Maralit vs Imperial G.R. No. 130756. January 130756. January 21, 1999 onente! Men"o#a, J. $%&'RIN(! Loss Loss is char chargea geabl ble e to the the accu accuse sed d who upon upon her indors indorsemen ements ts warran warrantt that that the the inst instru rume ment nt is genu genuine ine in all respec espectt what it purports to be and that she will pay the amount thereof in case of dishonor. dishonor.
)*&'+! Ester Maralit is the assistant manag manager er of the the Naga Naga City City bran branch ch of the the Phil Ph ilipp ippin ine e Nati Nation onal al Bank Bank (PNB (PNB. . !n two two seap eaprat rate occas cassion" #esusa $mperia eriall depos deposit ited ed in her her sa%i sa%ing ngs s acco accoun untt at the the PNB" & 'nited tates treasury warrants and on the the same same days days with withdr drew ew thei theirr peso peso e)ui%alent of P*+",-./"P-&0"12&.0" P*+",-./"P-&0"12&.0" and PP-&0 &0"& "&, ,.0 .00. 0. 3he 3he treas treasur ury y warra warrant nts s were subse)uently returned one after the oth other by the 'nit nited tat tates es 3reasu easury ry"" through the Makati branch of the Citibank" on the the grou ground nd that that the the amoun amounts ts ther thereo eof f had been altered. Maralit claimed that" as a cons conse) e)ue uenc nce" e" sh she e was was held held pers person onal ally ly liab liable le by the the PNB PNB for for the the tota totall amou amount nt of P& of P&,0 ,0", ",/1 /1..&0 &0.! .!n n her her part part"" $mp $mperia eriall alleged that she merely helped a relati%e" 4ida 4beng engo5a" enc encash the treas easury warr warran ants ts and and sh she e did did not not know know that that the the amounts on the treasury warrants had been altered nor did she represent to petitioner that that the treas treasury ury warran warrants ts were were genuin genuine. e. 3hree estafa cases were 6led against $mperial. $mperial. MC3 Naga City ac)uitted ac)uitted $mperial but but stat stated ed that hat sh she e is ci%i ci%ill lly y lia liable ble as ind indorser of the checks which are the sub7ect matter of the criminal action. 3he decision became 6nal and e8ecutor.y $n a petition for certiorari" 93C Naga held that the decision of the M3C did not really 6nd $mperial liable because in fact it was Maralit who was found responsible for making the defraudation possible.
I++(! :hether or not $mperial is ci%illy liable;
-($!
:arrants should 6rst be cleared before the same is to be paid. More so if the holder is a second indorser. But beca ecause Maralit knew $mperial ial is work workin ing g in the same same buil buildi ding ng and and a depositor" she took the risk of appro appro%in %ing g the withdr withdrawa awall of the peso peso e)ui e)ui%a %ale lent nt"" with withou outt the the chec check k bein being g cleared and if the same is dishonored she should be responsible. he took the risk therefore she should be responsible for for the the outc outcom ome e of the the risk risk sh she e has has taken. taken. 3he Court Court is of the opinion opinion that that there there was neglige negligence nce on both both Maralit Maralit and and $sma $smael el but but grea greate terr resp respon onsi sibi bilit lity y shou sh ould ld be born borne e by the the Mara Marali lit. t. 3he 3he accused could not ha%e encashed and depo eposite sited d the the check hecks s with withou outt her her appro%al. $f the the comp compla laina inant nt was was not not remis emiss s in her her duty uty in impo imposi sing ng the the banking rules strictly" then these things could not ha%e happened. 3his portion of the decision of the M3C" M3C" howe%er" only and actual ually refers fers to respondent=s criminal liability and not her ci%il liability. >or $smael=s ci%il liability" the M3C held that ?...loss is chargeable to the acc accus used ed who who upo upon her her indo indors rsem emen ents ts warrant that the instrument is genuine in all respect what it purports to be and that she will pay the amount thereof in case of dishonor. (ec (ec.. Nego Negoti tiab able le $nst $nstru rume ment nt Law 3hus" while the M3C found petitioner partly partly respo responsi nsible ble for the encash encashment ment of the the alter altered ed chec checks ks"" it foun found d resp respon onde dent nt ci%illy liable because of her indorsements of the treasury warrants. 3o 6nd therefore that there there is no declara declaratio tion n of ci%il ci%il liabili liability ty of respo espond nden entt woul would d be to disr disreg egar ard d the the 7udgment of the M3C. :orse" it would be to amend a 6nal and e8ecutory decision of a court. (you (you can can disr disreg egar ard d this this part part,, not not abou about t Nego) 4s to the amont of ci%il liability of $smael" it is argued that the decision of the M3C did not not order order resp respon onde dent nt"" as accu accuse sed d in the the case" to pay a speci6c amount of money to any particular person such that it could not be an ad7ud ad7udica icati tion on of resp respon onde dent nts s ci%i ci%ill liability. @owe%er" the ambiguity can easily be clari6ed by a resort to the te8t of the deci decisi sion on or" or" what what is prop properl erly y call called" ed" the the opinion part. Aoing so" it is clear that it can only be to petitioner that respondent was made liable as the former was the oended
party in the case. 4s for what amount respondent is liable" it can only be for the total amount of the treasury warrants sub7ect of the case" determined according to their peso e)ui%alent" in the decision of the M3C. >or another" that respondent should pay petitioner the amounts of the altered treasury warrants is the logical conse)uence of the M3Cs holding that pri%ate respondent is ci%illy liable for the treasury warrants sub7ect of the case.
+apiera vs &* G.R. No. 12/927. +eptemer 1, 1999 onente! ellosillo, J. $%&'RIN(! 4n accused ac)uitted for estafa because of insuciency of e%idence may still be held ci%illy liable because of signing the negotiable instrument" by the signature" one becomes an indorser liable in case of dishonor.
)*&'+! 9emedios apiera" a sariDsari store owner" purchased from Monrico Mart certain grocery items" mostly cigarettes" and paid for them with checks issued by one 4rturo de u5man. 3hese checks were signed at the back by petitioner. :hen presented for payment the checks were dishonored because the drawers account was already closed. Pri%ate respondent 9amon ua informed 4rturo de u5man and petitioner about the dishonor but both failed to pay the %alue of the checks. @ence" 2 charges of estafa were 6led against apiera with the 93C Aagupan City. 93C ac)uitted apiera and did not rule if she was ci%illy liable. ua appealed in C4" the latter ordered apiera to pay ua P&&*"000.00 representing the aggregate face %alue of the 2 checks indorsed by her.
I++(! :hether respondent Court of 4ppeals committed re%ersible error in re)uiring petitioner to pay ci%il indemnity to pri%ate respondent after the trial court had ac)uitted her of the criminal charges.
-($! 3here was no error. (3wo main arguments by the upreme CourtF -. 3hat ac)uittal in a criminal case because of insueciency of e%idence does not necessary mean ac)uittal from ci%il liability ,. N$L – one who signs in ambiguity is an indorser and is liable in case of dishonour -. 9ule --- of the 9ules of Court" as amended" speci6cally pro%idesF GExtinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a nal judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. 3he 7udgment of ac)uittal e8tinguishes the liability of the accused for damages only when it includes a declaration that the fact from which the ci%il liability might arise did not e8ist. $n the case at bar" it is true that apiera was ac)uitted based on the failure of the prosecution to present sucient e%idence showing conspiracy between her and a certain 4rturo de u5man in defrauding ua. till" apiera admitted signing the sub7ect checks. 3here is scarcity of e%idence for criminal lialibity" but grounds for ci%il liability still e8ist. ,. 3he C armed the C4 6nding that the checks issued by de u5man were signed by petitioner at the back without any indication as to how she should be bound thereby and" therefore" she is deemed to be an indorser thereof. 3he Negotiable $nstruments Law clearly pro%ides D ec. -1. Construction where instrument is ambiguous. !here the language of the instrument is ambiguous, or there are admissions therein, the following rules of construction apply" x x x x (f) !here a signature is so placed upon the instrument that it is not clear in what capacity the person ma#ing the same intended to sign, he is deemed an indorser. x x x x ec. &. :hen person deemed indorser. $ person placing his signature upon an instrument otherwise than as ma#er, 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.
ec. . Liability of general indorser. – xxx if it be dishonored and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly ta#en, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder or to any subse%uent indorser who may be compelled to pay it. 3he dismissal of the criminal cases against petitioner did not erase her ci%il liability since the dismissal was due to insuciency of e%idence and not from a declaration from the court that the fact from which the ci%il action might arise did not e8ist. 4n accused ac)uitted of estafa may ne%ertheless be held ci%illy liable where the facts established by the e%idence so warrant. 3he accused should be ad7udged liable for the unpaid %alue of the checks signed by her in fa%or of the complainant.
*N %) '-( -IIIN( I+*N$+ vs &%R' %) *(*+ an" (NJ*MIN &. N*I4* G.R. No. 112392 )eruary 29, 2000 onente! nares +antiao, J. $%&'RIN(! 3he signature of a blank withdrawal slip set in motion the e%ents that resulted in the withdrawal and e%entually loss of a sum of money" but he is not liable as an indorser because under the circumstances it is the gross negligence of the bank which was the pro8imate cause of the loss. 3he bank must bear the loss.
)*&'+! Ben7amin C. Napi5a deposited in his >oreign Currency Aeposit 'nit (>CA' a%ings 4ccount (in BP$ Buendia 4%enue E8tension Branch" a Continental Bank ManagerHs Check amounting to I,"*00.00.
3he check was duly endorsed by pri%ate respondent on its dorsal side. $t appears that the check belonged to a certain @enry Chan. who went to the oce of Napi5a and re)uested the latter to deposit the check in his dollar account by way of accommodation and for the purpose of clearing the same. Napi5a acceded" and agreed to deli%er to Chan a signed blank withdrawal slip" with the understanding that as soon as the check is cleared" both of them would go to the bank to withdraw the amount of the check upon pri%ate respondentHs presentation to the bank of his passbook. 3his withdrawal slip shows that the amount was payable to 9amon 4. de u5man and 4gnes C. de u5man. 'sing the blank withdrawal slip gi%en by pri%ate respondent to Chan" one 9uben ayon" #r. was able to withdraw I,"*2-.1 from Napi5a=s sa%ings account. BP$ recei%ed a communication from the :ells >argo Bank $nternational of New
I++(! :hether or not Napi5a may be held liable because of his signature in the withdrawal slip;
-($! No. Petitioner claims that pri%ate respondent" ha%ing a8ed his signature at the dorsal side of the check" should be liable for the amount stated therein in accordance with ection * and of the N$L. 4lso" the upreme Court e8plained that in People %s. Maniego ?among the Gparties liable thereon.G $s an indorser of the instrument" i.e." Ga person placing his signature upon an instrument otherwise than as a maker" drawer or acceptor K K unless he clearly indicated by appropriate words his intention to be bound in some other capacity.G Napi5a may also be deemed an Gaccommodation partyG D a person Gwho has signed the instrument as maker" drawer" acceptor" or indorser" without recei%ing %alue thereof" and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. $n the case at bar" Napi5a may be held liable as an indorser of the check or e%en as an accommodation party. @owe%er" to hold pri%ate respondent liable for the amount of the check he deposited by the strict application of the law and without considering the attending circumstances in the case would result in an in7ustice and in the erosion of the public trust in the banking system. 3he interest of 7ustice thus demands looking into the e%ents that led to the encashment of the check. 'nder the rules of the bank" to be able to withdraw from the sa%ings account deposit under the Philippine foreign currency deposit system" two re)uisites must be presented to petitioner bank by the person withdrawing an amountF (a a duly 6lledDup withdrawal slip" and (b the depositorHs passbook. •
$n (a Pri%ate respondent admits he signed a blank withdrawal slip but the same indicates a special
•
instruction that the amount is payable to G9amon 4. de u5man or 4gnes C. de u5man.G uch being the case" petitionerHs personnel should ha%e been duly warned that ayon" who was also employed in petitionerHs Buendia 4%e. E8tension branch" was not the proper payee of the proceeds of the check. $n (b 3he withdrawal slip contains a bo8ed warning that statesF G3his receipt must be signed and presented with the corresponding foreign currency sa%ings passbook by the depositor in person. $n the case at bar" petitioner" in allowing the withdrawal of pri%ate respondentHs deposit" failed to e8ercise the diligence of a good father of a family. $n total disregard of its own rules" petitionerHs personnel negligently handled pri%ate respondentHs account to petitionerHs detriment.
:hile it is true that pri%ate respondentHs ha%ing signed a blank withdrawal slip set in motion the e%ents that resulted in the withdrawal and encashment of the counterfeit check" the negligence of petitionerHs personnel was the pro8imate cause of the loss that petitioner sustained. Pro8imate cause" which is determined by a mi8ed consideration of logic" common sense" policy and precedent" is Gthat cause" which" in natural and continuous se)uence" unbroken by any ecient inter%ening cause" produces the in7ury" and without which the result would not ha%e occurred.G 3he pro8imate cause of the withdrawal and e%entual loss of the amount of I,"*00.00 on petitionerHs part was its personnelHs negligence in allowing such withdrawal in disregard of its own rules and the clearing re)uirement in the banking system. $n so doing" petitioner assumed the risk of incurring a loss on account of a forged or counterfeit foreign check and hence" it should suer the resulting damage.
