him at 10 per cent per annum thereon from the time of payment. On the same day, the plaintiff made the following written statement: Aw Yong Chiow Soo having this day transferred to me his claim of credit against the firm of Tan Liuan and Co. as collateral security in consideration of my having indorsed his draft made by him on Messrs. Jing Kee and Co. for the sum of 33,500 Yen and presented to the Philippine National Bank by which it was cashed, now if the drawer of said draft or the said Aw Yong Chiow Soo shall pay the said draft so that I am relieved from all responsibility in connection therewith and the expenses incurred on account thereof, then I will reassign the said claim against Tan Liuan and Co. to him, and if I am obliged to pay said draft, any amount which I may receive on account of said claim assigned to me over and above the

amount paid by me, including all expenses and attorney's fees, shall be delivered to the said Aw Yong Chiow Soo. August 22, 1919, the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo made the following written statement: For value received and to me in hand paid, I hereby assign, transfer and deliver to Jose Velasco the whole amount of my credit against Tan Liuan and Co., amounting to eighty-seven thousand pesos (P87,000), evidenced by four (4) promissory notes, which are described as follows: 1. Promissory note dated Manila, February 18, 1919, for the sum of P12,000; for six (6) months; 2. Promissory note dated Manila, February 23, 1919, for the sum of P16,000; for six (6) months; 3. Promissory note dated Manila, March 17, 1919, for the sum of P38,000; for six (6) months; 4. Promissory note dated Manila, March 27, 1919, for the sum of P21,000; for six (6) months; the above-mentioned promissory notes being attached hereto and made a part hereof, and fully autnorize the said Jose Velasco to collect and receive the said amount from Tan Liuan and Co., or from the legal representative of, or liquidator of said Tan Liuan and Co. Concurrent therewith, the defendant unqualifiedly indorsed the four promissory notes to the plaintiff, who, on February 19, 1920, commenced this action against the defendants. The complaints alleges the execution of the notes by the defendant Tan Liuan and Co. to the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo. That the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo indorsed the notes to the plaintiff; that at their maturity they were duly presented to Tan Liuan and Co.; and that payment was refused, of which refusal the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo was duly notified. For answer, Aw Yong Chiow Soo makes a general denial, and, as a further and separate defense, alleges the drawing of the sight draft, and that it was an accommodation only, and that, conforming to the agreement, it was duly indorsed by the plaintiff, and Aw Yong Chiow So delivered the money to the defendant Tan Liuan. The defendant then alleges the making of the written statement by Tan Liuan of August 18, 1919, above quoted. On that date, Aw Yong Chiow Soo was a creditor of the defendant Tan Liuan and Co., evidenced by the promissory notes above described, and that Tan Liuan and Co. was insolvent. That by reason thereof, one of the promissory notes was executed to guarantee Aw Yong Chiow Soo against any liability in case that Tan Liuan or the plaintiff would not pay the sight draft, and because the bank had requested the plaintiff to pay the draft, this defendant and the plaintiff agreed that this defendant should transfer to him all of its interest in the four promissory notes, under an agreement that, in case Jing Kee and Co. should pay the draft, the plaintiff would transfer the note to this defendant, but in the event that the plaintiff was required to pay the draft, the he would endeavor to collect the notes in full, and from the proceeds would first reimburse himself and then pay any remainder to the defendant. It is also alleged that the palintiff has not paid the draft or made any effort to collect it from Tan Liuan. That this defendant is not liable to the plaintiff on any contract, and does not owe him anything, but that, under the agreement, the plaintiff should return to this defendant any amount which he should collect over the amount of his personal claim. That, by reason of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, Tan Liuan, this defendant has been released and discharged of all liability, and that the action is premature.

Upon such issues, the case was tried, and the lower court rendered judgment against the defendants Tan Liuan and Co. and Tan Liuan and Uy Tengpiao, for the full amount of the notes, from which the plaintiff should only receive a sufficient amount to fully compensate him as an indorser of the draft; to wit, P46,135.70, and that, if collected, the remainder, if any, should be paid to Aw Yong Chiow Soo against whom judgment was rendered for the amount of P46,135.70 should be defendant Tan Liuan and Co. fail to pay the judgment. From this, the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo only appealed, claiming that the lower court erred in rendering judgment against it upon the four promissory notes, or that it was liable for the payment of either of them, or that it should pay the plaintiff P46,135.70, or that he should have any judgment against this defendant.

JOHNS, J.: It will be noted that two of the promissory notes are dated in February; that the third is dated March 17th, and the last March 27th, all in 1919. That each promissory note is payable six months after date, and is executed by Tan Liuan and Co. in favor of Aw Yong Chiow Soo. The sight draft is dated March 17, 1919, payable thirty days after date, and is drawn by Aw Yong Chiow Soo upon Jing Kee and Co. in favor of the Philippine National Bank. The written statement of Tan Liuan is dated August 18, 1919, and that three of the promissory notes were then due and payable. Although it is claimed taht Tan Liuan and Co. received the proceeds from the draft, its name does not appear in or upon the draft, and it is very apparent that the written statement of Tan Liuan and Co., of August 18th, was signed, for the purpose of showing the true relations of that firm to the transaction, and that within ten days after the plaintiff had assumed and paid the amount of the draft, with costs and expenses, Tan Liuan and Co. would pay the plaintiff the full amount which plaintiff had obligated himself to pay. In other words, Tan Liuan and Co., by that writing, assumes all liability for the amount of the draft and promises to pay the plaintiff and release him from all liability. In legal effect, plaintiff's written statement of August 18th, is an acknowledgment of the reciept from Aw Yong Chiow Soo of the four promissory notes as collateral security for his indorsement of the draft, and that, in the event the plaintiff is released from his liability, he will then reassign the notes to the defendant, Aw Yong Chiow Soo, and that, if he is required to pay the draft, any amount which he may receive on account of the promissory notes over and above the amount which he is required to pay, he will then pay any remainder to the defendant Aw Yong Chiow Soo. The indorsement of Aw Yong Chiow Soo of the notes to the plaintiff was unqualified, and the law fixes the liability of an unqualified indorser, and oral testimony is not admisible to vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument. Section 30 of Act No. 2031, of the Philippine Legislature, known as "The Negotiable Instruments Law," says: 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.

SEC. 31. Indorsement; how made. The indorsement must be written on the instrument itself or upon a paper attached thereto. The signature of the indorser, without additional words, is a sufficient indorsement. SEC. 33. Kinds of indorsement. An indorsement may be either special or in blank; and it may also be either restrictive or qualified, or conditional. SEC. 38. Qualified indorsement. A qualified indorsement constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title to the instrument. It may be made by adding to the indorser's signature the words "without recourse" or any words of similar import. Such an indorsement does not impair the negotiable character of the instrument. SEC. 45. Time of indorsement; presumption. Except where an indorsement bears date after the maturity of the instrument, every negotiation is deemed prima facie to have been effected before the instrument was overdue. SEC. 63. When person deemed indorser. A person placing his signature upon an instrument otherwise than as maker, drawer, or acceptor is deemed to be an indorser, unless he clearly indicates by appropriate words his intention to be bound in some other capacity. SEC. 66. Liability of general indorser. Every indorser who indorses without qualification, warrants to all subsequent holders in due course (a) The matters and things mentioned in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of the next preceding section; and (b) That the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting. And, in addition, he engages that on due presentment, it shall be accepted or paid, or both, as the case may be, according to its tenor, and that if it be dishonored, and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it. SEC. 114. When notice need not be given to drawer. Notice of dishonor is not required to be given to the drawer in either of the following cases: xxx xxx xxx

(d) Where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will honor the instrument. Aw Yong Chiow Soo, being an unqualified indorser, the law fixes its liability. If it was not its purpose or intent to assume and agree to pay the notes, it should have indorsed them "without recourse," or in such a manner as to discliam any personal liability. When a person makes an unqualified indorsement of a promissory note, the Negotiable Instruments Law specifies and defines his liability, and parol testimony is not admissible to explain or defeat such liability. Here, the bill of exchange was drawn by the defendant, Aw Yong Chiow Soo, and it was the bill of exchange which was indorsed by the plaintiff, and the testimony is conclusive taht plaintiff's indorsement was required by the bank as one of the conditions upon which it would cash the draft. Three of the notes had matured at the time they were indorsed and the written instruments signed. Although the draft

was drawn by Aw Yong Chiow Soo, it was dishonored, and the plaintiff was required by the bank to execute his note for its amount. At the time of the execution of the notes, Aw Yong Chiow Soo was a creditor of Tan Liuan and Co. for the amount of the notes. The action here is not based upon the draft. It is founded upon the promissory notes. The plaintiff did not receive any part of the proceeds of the draft, but has been required by the bank to make his promissory note for the amount of the draft. As collateral and to indemnify and protect plaintiff from any liability, Aw Yong Chiow Soo indorsed the promissory notes, which it held against Tan Liuan and Co. to the plaintiff and did not in any manner qualify its indorsement, and the Negotiable Instruments Act says that Every indorser who indorses without qualification, warrants to all subsequent holders in due course, etc., engages that on due presentment, it shall be accepted or paid, or both, as the case may be, according to its tenor, and that if it be dishonored, and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it. Section 80 of the Act says: Presentment for payment is not required in order to charge an indorser where the instrument was made or accepted for his accommodation and he has no reason to expect that the instrument will be paid if presented. And subdivision (d), of section 114, says: Where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will honor the instrument. The draft was drawn on March 18, 1919, payable thirty days after sight, and it was dishonored. Three of the notes were past due at the time the written agreements were made, and the testimony is conclusive that Tan Liuan and Co. was insolvent, and that Aw Yong Chiow Soo knew it, and that none of the notes would be paid if presented, and the evidence shows that, before they were indorsed, the first two had been duly presented and dishonored. In other words, at the time the unqualified indorsement was made, two of the notes had been protested, and Aw Yong Chiow Soo knew that Tan Liuan and Co. was insolvent, and had no reason to expect that the notes would be paid if presented. There is no claim or pretense that its claim was prejudiced or that it lost any legal right, because the last two notes were not protested, the first of which was past due when it was indorsed. The purpose and intent of the August written statements was to explain the transactions between the parties, to whom the proceeds from the draft were paid, and that the notes were indorsed by Aw Yong Chiow Soo to palintiff, as collateral, to protect and hold him harmless in his indorsement of the draft, an to specify that Aw Yong Chiow Soo should have any proceeds from the notes after the draft had been fully paid therefrom and the plaintiff released from his liability as an indorser. The statements do not make any reference to the legal liability of Aw Yong Chiow Soo as an indorser of the notes, do not and were never contended to fully discharge and release that firm from its liability as an indorser. With all due respect to the able and ingenious brief for the appellant, there is no merit in the defense, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs in favor of the plaintiff. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-37467

December 11, 1933

SAN CARLOS MILLING CO., LTD., plaintiff-appellant, vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, defendantsappellees. Gibbs and McDonough and Roman Ozaeta for appellant. Araneta, De Joya, Zaragosa and Araneta for appellee Bank of the Philippine Islands. Marcelo Nubla and Guevara, Francisco and Recto for appellee China Banking Corporation.

HULL, J.: Plaintiff corporation, organized under the laws of the Territory of Hawaii, is authorized to engaged in business in the Philippine Islands, and maintains its main office in these Islands in the City of Manila. The business in the Philippine Islands was in the hands of Alfred D. Cooper, its agent under general power of attorney with authority of substitution. The principal employee in the Manila office was one Joseph L. Wilson, to whom had been given a general power of attorney but without power of substitution. In 1926 Cooper, desiring to go on vacation, gave a general power of attorney to Newland Baldwin and at the same time revoked the power of Wilson relative to the dealings with the Bank of the Philippine Islands, one of the banks in Manila in which plaintiff maintained a deposit. About a year thereafter Wilson, conspiring together with one Alfredo Dolores, a messenger-clerk in plaintiff's Manila office, sent a cable gram in code to the company in Honolulu requesting a telegraphic transfer to the China Banking Corporation of Manila of $100,00. The money was transferred by cable, and upon its receipt the China Banking Corporation, likewise a bank in which plaintiff maintained a deposit, sent an exchange contract to plaintiff corporation offering the sum of P201,000, which was then the current rate of exchange. On this contract was forged the name of Newland Baldwin and typed on the body of the contract was a note:
lawphil .net

Please send us certified check in our favor when transfer is received. A manager's check on the China Banking Corporation for P201,000 payable to San Carlos Milling Company or order was receipted for by Dolores. On the same date, September 28, 1927, the manger's check was deposited with the Bank of the Philippine Islands by the following endorsement: For deposit only with Bank of the Philippine Islands, to credit of account of San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd.

By (Sgd.) NEWLAND BALDWIN For Agent The endorsement to which the name of Newland Baldwin was affixed was spurious. The Bank of the Philippine Islands thereupon credited the current account of plaintiff in the sum of P201,000 and passed the cashier's check in the ordinary course of business through the clearing house, where it was paid by the China Banking Corporation. On the same day the cashier of the Bank of the Philippine Islands received a letter, purporting to be signed by Newland Baldwin, directing that P200,000 in bills of various denominations, named in the letter, be packed for shipment and delivery the next day. The next day, Dolores witnessed the counting and packing of the money, and shortly afterwards returned with the check for the sum of P200,000, purporting to be signed by Newland Baldwin as agent. Plaintiff had frequently withdrawn currency for shipment to its mill from the Bank of the Philippine Islands but never in so large an amount, and according to the record, never under the sole supervision of Dolores as the representative of plaintiff. Before delivering the money, the bank asked Dolores for P1 to cover the cost of packing the money, and he left the bank and shortly afterwards returned with another check for P1, purporting to be signed by Newland Baldwin. Whereupon the money was turned over to Dolores, who took it to plaintiff's office, where he turned the money over to Wilson and received as his share, P10,000. Shortly thereafter the crime was discovered, and upon the defendant bank refusing to credit plaintiff with the amount withdrawn by the two forged checks of P200,000 and P1, suit was brought against the Bank of the Philippine Islands, and finally on the suggestion of the defendant bank, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiff against both the Bank of the Philippine Islands and the China Banking Corporation. At the trial the China Banking Corporation contended that they had drawn a check to the credit of the plaintiff company, that the check had been endorsed for deposit, and that as the prior endorsement had in law been guaranteed by the Bank of the Philippine Islands, when they presented the cashier's check to it for payment, the China Banking Corporation was absolved even if the endorsement of Newland Baldwin on the check was a forgery. The Bank of the Philippine Islands presented many special defenses, but in the main their contentions were that they had been guilty of no negligence, that they had dealt with the accredited representatives of the company in the due course of business, and that the loss was due to the dishonesty of plaintiff's employees and the negligence of plaintiff's general agent. In plaintiff's Manila office, besides the general agent, Wilson, and Dolores, most of the time there was employed a woman stenographer and cashier. The agent did not keep in his personal possession either the code-book or the blank checks of either the Bank of the Philippine Islands or the China Banking Corporation. Baldwin was authorized to draw checks on either of the depositaries. Wilson could draw checks in the name of the plaintiff on the China Banking Corporation. After trial in which much testimony was taken, the trial court held that the deposit of P201,000 in the Bank of the Philippine Islands being the result of a forged endorsement, the relation of depositor and banker did not exist, but the bank was only a gratuitous bailee; that the Bank of the Philippine Islands acted in good faith in the ordinary course of its business, was not guilty of negligence, and

therefore under article 1902 of the Civil Code which should control the case, plaintiff could not recover; and that as the cause of loss was the criminal actions of Wilson and Dolores, employees of plaintiff, and as Newland Baldwin, the agent, had not exercised adequate supervision over plaintiff's Manila office, therefore plaintiff was guilty of negligence, which ground would likewise defeat recovery. From the decision of the trial court absolving the defendants, plaintiff brings this appeal and makes nine assignments of error which we do not deem it necessary to discuss in detail. There is a mild assertion on the part of the defendant bank that the disputed signatures of Newland Baldwin were genuine and that he had been in the habit of signing checks in blank and turning the checks so signed over to Wilson. The proof as to the falsity of the questioned signatures of Baldwin places the matter beyond reasonable doubt, nor is it believed that Baldwin signed checks in blank and turned them over to Wilson. As to the China Banking Corporation, it will be seen that it drew its check payable to the order of plaintiff and delivered it to plaintiff's agent who was authorized to receive it. A bank that cashes a check must know to whom it pays. In connection with the cashier's check, this duty was therefore upon the Bank of the Philippine Islands, and the China Banking Corporation was not bound to inspect and verify all endorsements of the check, even if some of them were also those of depositors in that bank. It had a right to rely upon the endorsement of the Bank of the Philippine Islands when it gave the latter bank credit for its own cashier's check. Even if we would treat the China Banking Corporation's cashier's check the same as the check of a depositor and attempt to apply the doctrines of the Great Eastern Life Insurance Co. vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation and National Bank (43 Phil., 678), and hold the China Banking Corporation indebted to plaintiff, we would at the same time have to hold that the Bank of the Philippine Islands was indebted to the China Banking Corporation in the same amount. As, however, the money was in fact paid to plaintiff corporation, we must hold that the China Banking Corporation is indebted neither to plaintiff nor to the Bank of the Philippine Islands, and the judgment of the lower court far as it absolves the China Banking Corporation from responsibility is affirmed. Returning to the relation between plaintiff and the Bank of the Philippine Islands, we will now consider the effect of the deposit of P201,000. It must be noted that this was not a presenting of the check for cash payment but for deposit only. It is a matter of general knowledge that most endorsements for deposit only, are informal. Most are by means of a rubber stamp. The bank would have been justified in accepting the check for deposit even with only a typed endorsement. It accepted the check and duly credited plaintiff's account with the amount on the face of the check. Plaintiff was not harmed by the transaction as the only result was the removal of that sum of money from a bank from which Wilson could have drawn it out in his own name to a bank where Wilson would not have authority to draw checks and where funds could only be drawn out by the check of Baldwin. Plaintiff in its letter of December 23, 1928, to the Bank of the Philippine Islands said in part: ". . . we now leave to demand that you pay over to us the entire amount of said manager's check of two hundred one thousand (P201,000) pesos, together with interest thereon at the agreed rate of 3 per cent per annum on daily balances of our credit in account current with your bank to this date. In the event of your refusal to pay, we shall claim interest at the legal rate of 6 per cent from and after the date of this demand inasmuch as we desire to withdraw

and make use of the money." Such language might well be treated as a ratification of the deposit. The contention of the bank that it was a gratuitous bailee is without merit. In the first place, it is absolutely contrary to what the bank did. It did not take it up as a separate account but it transferred the credit to plaintiff's current account as a depositor of that bank. Furthermore, banks are not gratuitous bailees of the funds deposited with them by their customers. Banks are run for gain, and they solicit deposits in order that they can use the money for that very purpose. In this case the action was neither gratuitous nor was it a bailment. On the other hand, we cannot agree with the theory of plaintiff that the Bank of the Philippine Islands was an intermeddling bank. In the many cases cited by plaintiff where the bank that cashed the forged endorsement was held as an intermeddler, in none was the claimant a regular depositor of the bank, nor in any of the cases cited, was the endorsement for deposit only. It is therefore clear that the relation of plaintiff with the Bank of the Philippine Islands in regard to this item of P201,000 was that of depositor and banker, creditor and debtor. We now come to consider the legal effect of payment by the bank to Dolores of the sum of P201,000, on two checks on which the name of Baldwin was forged as drawer. As above stated, the fact that these signatures were forged is beyond question. It is an elementary principle both of banking and of the Negotiable Instruments Law that A bank is bound to know the signatures of its customers; and if it pays a forged check, it must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds, and cannot ordinarily charge the amount so paid to the account of the depositor whose name was forged. (7 C.J., 683.) There is no act of the plaintiff that led the Bank of the Philippine Islands astray. If it was in fact lulled into a false sense of security, it was by the effrontery of Dolores, the messenger to whom it entrusted this large sum of money. The bank paid out its money because it relied upon the genuineness of the purported signatures of Baldwin. These, they never questioned at the time its employees should have used care. In fact, even today the bank represents that it has a relief that they are genuine signatures. The signatures to the check being forged, under section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law they are not a charge against plaintiff nor are the checks of any value to the defendant. It must therefore be held that the proximate cause of loss was due to the negligence of the Bank of the Philippine Islands in honoring and cashing the two forged checks. The judgment absolving the Bank of the Philippine Islands must therefore be reversed, and a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff-appellant and against the Bank of the Philippine Islands, defendant-appellee, for the sum of P200,001, with legal interest thereon from December 23,1928, until payment, together with costs in both instances. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-38816

November 3, 1933

INSULAR DRUG CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., defendants. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, appellant. Camus and Delgado for appellant. Franco and Reinoso for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.: This is an appeal taken by Philippine National Bank from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila requiring bank to pay to the Insular Drug Co., Inc., the sum of P18,285.92 with legal interest and costs. The record consists of the testimony of Alfred Von Arend, President and Manager of the Insular Drug Co., Inc., and of exhibits obtained from the Philippine National Bank showing transactions of U.E. Foerster with the bank. The Philippine National Bank was content to submit the case without presenting evidence in its behalf. The meagre record and the statement of facts agreed upon by the attorneys for the contending parties disclose the following facts: The Insular Drug Co., Inc., is a Philippine corporation with offices in the City of Manila. U.E. Foerster was formerly a salesman of drug company for the Islands of Panay and Negros. Foerster also acted as a collector for the company. He was instructed to take the checks which came to his hands for the drug company to the Iloilo branch of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China and deposit the amounts to the credit of the drug company. Instead, Foerster deposited checks, including those of Juan Llorente, Dolores Salcedo, Estanislao Salcedo, and a fourth party, with the Iloilo branch of the Philippine National Bank. The checks were in that bank placed in the personal account of Foerster. Some of the checks were drawn against the Bank of Philippine National Bank. After the indorsement on the checks was written "Received payment prior indorsement guaranteed by Philippine National bank, Iloilo Branch, Angel Padilla, Manager." The indorsement on the checks took various forms, some being "Insular Drug Company, Inc., By: (Sgd.) U. Foerster, Agent. (Sgd.) U. Foerster" other being "Insular Drug Co., Inc., By: (Sgd.) Carmen E. de Foerster, Agent (Sgd.) Carmen E. de Foerster"; others "Insular Drug Co., Inc., By: (Sgd.) Carmen E. de Foerster, Carmen E. de Froster"; others "(Sgd.) Carmen E. de Foerster, (Sgd.) Carmen E. de Foerster"; one (Sgd.) U. Foerster. (Sgd.) U. Foerster"; others; "Insular Drug Co., Inc., Carmen E. de Foerster, By: (Sgd.) V. Bacaldo," etc. In this connection it should be explained that Carmen E. de Foerster was his stenographer. As a consequence of the indorsements on checks the amounts therein stated were subsequently withdrawn by U. E., Foerster and Carmen E. de Foerster. Eventually the Manila office of the drug company investigated the transactions of Foerster. Upon the discovery of anomalies, Foerster committed suicide. But there is no evidence showing that the bank knew that Foerster was misappropriating the funds of his principal. The Insular Drug Company

claims that it never received the face value of 132 checks here in the question covering a total of P18,285.92.
lawphil.net

There is no Philippine authority which directly fits the proven facts. The case of Fulton Iron Works Co., vs. China Banking Corporation ([1930], 55 Phil., 208), mentioned by both parties rest on a different states of facts. However, there are elementary principles governing the relationship between a bank and its customers which are controlling. In first place, the bank argues that the drug company was never defrauded at all. While the evidence on the extent of the loss suffered by the drug company is not nearly as clear as it should be, it is a sufficient answer to state that no such special defense was relied upon by the bank in the trial court. The drug company saw fit to stand on the proposition that checks drawn in its favor were improperly and illegally cashed by the bank for Foerster and placed in his personal account, thus making it possible for Foerster to defraud the drug company, and the bank did not try to go back of this proposition. The next point relied upon by the bank, to the effect that Foerster had implied authority to indorse all checks made out in the name of the Insular Drug Co., Inc., has even less force. Not only did the bank permit Foerster to indorse checks and then place them to his personal account, but it went farther and permitted Foerster's wife and clerk to indorse the checks. The right of an agent to indorse commercial paper is a very responsible power and will not be lightly inferred. A salesman with authority to collect money belonging to his principal does not have the implied authority to indorse checks received in payment. Any person taking checks made payable to a corporation, which can act only by agent does so at his peril, and must same by the consequences if the agent who indorses the same is without authority. (Arcade Realty Co. vs. Bank of Commerce [1919], 180 Cal., 318; Standard Steam Specialty Co., vs. Corn Exchange Bank [1917], 220 N.Y., 278; People vs. Bank of North America [1879], 75 N.Y., 547; Graham vs. United States Savings Institution [1870], 46 Mo., 186.) Further speaking to the errors specified by the bank, it is sufficient to state that no trust fund was involved; that the fact that bank acted in good faith does not relieve it from responsibility; that no proof was adduced, admitting that Foerster had right to indorse the checks, indicative of right of his wife and clerk to do the same , and that the checks drawn on the Bank of the Philippine Islands can not be differentiated from those drawn on the Philippine National Bank because of the indorsement by the latter. In brief, this is a case where 132 checks made out in the name of the Insular Drug Co., Inc., were brought to the branch office of the Philippine National Bank in Iloilo by Foerster, a salesman of the drug company, Foerster's wife, and Foerster's clerk. The bank could tell by the checks themselves that the money belonged to the Insular Drug Co., Inc., and not to Foerster or his wife or his clerk. When the bank credited those checks to the personal account of Foerster and permitted Foerster and his wife to make withdrawals without there being made authority from the drug company to do so, the bank made itself responsible to the drug company for the amounts represented by the checks. The bank could relieve itself from responsibility by pleading and proving that after the money was withdrawn from the bank it passed to the drug company which thus suffered no loss, but the bank has not done so. Much more could be said about this case, but it suffices to state in conclusion that bank will have to stand the loss occasioned by the negligence of its agents. Overruling the errors assigned, judgment of the trial court will be affirmed, the costs of this instance to be paid by appellant.

G.R. No. L-2861

February 26, 1951

ENRIQUE P. MONTINOLA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., defendants-appellees. Quijano, Rosete and Lucena for appellant. Second Assistant Corporate Counsel Hilarion U. Jarencio for appellee Philippine National Bank. Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Augusto M. Luciano for appellee Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental. MONTEMAYOR, J.: In August, 1947, Enrique P. Montinola filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Philippine National Bank and the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental to collect the sum of P100,000, the amount of Check No. 1382 issued on May 2, 1942 by the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental to Mariano V. Ramos and supposedly indorsed to Montinola. After hearing, the court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint with costs against plaintiff-appellant. Montinola has appealed from that decision directly to this Court inasmuch as the amount in controversy exceeds P50,000. There is no dispute as to the following facts. In April and May, 1942, Ubaldo D. Laya was the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental. As such Provincial Treasurer he was ex officio agent of the Philippine National Bank branch in the province. Mariano V. Ramos worked under him as assistant agent in the bank branch aforementioned. In April of that year 1942, the currency being used in Mindanao, particularly Misamis Oriental and Lanao which had not yet been occupied by the Japanese invading forces, was the emergency currency which had been issued since January, 1942 by the Mindanao Emergency Currency Board by authority of the late President Quezon. About April 26, 1942, thru the recommendation of Provincial Treasurer Laya, his assistant agent M. V. Ramos was inducted into the United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) as disbursing officer of an army division. As such disbursing officer, M. V. Ramos on April 30, 1942, went to the neighboring Province Lanao to procure a cash advance in the amount of P800,000 for the use of the USAFFE in Cagayan de Misamis. Pedro Encarnacion, Provincial Treasurer of Lanao did not have that amount in cash. So, he gave Ramos P300,000 in emergency notes and a check for P500,000. On May 2, 1942 Ramos went to the office of Provincial Treasurer Laya at Misamis Oriental to encash the check for P500,000 which he had received from the Provincial Treasurer of Lanao. Laya did not have enough cash to cover the check so he gave Ramos P400,000 in emergency notes and a check No. 1382 for P100,000 drawn on the Philippine National Bank. According to Laya he had previously deposited P500,000 emergency notes in the Philippine National Bank branch in Cebu and he expected to have the check issued by him cashed in Cebu against said deposit. Ramos had no opportunity to cash the check because in the evening of the same day the check was issued to him, the Japanese forces entered the capital of Misamis Oriental, and on June 10, 1942,

the USAFFE forces to which he was attached surrendered. Ramos was made a prisoner of war until February 12, 1943, after which, he was released and he resumed his status as a civilian. About the last days of December, 1944 or the first days of January, 1945, M. V. Ramos allegedly indorsed this check No. 1382 to Enrique P. Montinola. The circumstances and conditions under which the negotiation or transfer was made are in controversy. According to Montinola's version, sometime in June, 1944, Ramos, needing money with which to buy foodstuffs and medicine, offered to sell him the check; to be sure that it was genuine and negotiable, Montinola, accompanied by his agents and by Ramos himself, went to see President Carmona of the Philippine National Bank in Manila about said check; that after examining it President Carmona told him that it was negotiable but that he should not let the Japanese catch him with it because possession of the same would indicate that he was still waiting for the return of the Americans to the Philippines; that he and Ramos finally agreed to the sale of the check for P850,000 Japanese military notes, payable in installments; that of this amount, P450,000 was paid to Ramos in Japanese military notes in five installments, and the balance of P400,000 was paid in kind, namely, four bottles of sulphatia sole, each bottle containing 1,000 tablets, and each tablet valued at P100; that upon payment of the full price, M. V. Ramos duly indorsed the check to him. This indorsement which now appears on the back of the document is described in detail by trial court as follows: The endorsement now appearing at the back of the check (see Exhibit A-1) may be described as follows: The woods, "pay to the order of" in rubber stamp and in violet color are placed about one inch from the top. This is followed by the words "Enrique P. Montinola" in typewriting which is approximately 5/8 an inch below the stamped words "pay to the order of". Below "Enrique P.
Montinola", in typewriting are words and figures also in typewriting, "517 Isabel Street" and about /8 of an inch therefrom, the edges of the check appear to have been burned, but there are words stamped apparently in rubber stamp which, according to Montinola, are a facsimile of the signature of Ramos. There is a signature which apparently reads "M. V. Ramos" also in green ink but made in handwriting."

To the above description we may add that the name of M. V. Ramos is hand printed in green ink, under the signature. According to Montinola, he asked Ramos to hand print it because Ramos' signature was not clear. Ramos in his turn told the court that the agreement between himself and Montinola regarding the transfer of the check was that he was selling only P30,000 of the check and for this reason, at the back of the document he wrote in longhand the following: Pay to the order of Enrique P. Montinola P30,000 only. The balance to be deposited in the Philippine National Bank to the credit of M. V. Ramos. Ramos further said that in exchange for this assignment of P30,000 Montinola would pay him P90,000 in Japanese military notes but that Montinola gave him only two checks of P20,000 and P25,000, leaving a balance unpaid of P45,000. In this he was corroborated by Atty. Simeon Ramos Jr. who told the court that the agreement between Ramos and Montinola was that the latter, for the sale to him of P30,000 of the check, was to pay Ramos P90,000 in Japanese military notes; that when the first check for P20,000 was issued by Montinola, he (Simeon) prepared a document evidencing said payment of P20,000; that when the second check for P25,000 was issued by Montinola, he (Simeon) prepared another document with two copies, one for Montinola and the other for Ramos, both signed by Montinola and M. V. Ramos, evidencing said payment, with the understanding that the balance of P45,000 would be paid in a few days. The indorsement or writing described by M. V. Ramos which had been written by him at the back of the check, Exhibit A, does not now appear at the back of said check. What appears thereon is the

indosement testified to by Montinola and described by the trial court as reproduced above. Before going into a discussion of the merits of the version given by Ramos and Montinola as to the indorsement or writing at the back of the check, it is well to give a further description of it as we shall later. When Montinola filed his complaint in 1947 he stated therein that the check had been lost, and so in lieu thereof he filed a supposed photostic copy. However, at the trial, he presented the check itself and had its face marked Exhibit A and the back thereof Exhibit A-1. But the check is badly mutilated, bottled, torn and partly burned, and its condition can best be appreciated by seeing it. Roughly, it may be stated that looking at the face of the check (Exhibit A) we see that the left third portion of the paper has been cut off perpendicularly and severed from the remaining 2/3 portion; a triangular

portion of the upper right hand corner of said remaining 2/3portion has been similarly cut off and severed, and to keep and attach this triangular portion and the rectangular /3 portion to the rest of the document, the entire check is pasted on both sides with cellophane; the edges of the severed portions as well as of the remaining major portion, where cut bear traces of burning and searing; there is a big blot with indelible ink about the right middle portion, which seems to have penetrated to the back of the check (Exhibit A-1), which back bears a larger smear right under the blot, but not black and sharp as the blot itself; finally, all this tearing, burning, blotting and smearing and pasting of the check renders it difficult if not impossible to read some of the words and figures on the check.
In explanation of the mutilation of the check Montinola told the court that several months after indorsing and delivering the check to him, Ramos demanded the return of the check to him, threatening Montinola with bodily harm, even death by himself or his guerrilla forces if he did not return said check, and that in order to justify the non-delivery of the document and to discourage Ramos from getting it back, he (Montinola) had to resort to the mutilation of the document. As to what was really written at the back of the check which Montinola claims to be a full indorsement of the check, we agree with trial court that the original writing of Ramos on the back of the check was to the effect that he was assigning only P30,000 of the value of the document and that he was instructing the bank to deposit to his credit the balance. This writing was in some mysterious way obliterated, and in its place was placed the present indorsement appearing thereon. Said present indorsement occupies a good portion of the back of the check. It has already been described in detail. As to how said present indorsement came to be written, the circumstances surrounding its preparation, the supposed participation of M. V. Ramos in it and the writing originally appearing on the reverse side of the check, Exhibit A-1, we quote with approval what the trial court presided over by Judge Conrado V. Sanchez, in its well-prepared decision, says on these points: The allegedly indorsement: "Pay to the order of Enrique P. Montinola the amount of P30,000 only. The balance to be deposited to the credit of M. V. Ramos", signed by M. V. Ramosaccording to the latter-does not now appear at the back of the check. A different indorsement, as aforesaid, now appears. Had Montinola really paid in full the sum of P850,000 in Japanese Military Notes as consideration for the check? The following observations are in point:

(a) According to plaintiff's witness Gregorio A. Cortado, the oval line in violet, enclosing "P." of the words "Enrique P. Montinola" and the line in the form of cane handle crossing the word "street" in the words and figures "517 Isabel Street" in the endorsement Exhibit A-1 "unusual" to him, and that as far as he could remember this writing did not appear on the instrument and he had no knowledge as to how it happened to be there. Obviously Cortado had no recollection as to how such marks ever were stamped at the back of the check. (b) Again Cortado, speaking of the endorsement as it now appears at the back of the check (Exh. A-1) stated that Ramos typewrote these words outside of the premises of Montinola, that is, a nearby house. Montinola, on the other hand, testified that Ramos typewrote the words "Enrique P. Montinola 517 Isabel Street", in his own house. Speaking of the rubber stamp used at the back of the check and which produced the words "pay to the order of", Cortado stated that when he (Cortado), Atadero, Montinola and Ramos returned in group to the house of Montinola, the rubber stamp was already in the house of Montinola, and it was on the table of the upper floor of the house, together with the stamp pad used to stamp the same. Montinola, on the other hand, testified that Ramos carried in his pocket the said rubber stamp as well as the ink pad, and stamped it in his house. The unusually big space occupied by the indorsement on the back of the check and the discrepancies in the versions of Montinola and his witness Cortado just noted, create doubts as to whether or not really Ramos made the indorsement as it now appears at the back of Exhibit A. One thing difficult to understand is why Ramos should go into the laborious task of placing the rubber stamp "Pay to the order of" and afterwards move to the typewriter and write the words "Enrique P. Montinola" "and "517 Isabel Street", and finally sign his name too far below the main indorsement. (c) Another circumstances which bears heavily upon the claim of plaintiff Montinola that he acquired the full value of the check and paid the full consideration therefor is the present condition of said check. It is now so unclean and discolored; it is pasted in cellophane, bottled with ink on both sides torn three parts, and with portions thereof burned-all done by plaintiff, the alleged owner thereof. The acts done by the very plaintiff on a document so important and valuable to him, and which according to him involves his life savings, approximate intentional cancellation. The only reason advanced by plaintiff as to why tore check, burned the torn edges and bottled out the registration at the back, is found in the following: That Ramos came to his house, armed with a revolver, threatened his life and demanded from him the return of the check; that when he informed Ramos that he did not have it in the house, but in some deposit outside thereof and that Ramos promised to return the next day; that the same night he tore the check into three parts, burned the sides with a parrafin candle to show traces of burning; and that upon the return of Ramos the next day he showed the two parts of the check, the triangle on the right upper part and the torn piece on the left part, and upon seeing the condition thereof Ramos did not bother to get the check back. He also said that he placed the blots in indelible ink to prevent Ramos if he would be forced to surrender the middle part of the check from seeing that it was registered in the General Auditing Office. Conceding at the moment these facts to be true, the question is: Why should Montinola be afraid of Ramos? Montinola claims that Ramos went there about April, 1945, that is, during liberation. If he believed he was standing by his rights, he could have very well sought police protection or transferred to some place where Ramos could not bother him. And then, really Ramos did not have anything more to do with this check for the reason that Montinola had obtained in full the amount thereof, there could not be any reason why Ramos should have

threatened Montinola as stated by the latter. Under the circumstances, the most logical conclusion is that Ramos wanted the check at all costs because Montinola did not acquire the check to such an extent that it borders on intentional cancellation thereof (see Sections 119-123 Negotiable Instruments Law) there is room to believe that Montinola did not have so much investments in that check as to adopted an "what do I care?" attitude. And there is the circumstance of the alleged loss of the check. At the time of the filing of the complaint the check was allegedly lost, so much so that a photostatic copy thereof was merely attached to the complaint (see paragraph 7 of the complaint). Yet, during the trial the original check Exhibit A was produced in court. But a comparison between the photostatic copy and the original check reveals discrepancies between the two. The condition of the check as it was produced is such that it was partially burned, partially blotted, badly mutilated, discolored and pasted with cellophane. What is worse is that Montinola's excuse as to how it was lost, that it was mixed up with household effects is not plausible, considering the fact that it involves his life savings, and that before the alleged loss, he took extreme pains and precautions to save the check from the possible ravages of the war, had it photographed, registered said check with the General Auditing Office and he knew that Ramos, since liberation, was hot after the possession of that check. (d) It seems that Montinola was not so sure as to what he had testified to in reference to the consideration he paid for the check. In court he testified that he paid P450,000 in cash from June to December 1944, and P400,000 worth of sulphatiazole in January 1945 to complete the alleged consideration of P850,000. When Montinola testified this way in court, obviously he overlooked a letter he wrote to the provincial treasurer of Cagayan, Oriental Misamis, dated May 1, 1947, Exhibit 3 the record. In that letter Exhibit 3, Montinola told Provincial Treasurer Elizalde of Misamis Oriental that "Ramos endorsed it (referring to check) to me for goods in kind, medicine, etc., received by him for the use of the guerrillas." In said letter Exhibit 3, Montinola did not mention the cash that he paid for the check. From the foregoing the court concludes that plaintiff Montinola came into the possession of the check in question about the end of December 1944 by reason of the fact that M. V. Ramos sold to him P30,000 of the face value thereof in consideration of the sum of P90,000 Japanese money, of which only one-half or P45,000 (in Japanese money) was actually paid by said plaintiff to Ramos. (R. on A., pp. 31-33; Brief of Appellee, pp. 14-20.) At the beginning of this decision, we stated that as Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental, Ubaldo D. Laya wasex officio agent of the Philippine National Bank branch in that province. On the face of the check (Exh. A) we now find the words in parenthesis "Agent, Phil. National Bank" under the signature of Laya, purportedly showing that he issued the check as agent of the Philippine National Bank. It this is true, then the bank is not only drawee but also a drawer of the check, and Montinola evidently is trying to hold the Philippine National Bank liable in that capacity of drawer, because as drawee alone, inasmuch as the bank has not yet accepted or certified the check, it may yet avoid payment. Laya, testifying in court, stated that he issued the check only as Provincial Treasurer, and that the words in parenthesis "Agent, Phil. National Bank" now appearing under his signature did not appear on the check when he issued the same. In this he was corroborated by the payee M. V. Ramos who equally assured the court that when he received the check and then delivered it to Montinola, those words did not appear under the signature of Ubaldo D. Laya. We again quote with approval the pertinent portion of the trial court's decision:

The question is reduced to whether or not the words, "Agent, Phil. National Bank" were added after Laya had issued the check. In a straightforward manner and without vacillation Laya positively testified that the check Exhibit A was issued by him in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental and that the words "Agent, Phil. National Bank" which now appear on the check Exhibit A were not typewritten below his signature when he signed the said check and delivered the same to Ramos. Laya assured the court that there could not be any mistake as to this. For, according to Laya, when he issued check in his capacity as agent of the Misamis Oriental agency of the Philippine National Bank the said check must be countersigned by the cashier of the said agency not by the provincial auditor. He also testified that the said check was issued by him in his capacity as provincial treasurer of Misamis Oriental and that is why the same was countersigned by Provincial Auditor Flores. The Provincial Auditor at that time had no connection in any capacity with the Misamis Oriental agency of the Philippine National Bank. Plaintiff Montinola on the other hand testified that when he received the check Exhibit A it already bore the words "Agent, Phil. National Bank" below the signature of Laya and the printed words "Provincial Treasurer". After considering the testimony of the one and the other, the court finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports Laya's testimony. In the first place, his testimony was corroborated by the payee M. V. Ramos. But what renders more probable the testimony of Laya and Ramos is the fact that the money for which the check was issued was expressly for the use of the USAFFE of which Ramos was then disbursing officer, so much so that upon the delivery of the P400,000 in emergency notes and the P100,000 check to Ramos, Laya credited his depository accounts as provincial treasurer with the corresponding credit entry. In the normal course of events the check could not have been issued by the bank, and this is borne by the fact that the signature of Laya was countersigned by the provincial auditor, not the bank cashier. And then, too there is the circumstance that this check was issued by the provincial treasurer of Lanao to Ramos who requisitioned the said funds in his capacity as disbursing officer of the USAFFE. The check, Exhibit A is not what we may term in business parlance, "certified check" or "cashier's check." Besides, at the time the check was issued, Laya already knew that Cebu and Manila were already occupied. He could not have therefore issued the check-as a bank employeepayable at the central office of the Philippine National Bank. Upon the foregoing circumstances the court concludes that the words "Agent, Phil. National Bank' below the signature of Ubaldo D. Laya and the printed words "Provincial Treasurer" were added in the check after the same was issued by the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental. From all the foregoing, we may safely conclude as we do that the words "Agent, Phil. National Bank" now appearing on the face of the check (Exh. A) were added or placed in the instrument after it was issued by Provincial Treasurer Laya to M. V. Ramos. There is no reason known to us why Provincial Treasurer Laya should issue the check (Exh. A) as agent of the Philippine National Bank. Said check for P100,000 was issued to complete the payment of the other check for P500,000 issued by the Provincial Treasurer of Lanao to Ramos, as part of the advance funds for the USAFFE in Cagayan de Misamis. The balance of P400,000 in cash was paid to Ramos by Laya from the funds, not of the bank but of the Provincial Treasury. Said USAFFE were being financed not by the Bank but by the Government and, presumably, one of the reasons for the issuance of the emergency notes in Mindanao was for this purpose. As already stated, according to Provincial Treasurer Laya, upon receiving a relatively considerable amount of these emergency notes for his office, he deposited P500,000 of said currency in the Philippine National Bank branch in Cebu, and that in issuing the

check (Exh. A), he expected to have it cashed at said Cebu bank branch against his deposit of P500,000. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the check was issued by Laya only as Provincial Treasurer and as an official of the Government which was under obligation to provide the USAFFE with advance funds, and not by the Philippine National Bank which has no such obligation. The very Annex C, made part of plaintiff's complaint, and later introduced in evidence for him as Exhibit E states that Laya issued the check "in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental", obviously, not as agent of the Bank. Now, did M. V. Ramos add or place those words below the signature of Laya before transferring the check to Montinola? Let us bear in mind that Ramos before his induction into the USAFFE had been working as assistant of Treasurer Laya as ex-officio agent of the Misamis Oriental branch of the Philippine National Bank. Naturally, Ramos must have known the procedure followed there as to the issuance of checks, namely, that when a check is issued by the Provincial Treasurer as such, it is countersigned by the Provincial Auditor as was done on the check (Exhibit A), but that if the Provincial Treasurer issues a check as agent of the Philippine National Bank, the check is countersigned not by the Provincial Auditor who has nothing to do with the bank, but by the bank cashier, which was not done in this case. It is not likely, therefore, that Ramos had made the insertion of the words "Agent, Phil. National Bank" after he received the check, because he should have realized that following the practice already described, the check having been issued by Laya as Provincial Treasurer, and not as agent of the bank, and since the check bears the countersignature not of the Bank cashier of the Provincial Auditor, the addition of the words "Agent, Phil. National Bank" could not change the status and responsibility of the bank. It is therefore more logical to believe and to find that the addition of those words was made after the check had been transferred by Ramos to Montinola. Moreover, there are other facts and circumstances involved in the case which support this view. Referring to the mimeographed record on appeal filed by the plaintiffappellant, we find that in transcribing and copying the check, particularly the face of it (Exhibit A) in the complaint, the words "Agent, Phil. National Bank" now appearing on the face of the check under the signature of the Provincial Treasurer, is missing. Unless the plaintiff in making this copy or transcription in the complaint committed a serious omission which is decisive as far as the bank is concerned, the inference is, that at the time the complaint was filed, said phrase did not appear on the face of the check. That probably was the reason why the bank in its motion to dismiss dated September 2, 1947, contended that if the check in question had been issued by the provincial treasurer in his capacity as agent of the Philippine National Bank, said treasurer would have placed below his signature the words "Agent of the Philippine National Bank". The plaintiff because of the alleged loss of the check, allegedly attached to the complaint a photostatic copy of said check and marked it as Annex A. But in transcribing and copying said Annex A in his complaint, the phrase "Agent, Phil. National Bank" does not appear under the signature of the provincial treasurer. We tried to verify this discrepancy by going over the original records of the Court of First Instance so as to compare the copy of Annex A in the complaint, with the original Annex A, the photostatic copy, but said original Annex A appears to be missing from the record. How it disappeared is not explained. Of course, now we have in the list of exhibit a photostatic copy marked Annex A and Exhibit B, but according to the manifestation of counsel for the plaintiff dated October 15, 1948, said photostatic copy now marked Annex A and Exhibit B was submitted on October 15, 1948, in compliance with the verbal order of the trial court. It is therefore evident that the Annex A now available is not the same original Annex A attached to the complaint in 1947. There is one other circumstance, important and worth nothing. If Annex A also marked Exhibit B is the photostatic copy of the original check No. 1382 particularly the face thereof (Exhibit A), then said photostatic copy should be a faithful and accurate reproduction of the check, particularly of the phrase "Agent, Phil. National Bank" now appearing under the signature of the Provincial Treasurer on the face of the original check (Exhibit A). But a minute examination of and comparison between

Annex A, the photostatic copy also marked Exhibit B and the face of the check, Exhibit A, especially with the aid of a handlens, show notable differences and discrepancies. For instance, on Exhibit A, the letter A of the word "Agent" is toward the right of the tail of the beginning letter of the signature of Ubaldo D. Laya; this same letter "A" however in Exhibit B is directly under said tail. The letter "N" of the word "National" on Exhibit A is underneath the space between "Provincial" and "Treasurer"; but the same letter "N" is directly under the letter "I" of the word "Provincial" in Exhibit B. The first letter "a" of the word "National" is under "T" of the word "Treasurer" in Exhibit A; but the same letter "a" in Exhibit "B" is just below the space between the words "Provincial" and "Treasurer". The letter "k" of the word "Bank" in Exhibit A is after the green perpendicular border line near the lower right hand corner of the edge of the check (Exh. A); this same letter "k" however, on Exhibit B is on the very border line itself or even before said border line. The closing parenthesis ")" on Exhibit A is a little far from the perpendicular green border line and appears to be double instead of one single line; this same ")" on Exhibit B appears in a single line and is relatively nearer to the border line. There are other notable discrepancies between the check Annex A and the photostatic copy, Exhibit B, as regards the relative position of the phrase "Agent, Phil. National Bank", with the title Provincial Treasurer, giving ground to the doubt that Exhibit B is a photostatic copy of the check (Exhibit A). We then have the following facts. Exhibit A was issued by Laya in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental as drawer on the Philippine National Bank as drawee. Ramos sold P30,000 of the check to Enrique P. Montinola for P90,000 Japanese military notes, of which only P45,000 was paid by Montinola. The writing made by Ramos at the back of the check was an instruction to the bank to pay P30,000 to Montinola and to deposit the balance to his (Ramos) credit. This writing was obliterated and in its place we now have the supposed indorsement appearing on the back of the check (Exh. A-1). At the time of the transfer of this check (Exh. A) to Montinola about the last days of December, 1944, or the first days of January, 1945, the check which, being a negotiable instrument, was payable on demand, was long overdue by about 2 years. It may therefore be considered, even then, a stable check. Of course, Montinola claims that about June, 1944 when Ramos supposedly approached him for the purpose of negotiating the check, he (Montinola) consulted President Carmona of the Philippine National Bank who assured him that the check was good and negotiable. However, President Carmona on the witness stand flatly denied Montinola's claim and assured the court that the first time that he saw Montinola was after the Philippine National Bank, of which he was President, reopened, after liberation, around August or September, 1945, and that when shown the check he told Montinola that it was stale. M. V. Ramos also told the court that it is not true that he ever went with Montinola to see President Carmona about the check in 1944. On the basis of the facts above related there are several reasons why the complaint of Montinola cannot prosper. The insertion of the words "Agent, Phil. National Bank" which converts the bank from a mere drawee to a drawer and therefore changes its liability, constitutes a material alteration of the instrument without the consent of the parties liable thereon, and so discharges the instrument. (Section 124 of the Negotiable Instruments Law). The check was not legally negotiated within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Section 32 of the same law provides that "the indorsement must be an indorsement of the entire instrument. An indorsement which purports to transfer to the indorsee a part only of the amount payable, . . . (as in this case) does not operate as a negotiation of the instrument." Montinola may therefore not be regarded as an indorsee. At most

he may be regarded as a mere assignee of the P30,000 sold to him by Ramos, in which case, as such assignee, he is subject to all defenses available to the drawer Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental and against Ramos. Neither can Montinola be considered as a holder in due course because section 52 of said law defines a holder in due course as a holder who has taken the instrument under certain conditions, one of which is that he became the holder before it was overdue. When Montinola received the check, it was long overdue. And, Montinola is not even a holder because section 191 of the same law defines holder as the payee or indorsee of a bill or note and Montinola is not a payee. Neither is he an indorsee for as already stated, at most he can be considered only as assignee. Neither could it be said that he took it in good faith. As already stated, he has not paid the full amount of P90,000 for which Ramos sold him P30,000 of the value of the check. In the second place, as was stated by the trial court in its decision, Montinola speculated on the check and took a chance on its being paid after the war. Montinola must have known that at the time the check was issued in May, 1942, the money circulating in Mindanao and the Visayas was only the emergency notes and that the check was intended to be payable in that currency. Also, he should have known that a check for such a large amount of P100,000 could not have been issued to Ramos in his private capacity but rather in his capacity as disbursing officer of the USAFFE, and that at the time that Ramos sold a part of the check to him, Ramos was no longer connected with the USAFFE but already a civilian who needed the money only for himself and his family. As already stated, as a mere assignee Montinola is subject to all the defenses available against assignor Ramos. And, Ramos had he retained the check may not now collect its value because it had been issued to him as disbursing officer. As observed by the trial court, the check was issued to M. V. Ramos not as a person but M. V. Ramos as the disbursing officer of the USAFFE. Therefore, he had no right to indorse it personally to plaintiff. It was negotiated in breach of trust, hence he transferred nothing to the plaintiff. In view of all the foregoing, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed with costs. In the prayer for relief contained at the end of the brief for the Philippine National Bank dated September 27, 1949, we find this prayer: It is also respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court refer the check, Exhibit A, to the City Fiscal's Office for appropriate criminal action against the plaintiff-appellant if the facts so warrant. Subsequently, in a petition signed by plaintiff-appellant Enrique P. Montinola dated February 27, 1950, he asked this Court to allow him to withdraw the original check (Exh. A) for him to keep, expressing his willingness to submit it to the court whenever needed for examination and verification. The bank on March 2, 1950 opposed the said petition on the ground that inasmuch as the appellant's cause of action in this case is based on the said check, it is absolutely necessary for the court to examine the original in order to see the actual alterations supposedly made thereon, and that should this Court grant the prayer contained in the bank's brief that the check be later referred to the city fiscal for appropriate action, said check may no longer be available if the appellant is allowed to withdraw said document. In view of said opposition this Court resolution of March 6, 1950, denied said petition for withdrawal. Acting upon the petition contained in the bank's brief already mentioned, once the decision becomes final, let the Clerk of Court transmit to the city fiscal the check (Exh. A) together with all pertinent papers and documents in this case, for any action he may deem proper in the premises.

G.R. No. L-39641 February 28, 1983 METROPOL (BACOLOD) FINANCING & INVESTMENT CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SAMBOK MOTORS COMPANY and NG SAMBOK SONS MOTORS CO., LTD., defendantsappellants. Rizal Quimpo & Cornelio P. Revena for plaintiff-appellee. Diosdado Garingalao for defendants-appellants.

DE CASTRO, J.: The former Court of Appeals, by its resolution dated October 16, 1974 certified this case to this Court the issue issued therein being one purely of law. On April 15, 1969 Dr. Javier Villaruel executed a promissory note in favor of Ng Sambok Sons Motors Co., Ltd., in the amount of P15,939.00 payable in twelve (12) equal monthly installments, beginning May 18, 1969, with interest at the rate of one percent per month. It is further provided that in case on non-payment of any of the installments, the total principal sum then remaining unpaid shall become due and payable with an additional interest equal to twenty-five percent of the total amount due. On the same date, Sambok Motors Company (hereinafter referred to as Sambok), a sister company of Ng Sambok Sons Motors Co., Ltd., and under the same management as the former, negotiated and indorsed the note in favor of plaintiff Metropol Financing & Investment Corporation with the following indorsement: Pay to the order of Metropol Bacolod Financing & Investment Corporation with recourse. Notice of Demand; Dishonor; Protest; and Presentment are hereby waived. SAMBOK MOTORS CO. (BACOLOD) By: RODOLFO G. NONILLO Asst. General Manager

The maker, Dr. Villaruel defaulted in the payment of his installments when they became due, so on October 30, 1969 plaintiff formally presented the promissory note for payment to the maker. Dr. Villaruel failed to pay the promissory note as demanded, hence plaintiff notified Sambok as indorsee of said note of the fact that the same has been dishonored and demanded payment. Sambok failed to pay, so on November 26, 1969 plaintiff filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch I. Sambok did not deny its liability but contended that it could not be obliged to pay until after its co-defendant Dr. Villaruel has been declared insolvent. During the pendency of the case in the trial court, defendant Dr. Villaruel died, hence, on October 24, 1972 the lower court, on motion, dismissed the case against Dr. Villaruel pursuant to Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. 1 On plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the trial court rendered its decision dated September 12, 1973, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered: (a) Ordering Sambok Motors Company to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P15,939.00 plus the legal rate of interest from October 30, 1969; (b) Ordering same defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum equivalent to 25% of P15,939.00 plus interest thereon until fully paid; and (c) To pay the cost of suit. Not satisfied with the decision, the present appeal was instituted, appellant Sambok raising a lone assignment of error as follows: The trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint by finding defendant appellant Sambok Motors Company as assignor and a qualified indorsee of the subject promissory note and in not holding it as only secondarily liable thereof. Appellant Sambok argues that by adding the words "with recourse" in the indorsement of the note, it becomes a qualified indorser that being a qualified indorser, it does not warrant that if said note is dishonored by the maker on presentment, it will pay the amount to the holder; that it only warrants the following pursuant to Section 65 of the Negotiable Instruments Law: (a) that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; (b) that he has a good title to it; (c) that all prior parties had capacity to contract; (d) that he has no knowledge of any fact which would impair the validity of the instrument or render it valueless. The appeal is without merit. A qualified indorsement constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title to the instrument. It may be made by adding to the indorser's signature the words "without recourse" or any words of similar import. 2 Such an indorsement relieves the indorser of the general obligation to pay if the instrument is
dishonored but not of the liability arising from warranties on the instrument as provided in Section 65 of the Negotiable Instruments Law already mentioned herein. However, appellant Sambok indorsed the note "with recourse" and even waived the notice of demand, dishonor, protest and presentment.

"Recourse" means resort to a person who is secondarily liable after the default of the person who is primarily liable. 3 Appellant, by indorsing the note "with recourse" does not make itself a qualified indorser
but a general indorser who is secondarily liable, because by such indorsement, it agreed that if Dr. Villaruel fails to pay the note, plaintiff-appellee can go after said appellant. The effect of such indorsement is that the note was indorsed without qualification. A person who indorses without qualification engages that on due presentment, the note shall be accepted or paid, or both as the case may be, and that if it be dishonored, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder. 4 Appellant Sambok's intention of indorsing the note without qualification is made even more apparent by the fact that the notice of demand, dishonor, protest and presentment were an waived. The words added by said appellant do not limit his liability, but rather confirm his obligation as a general indorser.

Lastly, the lower court did not err in not declaring appellant as only secondarily liable because after an instrument is dishonored by non-payment, the person secondarily liable thereon ceases to be such and becomes a principal debtor. 5 His liabiliy becomes the same as that of the original
obligor. 6 Consequently, the holder need not even proceed against the maker before suing the indorser.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed. No costs. SO ORDERED.