In Bank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club, the Supreme Court held that banks have a high degree of responsibility in handling their clients’ accounts, especially when irregularities are apparent on checks presented for encashment. While the client’s negligence in pre-signing blank checks contributed to the loss, the bank’s failure to exercise due diligence in verifying the suspicious checks made them primarily liable. This decision underscores the importance of banks’ vigilance in safeguarding client assets and mitigates liability when clients also exhibit negligence.

The Case of the Dubious Checks: Who Pays When Negligence is a Shared Blame?

This case revolves around two checks, pre-signed by officers of the Philippine Racing Club (PRCI), which were subsequently stolen and irregularly filled out before being presented to Bank of America (BA) for encashment. PRCI maintained a current account with BA, requiring joint signatures of its President and Vice President for Finance. To ensure business continuity during their absence, these officers pre-signed several checks, entrusting them to the accountant with instructions to complete them as needed. However, on December 16, 1988, a person presented two of these pre-signed checks, totaling P220,000.00, for encashment.

The checks contained glaring irregularities: the word “CASH” and the amount were typewritten on the payee line, and the amount was also indicated using a check writer. Despite these red flags, BA encashed the checks without verifying their legitimacy with PRCI. Subsequent investigation revealed that an employee of PRCI had stolen the checks and improperly completed them. PRCI demanded reimbursement from BA, but the bank refused, leading to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The central legal question before the court was determining the proximate cause of the loss. Was it BA’s failure to verify the suspicious checks, or PRCI’s negligent practice of pre-signing blank checks? BA argued that its duty as a drawee bank was simply to honor checks bearing the genuine signatures of its client, citing Sections 126 and 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). They contended that the irregularities on the checks did not constitute material alterations, which would trigger a duty to inquire with the drawer.

PRCI, on the other hand, argued that BA’s failure to exercise due diligence, given the obvious irregularities, was the proximate cause of the loss. They emphasized the high degree of care required of banks due to the fiduciary nature of their relationship with clients. The trial court and the Court of Appeals sided with PRCI, holding BA liable for the amount of the checks. BA then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, reiterating its arguments and asserting that PRCI’s negligence in pre-signing the checks was the primary cause of the loss.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that while the irregularities were not technically material alterations, they were significant enough to raise suspicion. The Court emphasized the high standard of diligence required of banks, stating that it is “more than that of a good father of a family.” The Court highlighted the bank’s failure to make even a simple phone call to PRCI to verify the checks, which could have prevented the loss.

“It is well-settled that banks are engaged in a business impressed with public interest, and it is their duty to protect in return their many clients and depositors who transact business with them. They have the obligation to treat their client’s account meticulously and with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The diligence required of banks, therefore, is more than that of a good father of a family.”

BA also argued that under Sections 14 and 16 of the NIL, it could presume that the person filling up the blanks had authority and that a valid delivery had taken place. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the irregularities on the checks should have alerted the bank to the likelihood that the checks were not properly delivered. The Court cited Section 15 of the NIL, which states that an incomplete instrument that has not been delivered is not a valid contract against a person whose signature was placed thereon before delivery.

While the Court agreed that PRCI’s practice of pre-signing blank checks was a negligent and risky behavior, it applied the doctrine of last clear chance. The doctrine of last clear chance dictates that the party who had the final opportunity to avert the injury but failed to do so is liable for the consequences. The Court found that BA had the last clear chance to prevent the loss by verifying the checks with PRCI before encashing them.

“…[I]t is petitioner [bank] which had the last clear chance to stop the fraudulent encashment of the subject checks had it exercised due diligence and followed the proper and regular banking procedures in clearing checks. As we had earlier ruled, the one who had a last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.”

However, the Court also recognized PRCI’s contributory negligence and mitigated BA’s liability accordingly, citing Article 2179 of the Civil Code, which states that if the plaintiff’s negligence was only contributory, the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. The Court allocated 60% of the actual damages to BA and 40% to PRCI.

The decision emphasizes that while banks must honor genuine signatures, they also have a duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence in handling their clients’ accounts. This includes being vigilant for irregularities on checks and verifying suspicious transactions. The ruling also serves as a cautionary tale for businesses to avoid risky practices such as pre-signing blank checks, which can increase the risk of fraud and loss. By allocating a portion of the loss to PRCI, the Court acknowledged that both parties had a role to play in the unfortunate incident.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining whether the bank’s negligence or the client’s practice of pre-signing blank checks was the proximate cause of the wrongful encashment of the checks.
What is the doctrine of last clear chance?	The doctrine of last clear chance holds that the party who had the final opportunity to avoid the harm but failed to do so is liable for the resulting damages. In this case, the bank had the last clear chance to prevent the loss by verifying the checks.
What is contributory negligence?	Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff’s own negligence contributes to their injury. In such cases, the plaintiff can still recover damages, but the amount is reduced to reflect their share of responsibility for the harm.
What is the standard of diligence required of banks?	Banks are required to exercise a high degree of diligence, more than that of a good father of a family, due to the fiduciary nature of their relationship with clients and the public interest involved in banking.
What are material alterations on a check?	A material alteration is one that changes the date, sum payable, time or place of payment, number or relations of the parties, currency, or any other change that alters the effect of the instrument.
What is the significance of Section 15 of the NIL?	Section 15 of the NIL states that an incomplete instrument that has not been delivered is not a valid contract against a person whose signature was placed thereon before delivery, protecting signatories from unauthorized completion and negotiation.
How did the Court allocate the damages in this case?	The Court allocated 60% of the damages to the bank and 40% to the Philippine Racing Club, considering both parties’ negligence contributed to the loss.
What was the Court’s ruling on attorney’s fees?	The Court deleted the award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses in favor of the Philippine Racing Club, finding no sufficient justification for such an award under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

This case illustrates the delicate balance between a bank’s duty to honor legitimate transactions and its responsibility to protect its clients from fraud. While clients have a duty to exercise reasonable care in managing their accounts, banks, as institutions imbued with public interest, bear a higher burden of diligence. This ruling encourages both banks and their clients to adopt practices that minimize the risk of fraudulent transactions.

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: Bank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club, G.R. No. 150228, July 30, 2009