ASG Law

Tag: Check Fraud

  • Understanding Bank Liability and Check Fraud: Protecting Your Business from Unauthorized Transactions

    Key Takeaway: Banks Must Exercise High Diligence to Prevent Unauthorized Check Encashments

    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Junnel’s Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 232044, August 27, 2020; Asia United Bank Corporation v. Junnel’s Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 232057, August 27, 2020

    Imagine waking up to find that thousands of pesos have been siphoned from your business account due to fraudulent checks. This nightmare became a reality for Junnel’s Marketing Corporation (JMC), a company that discovered a series of stolen checks had been encashed, leading to a significant financial loss. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case not only resolved the dispute between JMC and the banks involved but also set a precedent for how banks should handle checks to protect their clients from similar frauds. The central legal question was whether the banks could be held liable for the unauthorized encashment of checks, and if so, to what extent.

    Legal Context: Understanding Bank Responsibilities and Check Transactions

    In the Philippines, banks are expected to adhere to a high standard of diligence due to the fiduciary nature of their relationship with clients. The Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL) plays a crucial role in check transactions, outlining the responsibilities of drawee and collecting banks. A drawee bank, like Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) in this case, is obligated to pay checks only to the named payee or their order, as specified on the check. On the other hand, a collecting bank, such as Asia United Bank (AUB), acts as an endorser and must ensure the genuineness of all prior endorsements before presenting the check for payment.

    Key provisions from the NIL include Section 66, which states that an endorser warrants that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be, and that it has a good title to it. This means that when a collecting bank endorses a check, it guarantees the validity of all prior endorsements, including any that may be forged. Additionally, the concept of crossed checks is significant; these checks are meant to be deposited only in the account of the payee, serving as a warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a specific purpose.

    For instance, if a business owner issues a crossed check to a supplier, it should only be deposited into the supplier’s account. If a bank allows it to be deposited elsewhere, it violates the instructions of the drawer, potentially leading to liability.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of JMC’s Stolen Checks

    JMC, a depositor at Metrobank, discovered that several of its checks, totaling Php 649,810.00, had been stolen and encashed. These checks, issued between 1998 and 1999, were meant for various payees but ended up in the account of Zenaida Casquero at AUB. Purificacion Delizo, an accountant at JMC, confessed to stealing the checks and colluding with others to encash them.

    The case proceeded through the courts as follows:

    1. **Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision**: The RTC found that both Metrobank and AUB, along with Delizo and Casquero, were jointly and severally liable to JMC for the total amount of the checks, plus interest and attorney’s fees.

    2. **Court of Appeals (CA) Decision**: On appeal, the CA upheld the RTC’s decision but modified the interest rate. It emphasized the banks’ negligence in handling the checks, particularly the crossed checks, which should have been deposited only to the payees’ accounts.

    3. **Supreme Court (SC) Decision**: The SC affirmed the CA’s decision with modifications to the interest rate. It ruled that Metrobank, as the drawee bank, was liable to JMC for the unauthorized encashment of the checks. AUB, as the collecting bank, was then liable to reimburse Metrobank for the amount paid to JMC.

    The SC’s reasoning included:

    – “A crossed check is one where two parallel lines are drawn across its face or across its corner, and carries with it the following effects: (a) the check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank; (b) the check may be negotiated only once to the one who has an account with the bank; and (c) the act of crossing the check serves as a warning to the holder that the cheek has been issued for a definite purpose and he must inquire if he received the check pursuant to this purpose; otherwise, he is not a holder in due course.”

    – “The drawee bank, or the bank on which a check is drawn, is bound by its contractual obligation to its client, the drawer, to pay the check only to the payee or to the payee’s order.”

    – “The collecting bank where a check is deposited, and which endorses the check upon presentment with the drawee bank, is an endorser.”

    Practical Implications: Safeguarding Your Business Against Check Fraud

    This ruling underscores the importance of banks exercising due diligence in handling checks, particularly crossed checks. Businesses must also take proactive steps to prevent check fraud, such as:

    – Regularly auditing their checkbooks and bank statements.
    – Implementing strict internal controls over check issuance and handling.
    – Educating employees about the risks of check fraud and the importance of following security protocols.

    **Key Lessons:**

    – Businesses should use crossed checks to ensure they are deposited only into the payee’s account.
    – Banks must verify the identity of the payee before allowing a check to be deposited.
    – Both businesses and banks should maintain meticulous records and promptly report any discrepancies.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    **What is a crossed check?**

    A crossed check has two parallel lines drawn across its face, indicating that it should be deposited only into the account of the named payee and not encashed directly.

    **Can a bank be held liable for paying a check to the wrong person?**

    Yes, if a bank pays a check to someone other than the named payee or their order, it can be held liable for the amount charged to the drawer’s account.

    **What should businesses do to prevent check fraud?**

    Businesses should implement strict internal controls, regularly audit their financial transactions, and use crossed checks to limit the risk of unauthorized encashment.

    **How can a business recover losses from check fraud?**

    A business can file a civil case against the bank responsible for the unauthorized encashment and seek reimbursement for the lost amount, plus interest and damages.

    **What is the role of the collecting bank in check transactions?**

    The collecting bank acts as an endorser and is responsible for verifying the genuineness of all prior endorsements before presenting the check for payment.

    ASG Law specializes in banking and finance law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Liability for Check Fraud: When Can a Drawee Bank Recover from a Collecting Bank?

    In the case of BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Engr. Selwyn Lao, the Supreme Court addressed the liability of banks in instances of unauthorized check payments. The Court held that while a drawee bank (like BDO) generally bears the initial responsibility for paying a check to the wrong party, it can recover from the collecting bank (like Union Bank) if the latter’s actions, such as guaranteeing prior endorsements, contributed to the loss. However, if the aggrieved party fails to properly implead a party in the appeal process, that party may be absolved of liability, simplifying the proceedings to allow direct recovery from the negligent bank. This decision underscores the importance of due diligence by banks in handling checks and the necessity of correctly identifying and including all relevant parties in legal actions to ensure a fair and efficient resolution.

    The Case of the Misrouted Check: Who Pays When Funds Go Astray?

    Engineer Selwyn Lao filed a complaint against Equitable Banking Corporation (now BDO), Everlink Pacific Ventures, Inc., and Wu Hsieh, alleging that he issued two Equitable crossed checks payable to Everlink as a down payment for sanitary wares. However, Everlink failed to deliver, and Lao discovered that the checks were deposited into different bank accounts at International Exchange Bank (now Union Bank) belonging to Wu and New Wave Plastic. Lao then amended his complaint, including Union Bank for allowing the deposit of crossed checks into unauthorized accounts. This case hinges on determining which bank bears the responsibility when a crossed check, intended for a specific payee, is deposited into a different account, leading to financial loss for the drawer.

    BDO contended that its responsibility as the drawee bank was limited to verifying the genuineness of signatures and ensuring sufficient funds, while Union Bank argued that crossed checks remain negotiable and that it had no obligation to deposit the checks only into the payee’s account. During trial, it was revealed that one check was indeed deposited into Everlink’s account, but the other was credited to New Wave’s account, facilitated by a Deed of Undertaking signed by Willy Antiporda of New Wave. The RTC absolved BDO but held Union Bank liable, a decision which the CA affirmed with modifications, ordering BDO to pay Lao and Union Bank to reimburse BDO. BDO then appealed, arguing that the CA erred in holding it liable since the RTC’s decision regarding its non-liability had become final.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, reiterated the established sequence of recovery in cases of unauthorized payment of checks. The Court noted that in such cases, the drawee bank (BDO) may be held liable to the drawer (Lao) for violating its duty to charge the drawer’s account only for authorized payables. In turn, the drawee bank can seek reimbursement from the collecting bank (Union Bank), whose liability stems from its guarantees as the last endorser of the check under Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. According to Section 66, an endorser warrants the genuineness of the instrument, good title, capacity of prior parties, and the instrument’s validity.

    Under Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, an endorser warrants “that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; that he has good title to it; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and that the instrument is at the time of his endorsement valid and subsisting.”

    Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the collecting bank bears the responsibility of verifying all prior endorsements, and the act of presenting the check for payment implies that the collecting bank has fulfilled this duty. The Court further emphasized that in cases where the collecting bank’s warranties are false, the drawee bank can recover from the collecting bank up to the amount of the check. In this instance, BDO paid Union Bank, which then credited the amount to New Wave’s account, violating Lao’s instructions, as the check was not issued in favor of New Wave and was not even endorsed by Everlink to New Wave.

    The Supreme Court acknowledged that Union Bank’s warranty turned out to be false because Union Bank permitted the check to be presented by and deposited in the account of New Wave, despite knowing that it was not the named payee. Moreover, the Court noted the importance of the fact that the subject check was a crossed check. Jurisprudence indicates that crossing a check has several effects, including that the check may only be deposited in a bank, it may only be negotiated once to someone with a bank account, and it serves as a warning that the check was issued for a specific purpose, requiring inquiry if the holder received it pursuant to that purpose. The effects of crossing a check relate to the mode of payment, demonstrating the drawer’s intent for the check to be deposited only by the rightful payee.

    The Court, however, recognized that the standard sequence of recovery might be simplified in exceptional circumstances, allowing the aggrieved party to recover directly from the party that caused the loss. Citing Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals, the Court acknowledged that to simplify proceedings, the payee of illegally encashed checks could recover directly from the responsible bank, regardless of whether the checks were actually delivered to the payee. In this case, a critical factor was the finality of the RTC decision regarding BDO’s lack of liability, as neither Lao nor Union Bank appealed this aspect of the RTC’s ruling.

    The Supreme Court pointed out that BDO was not made a party in Union Bank’s appeal before the CA. Neither Lao nor Union Bank raised any issue regarding BDO’s liability in their briefs before the appellate court. Consequently, the RTC’s decision became final as to BDO, and it could not be prejudiced by the decision rendered in the appeal. To do so would violate BDO’s constitutional right to due process. In this situation, it was deemed appropriate to allow Lao to recover directly from Union Bank, following the principle established in Associated Bank.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was determining which bank, the drawee bank (BDO) or the collecting bank (Union Bank), should bear the loss resulting from the unauthorized deposit of a crossed check into an account other than the payee’s. The case also considered the impact of a prior court decision absolving one of the parties.
    What is a crossed check? A crossed check has two parallel lines drawn across its face, indicating that it can only be deposited into a bank account and not directly encashed. This serves as a warning that the check is meant for deposit only by the rightful payee.
    What is the liability of a drawee bank? A drawee bank is responsible for ensuring that the checks it pays are authorized by the drawer and payable to the correct payee. If the drawee bank pays a check to the wrong party, it may be held liable to the drawer for the unauthorized payment.
    What is the liability of a collecting bank? A collecting bank, as the last endorser of a check, guarantees the genuineness of all prior endorsements. If a prior endorsement is fraudulent or unauthorized, the collecting bank may be held liable for the loss.
    What does it mean for a decision to become final? A court decision becomes final when it is no longer subject to appeal or modification. Once a decision is final, it is binding on the parties involved and cannot be overturned, even if it is later determined to be incorrect.
    What is the significance of the phrase “all prior endorsements guaranteed”? This phrase, often stamped on the back of a check by the collecting bank, signifies that the bank warrants the validity and genuineness of all endorsements made before it. It assures the drawee bank that the check has been properly negotiated.
    Why was BDO initially ordered to pay Selwyn Lao? The Court of Appeals initially ordered BDO to pay Selwyn Lao based on the principle that a drawee bank is liable for paying a check to the wrong party. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision due to the prior RTC ruling that had absolved BDO.
    Why was Union Bank ultimately held liable in this case? Union Bank was held liable because it breached its warranty as the collecting bank by allowing the crossed check to be deposited into an unauthorized account, and the finality of the ruling absolving BDO led to the simplification of the recovery process, allowing direct recovery from Union Bank.
    What is the effect of crossing a check? The effect of crossing a check serves as instruction that the check cannot be encashed and may only be deposited in the bank, that the check may be negotiated only once to one who has an account with a bank; and it serves as a warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a definite purpose so that he must inquire if he has received the check pursuant to that purpose

    This case clarifies the liabilities of drawee and collecting banks in check fraud scenarios, emphasizing the importance of due process in legal proceedings and the significance of warranties provided by collecting banks. The decision serves as a reminder for banks to exercise caution and diligence in handling checks, particularly crossed checks, and for litigants to ensure all potentially liable parties are properly included in legal actions.

    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: BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Engr. Selwyn Lao, G.R. No. 227005, June 19, 2017

  • Altered Checks and Bank Liability: Who Pays the Price of Forgery?

    In Cesar V. Areza and Lolita B. Areza v. Express Savings Bank, Inc. and Michael Potenciano, the Supreme Court ruled on liability for altered checks. The Court held that a collecting bank is responsible for losses stemming from materially altered checks because it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior endorsements. This decision clarifies the responsibilities of banks and depositors when dealing with fraudulent instruments, emphasizing the bank’s role in ensuring the integrity of check transactions to protect its clients.

    From Cars to Court: When Altered Checks Trigger Bank Responsibility

    Cesar and Lolita Areza, car dealers, accepted nine checks from Gerry Mambuay totaling P1.8 million for vehicles. The checks, drawn against the Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB), were deposited in their Express Savings Bank (ESB) account. ESB’s branch manager, Michael Potenciano, allegedly facilitated the transaction. The checks were initially honored, but later, PVB claimed the checks were altered from P4,000 to P200,000 each. PVB debited ESB’s account, and ESB, in turn, debited the Arezas’ account without their consent. The Arezas sued ESB and Potenciano for unlawfully withdrawing the funds. The central legal question is: Who bears the loss when altered checks are deposited and initially cleared by the bank?

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially favored the Arezas, but this was reversed upon reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the reversal, finding the bank had the right to debit the Arezas’ account. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the CA decision. It stated that collecting banks have a duty to verify the genuineness of checks. The Court emphasized that, under Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, an endorser (such as the collecting bank) warrants that the instrument is genuine and valid. This warranty holds the collecting bank responsible for ensuring the check has not been altered.

    The Supreme Court addressed the liability of the drawee bank. Quoting Section 63 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, the Court noted that an acceptor (drawee) agrees to pay the instrument according to the tenor of his acceptance. However, in the case of altered checks, the court highlighted conflicting views regarding whether the drawee is liable for the original or altered amount. The Court leaned towards the view that the drawee could recover its losses from the collecting bank. In this case, PVB debited Equitable-PCI Bank, ESB’s depositary bank, for the altered amount, passing the liability to the collecting bank.

    The decision also discussed the roles and responsibilities of depositary and collecting banks. ESB acted as both a depositary and collecting bank when the Arezas deposited the checks. The Court reiterated that a collecting bank, upon presenting a check for payment, asserts that it has verified the genuineness of all prior endorsements. If this warranty is false, the drawee bank can recover from the collecting bank. This principle reinforces the need for banks to diligently scrutinize checks to prevent fraud. The law imposes a duty of diligence on the collecting bank to determine the genuineness and regularity of checks deposited with it. In essence, the Court found both ESB and Equitable-PCI Bank liable for the altered checks.

    The Court clarified that the 24-hour clearing rule did not apply in this case. The rule generally requires a drawee bank to return a forged or altered check to the collecting bank within 24 hours; failure to do so absolves the collecting bank from liability. However, Section 21 of the Philippine Clearing House Rules and Regulations provides an exception for materially altered items. Such items can be returned by direct presentation to the presenting bank within the period prescribed by law for filing a legal action. In other words, the 24-hour rule does not shield a collecting bank from liability for altered checks if the discrepancy is discovered later.

    Regarding the Arezas’ liability, the Supreme Court cited Far East Bank & Trust Company v. Gold Palace Jewellery Co., stating that a collecting bank should not debit the payee’s account if the drawee bank has already paid the check. When the Arezas deposited the checks with ESB, ESB acted as their agent for collection. Once the drawee bank paid and the collecting bank collected the amount, the transaction was considered closed. The collecting bank cannot later debit the payee’s account for amounts refunded to the drawee bank. The Court noted that the collecting bank’s warranty applies only to holders in due course, not to indorsements for deposit and collection. Therefore, ESB had no legal right to debit the Arezas’ account.

    The Court further explained that legal compensation could not occur in this case. Legal compensation requires that both parties are principal creditors and debtors of each other. In a typical bank-depositor relationship, the bank is a debtor to the depositor. However, since the Arezas were not liable for the altered checks, they had no debt to ESB. Thus, ESB could not set off the amount it paid to Equitable-PCI Bank against the Arezas’ savings account. Finally, the Court addressed damages, noting ESB’s delay in informing the Arezas of the dishonored checks. This delay constituted negligence, entitling the Arezas to compensatory damages, representing the amount debited from their account. However, the Court deleted the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees, finding no evidence of fraud or bad faith on the part of ESB.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was determining who should bear the loss when altered checks were deposited, initially cleared by the bank, and later dishonored due to material alterations. The court needed to determine liability among the drawee bank, collecting bank, and the depositor.
    What is the liability of the drawee bank for altered checks? The drawee bank is liable only to the extent of the check’s original tenor prior to alteration. If the drawee bank pays the altered amount, it can recover the excess from the collecting bank.
    What is the role of a collecting bank? A collecting bank handles an item (like a check) for collection, except the bank on which the check is drawn. They act as agents for depositors, and are responsible for ensuring the validity of the checks they process.
    What duty does the collecting bank owe the depositor? The collecting bank owes a duty of diligence to scrutinize checks deposited for genuineness and regularity. By presenting the check, the collecting bank warrants it has taken steps to ascertain the validity of endorsements.
    Does the 24-hour clearing rule apply to altered checks? No, the 24-hour clearing rule does not strictly apply to altered checks. Altered checks can be returned beyond the 24-hour period, within the prescriptive period for legal action, allowing more time for discovery of alterations.
    Can a collecting bank debit a depositor’s account for altered checks? Generally, a collecting bank cannot debit a depositor’s account for altered checks, especially if the alteration was not due to the depositor’s negligence. The collecting bank bears the loss.
    What is the significance of Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law? Section 66 states that an endorser warrants that the instrument is genuine, valid, and what it purports to be. This provision places responsibility on the collecting bank to ensure checks are not fraudulent.
    What type of damages were awarded in this case? The Supreme Court awarded actual or compensatory damages, representing the amount the bank had unlawfully debited from the petitioners’ account due to the altered checks. Moral damages and attorney’s fees were not awarded.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Areza v. Express Savings Bank reinforces the critical role of collecting banks in safeguarding financial transactions and upholding the integrity of the banking system. By placing the onus on banks to diligently verify the validity of checks, the ruling aims to protect depositors from losses due to fraudulent alterations. This case provides a clear framework for determining liability and promotes greater vigilance in banking practices.

    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: Cesar V. Areza and Lolita B. Areza, vs. Express Savings Bank, Inc. and Michael Potenciano, G.R. No. 176697, September 10, 2014

  • Navigating Check Fraud: Bank Liability and Due Diligence in Philippine Banking Law

    In cases of check fraud, Philippine law emphasizes the responsibilities of both collecting and drawee banks to exercise due diligence. The Supreme Court’s decision in Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Court of Appeals highlights that banks must meticulously handle depositors’ accounts and ensure that funds are paid only to the designated payee. This ruling underscores the banking industry’s high standard of care, reinforcing public trust and confidence in financial institutions.

    Checks and Balances: Who Pays When Tax Payments Go Astray?

    This case revolves around a complex scheme where checks issued by Ford Philippines for tax payments were fraudulently diverted by a syndicate, leading to a dispute over who should bear the loss. Ford sought to recover the value of these checks from both Citibank, the drawee bank, and PCIBank, the collecting bank. The central legal question is determining the extent of liability for each bank in failing to ensure the checks were properly credited to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). Ultimately, this case scrutinizes the duties and responsibilities of banks in safeguarding financial transactions and preventing fraud.

    The legal framework for this case is rooted in the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL) and principles of negligence under Philippine civil law. Section 55 of the NIL addresses situations where the title of a person negotiating an instrument is defective due to fraud or unlawful means. This provision becomes critical in assessing whether the banks acted in good faith and without negligence. The Supreme Court referenced Section 55 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), which states:

    “When title defective — The title of a person who negotiates an instrument is defective within the meaning of this Act when he obtained the instrument, or any signature thereto, by fraud, duress, or force and fear, or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach of faith or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud.”

    Further, the Civil Code addresses the concept of proximate cause. Proximate cause refers to that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. This principle is vital in determining whether the actions of Ford’s employees, or the negligence of the banks, primarily led to the fraudulent encashment of the checks.

    The Court emphasized the importance of determining whether the actions of Ford’s employees constituted the proximate cause of the loss. While Ford’s employees were involved in initiating the fraudulent transactions, the Court found their actions were not the proximate cause of the checks’ misdirection. The Court determined that the banks’ negligence played a more direct role in the loss. This involved a careful analysis of the degree of care and diligence expected from banking institutions.

    Regarding PCIBank’s liability, the Court found that the bank failed to verify the authority of Ford’s employees to negotiate the checks. PCIBank also neglected its duty as an agent of the BIR to consult its principal regarding the unusual instructions given by Ford’s employees. The Court quoted a lower court’s statement:

    “x x x. Since the questioned crossed check was deposited with IBAA [now PCIBank], which claimed to be a depository/collecting bank of the BIR, it has the responsibility to make sure that the check in question is deposited in Payee’s account only… As agent of the BIR (the payee of the check), defendant IBAA should receive instructions only from its principal BIR and not from any other person especially so when that person is not known to the defendant. It is very imprudent on the part of the defendant IBAA to just rely on the alleged telephone call of one Godofredo Rivera and in his signature to the authenticity of such signature considering that the plaintiff is not a client of the defendant IBAA.”

    The Court also cited Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Equitable Banking Corporation, reiterating that a collecting bank guarantees the validity of all prior endorsements when presenting checks for clearing and payment. This warranty holds the collecting bank liable for any damages arising from false representations.

    “Anent petitioner’s liability on said instruments, this court is in full accord with the ruling of the PCHC’s Board of Directors that:

    In presenting the checks for clearing and for payment, the defendant made an express guarantee on the validity of “all prior endorsements.” Thus, stamped at the back of the checks are the defendant’s clear warranty: ALL PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS AND/OR LACK OF ENDORSEMENTS GUARANTEED. Without such warranty, plaintiff would not have paid on the checks.’

    No amount of legal jargon can reverse the clear meaning of defendant’s warranty. As the warranty has proven to be false and inaccurate, the defendant is liable for any damage arising out of the falsity of its representation.”

    The Court found Citibank negligent for failing to scrutinize the checks properly before paying the proceeds to the collecting bank. Specifically, the absence of clearing stamps on the checks should have alerted Citibank to potential irregularities. The Court emphasized the contractual relationship between Citibank and Ford, noting that Citibank breached its duty to ensure the amount of the checks was paid only to the designated payee, the CIR.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court invoked the doctrine of comparative negligence, apportioning liability between PCIBank and Citibank. The Court held that both banks failed in their respective obligations and were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees. Given these concurrent failures, the Court determined that both banks should be held equally responsible for the loss of the proceeds from the fraudulently diverted checks. The Court firmly stated that banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. The banking business is impressed with public interest, requiring the highest standards of trust and care.

    Regarding the issue of prescription, PCIBank argued that Ford’s action was filed beyond the prescriptive period. The Court, however, ruled that the statute of limitations began to run when the bank provided notice of payment to the depositor. As Ford filed its complaint within ten years from the date of the check issuance and return, the action was deemed timely filed.

    The Court also considered Ford’s role in failing to detect the fraud promptly. Due to this failure, the Court mitigated the banks’ liability by reducing the interest rate from twelve percent to six percent per annum. This adjustment reflects the principle under Article 1172 of the Civil Code, which allows courts to regulate liability based on the circumstances and contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The primary issue was determining which bank, the collecting bank (PCIBank) or the drawee bank (Citibank), should bear the loss from fraudulently negotiated checks intended for tax payments. The Court also addressed whether Ford’s action had prescribed.
    What is a crossed check and its significance? A crossed check has two parallel lines on its face, indicating it should be deposited only to the payee’s account. This serves as a warning to the collecting bank to ensure proper deposit, increasing its responsibility to verify the transaction.
    What does “all prior endorsements guaranteed” mean? This is a clearing stamp placed by the collecting bank, guaranteeing the validity of all previous endorsements on the check. It assures the drawee bank that the check has been properly negotiated and that the collecting bank will be liable for any discrepancies.
    How did the court apply the principle of comparative negligence? The court found both PCIBank and Citibank negligent in their duties. PCIBank failed to properly verify the check negotiation, and Citibank failed to scrutinize the checks for irregularities. As a result, the court apportioned the liability equally between the two banks.
    What is the liability of a bank for its employee’s fraudulent acts? A bank is generally liable for the fraudulent acts of its officers or agents acting within the course and apparent scope of their employment. This liability arises because the bank is seen as vouching for the trustworthiness of its employees.
    What is the prescriptive period for actions involving checks? The prescriptive period for actions upon a written contract, including checks, is ten years from the time the right of action accrues. The action accrues when the bank gives the depositor notice of payment, usually when the check is returned.
    What is the role of the Negotiable Instruments Law in this case? The NIL provides the legal framework for determining the rights and liabilities of parties involved in negotiable instruments, like checks. Specifically, Section 55 addresses defective titles due to fraud, influencing the court’s assessment of the banks’ liability.
    How does Central Bank Circular No. 580 affect this case? Section 5 of Central Bank Circular No. 580 states that any loss from theft affecting items in transit for clearing shall be for the account of the sending bank, which in this case is PCIBank. This circular underscores the responsibility of the sending bank in ensuring the safety of checks during the clearing process.

    This case highlights the banking industry’s responsibility to protect depositors’ funds and prevent fraud. Banks must exercise the highest degree of diligence in their operations, especially in the selection and supervision of employees. This ruling serves as a reminder that failure to meet these standards can result in significant liability for financial institutions.

    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: Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121479, January 29, 2001