In the case of Hi-Cement Corporation vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, the Supreme Court clarified the liabilities concerning crossed checks and the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. The Court ruled that a bank that discounts crossed checks is not a holder in due course, impacting its ability to recover funds from the check issuer if the checks are dishonored. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should be applied judiciously, requiring solid evidence of fraud or wrongdoing to hold corporate officers liable for the corporation’s debts. This decision protects corporations from undue liability when banks fail to exercise due diligence and reinforces corporate identity, preventing unwarranted personal liability for corporate debts.

When Crossed Checks and Corporate Responsibility Intersect: Who Pays When Things Go Wrong?

The complex interplay between negotiable instruments and corporate responsibility took center stage in the consolidated cases of Hi-Cement Corporation vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America and E.T. Henry & Co. vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America. At the heart of the dispute lay the question of liability for dishonored crossed checks that had been re-discounted by Insular Bank of Asia and America (IBAA, now Equitable PCI-Bank). E.T. Henry & Co., facing financial difficulties due to the dishonored checks, had originally obtained a credit facility from IBAA called “Purchase of Short Term Receivables.” This allowed them to encash postdated checks from clients like Hi-Cement Corporation. So, when checks started bouncing, who was left holding the bag?

The predicament started in 1979, when IBAA extended the credit facility to E.T. Henry, allowing them to re-discount client’s checks. As part of the arrangement, E.T. Henry was required to issue promissory notes and deeds of assignment for each transaction, ensuring that the bank had recourse in case of non-payment. But the house of cards began to crumble in February 1981 when several checks issued by Hi-Cement, Riverside Mills Corporation, and Kanebo Cosmetics Philippines, Inc. were dishonored. IBAA, left with worthless checks, filed a complaint for a sum of money against all parties involved, seeking to recover the face value of the dishonored checks, along with accrued interests, charges, and penalties.

Hi-Cement argued that its general manager and treasurer lacked the authority to issue the checks and further asserted that the checks were crossed. Crossed checks, they argued, should have alerted IBAA to potential irregularities. In its decision, the trial court held E.T. Henry, the spouses Tan, Hi-Cement, Riverside, and Kanebo jointly and severally liable for the face value of the dishonored checks, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. Only the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s ruling in full. This led to the Supreme Court taking up the matter, dissecting issues such as whether IBAA was a holder in due course and whether Hi-Cement could be held liable.

The Supreme Court ruled that IBAA was not a holder in due course of the crossed checks. This was primarily because the checks were crossed with the restriction, “deposit to payee’s account only.” According to Section 52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), a holder in due course must take the instrument in good faith and without notice of any infirmity. Since IBAA was aware of the crossing, they had a duty to inquire about the check’s purpose, thus were not protected. The Court stated:

It is then settled that crossing of checks should put the holder on inquiry and upon him devolves the duty to ascertain the indorser’s title to the check or the nature of his possession. Failing in this respect, the holder is declared guilty of gross negligence amounting to legal absence of good faith…and as such[,] the consensus of authority is to the effect that the holder of the check is not a holder in due course.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court noted that, because IBAA was not a holder in due course, Hi-Cement could not be held liable for the value of the dishonored checks. IBAA should have been diligent in verifying the checks; therefore, presentment of these checks to the drawee bank was improper and did not attach liability to the drawer. The Court underscored that IBAA should seek recourse from E.T. Henry, who indorsed the checks and received their value. This aligns with the NIL, which doesn’t entirely prevent recovery by a non-holder in due course from a party with no valid excuse for non-payment.

On the matter of piercing the corporate veil, the Supreme Court sided with E.T. Henry and the spouses Tan. It emphasized that piercing the corporate veil is only justifiable when the corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify a wrong, perpetrate fraud, or defend a crime. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the business was conducted for the benefit of the spouses Tan, and they colluded with Hi-Cement. The mere ownership of the majority of capital stock by a single stockholder or another corporation is not in itself sufficient for disregarding the corporate personality. Proof must show control used to commit fraud that caused the respondent’s loss.

Lastly, concerning the counterclaims and cross-claims, the Supreme Court declined to rule, stating that Hi-Cement, Riverside, and Kanebo were not properly impleaded, as every action, including a counterclaim or cross-claim, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the Court of Appeals’ decision. Hi-Cement Corporation was discharged from any liability. Only E.T. Henry & Co. was ordered to pay IBAA (now Equitable PCI-Bank) the value of Hi-Cement’s checks they received and the outstanding loan obligations. The case was remanded to the trial court to properly calculate liabilities for the checks, attorney’s fees, and costs of litigation for E.T. Henry, Riverside, and Kanebo.

FAQs

What is a crossed check?	A crossed check is a check with two parallel lines drawn across its face, indicating it should only be deposited into a bank account, not cashed.
What does it mean to be a “holder in due course”?	A holder in due course is someone who acquires a negotiable instrument in good faith, for value, without notice of any defects or dishonor. They have certain legal protections.
Why was the bank not considered a holder in due course in this case?	Because the checks were crossed with the restriction “deposit to payee’s account only,” the bank was deemed to have notice of potential issues and failed to make further inquiries.
What is “piercing the corporate veil”?	It is a legal doctrine allowing courts to disregard the separate legal personality of a corporation, holding its owners or officers personally liable for corporate debts or actions.
Under what conditions can a court pierce the corporate veil?	The court can pierce the corporate veil to prevent fraud, illegality, or injustice perpetrated through the corporate entity.
Why was Hi-Cement discharged from liability?	The Court ruled that because the bank was not a holder in due course, their presentment of the checks to the drawee bank was improper, thus absolving Hi-Cement of liability.
Who was ultimately responsible for the dishonored checks in this case?	E.T. Henry & Co., the original payee of the checks, was held responsible for the value of the dishonored checks, and for outstanding loans.
What does it mean for checks to bear the restriction "deposit to payee’s account only"?	Checks bearing this restriction serve as a warning that the check has been issued for a definite purpose and cannot be further negotiated.

The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the responsibilities of financial institutions dealing with crossed checks and the limits of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. By holding the bank accountable for exercising due diligence, the ruling protects businesses from undue liability arising from re-discounted checks. It also provides strong ground for those seeking to retain the sanctity of corporate identity.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Hi-Cement Corporation vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, G.R. No. 132403 & 132419, September 28, 2007