Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Facts
Respondents obtained a loan secured by a mortgage over TCT
69836 from Banco Filipino, to be used for the construction of a
commercial building in Cebu. They obtained an additional
loan, thus increasing their obligation to one million pesos. A
corresponding Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage was
thereafter executed.
Four years later (1982), their loan was again restructured, and
it was increased to 1,225,000, to which a promissory note has
been issued payable in 15 years. The mortgage contract was
again amended. Respondents total payment from 1983 to
1988 amounted to around 1.4m (including
interests/penalties).
From 1989 onwards, respondents did not pay a single centavo.
They alleged that Banco Filipino had ceased operations
and/or was not allowed to continue business, having been
placed under liquidation by the Central Bank.
On January 15, 1990, respondents lawyer wrote Special Acting
Liquidator, Renan Santos, and requested that plaintiff return
the mortgaged property of the respondents since it had
sufficiently profited from the loan and that the interest and
penalty charges were excessive. Petitioner bank denied the
request. Banco Filipino was closed on January 1, 1985 and reopened for business on July 1, 1994. From its closure to its reopening, petitioner bank did not transact any business with its
customers.
On August 24, 1994, respondents were served a Notice of Extra
Judicial Sale of their property covered by TCT No. 69836 to
satisfy their indebtedness allegedly of P6,174,337.46 which
includes the principal, interest, surcharges and 10% attorneys
fees. The public auction was scheduled on September 22, 1994
at 2:00 in the afternoon.
On September 19, 1994, respondents filed a suit for
Injunction, Accounting and Damages, alleging that there was
no legal and factual basis for the foreclosure proceedings
since the loan had already been fully paid.
A restraining order was issued the following day by the
lower court enjoining petitioner to cease and desist from
selling the property at a public auction. The trial court ordered
that Banco Filipino shall make a proper accounting of the
obligation of the respondents, reducing the interests and
the surcharge (21 to 17% per annum interests, eliminated
1% surcharge per month), and enjoining the foreclosure,
unless the respondents still failed to pay.
Issues
PCIB V. CA
350 SCRA 446
FACTS:
Ford Philippines filed actions to recover from the drawee
bank Citibank and collecting bank PCIB the value of
several checks payable to the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue which were embezzled allegedly by an organized
syndicate. What prompted this action was the drawing
of a check by Ford, which it deposited to PCIB as
payment and was debited from their Citibank account. It
later on found out that the payment wasnt received by the
Commissioner. Meanwhile, according to the NBI report, one
of the checks issued by petitioner was withdrawn from PCIB
for alleged mistake in the amount to be paid. This was
replaced with managers check by PCIB, which were
allegedly stolen by the syndicate and deposited in their
own account. The trial court decided in favor of Ford.
ISSUE:
Has Ford the right to recover the value of the checks intended
as payment to CIR?
HELD:
The checks were drawn against the drawee bank but the
title of the person negotiating the same was allegedly
defective because the instrument was obtained by fraud
and unlawful means, and the proceeds of the checks
were not remitted to the payee. It was established that
instead paying the Commissioner, the checks were diverted
and encashed for the eventual distribution among members of
the syndicate.
Pursuant to this, it is vital to show that the
negotiation is made by the perpetrator in breach of faith
amounting to fraud. The person negotiating the checks
must have gone beyond the authority given by his
principal. If the principal could prove that there was no
negligence in the performance of his duties, he may set up
the personal defense to escape liability and recover from
other parties who, through their own negligence, allowed
the commission of the crime.
It should be resolved if Ford is guilty of the imputed
contributory negligence that would defeat its claim for
reimbursement, bearing in mind that its employees were
among the members of the syndicate. It appears although
the employees of Ford initiated the transactions
attributable to the organized syndicate, their actions
were not the proximate cause of encashing the checks
payable to CIR. The degree of Fords negligence
couldnt be characterized as the proximate cause of the
injury to parties. The mere fact that the forgery was
criminal cases, yet it is settled rule that mandamus will not lie
to compel a prosecuting officer to prosecute a criminal case in
court.
Perez cannot seek by mandamus to compel respondents to
prosecute criminally those alleged violators of the banking
laws. Although the Central Bank and its respondent officials
may have the duty under the Central Bank Act and the
General Banking Act to cause the prosecution of those alleged
violators, yet there is nothing in said laws that impose a clear,
specific duty on the former to do the actual prosecution of the
latter. The Central Bank is a government corporation created
principally to administer the monetary and banking system
of the Republic, not a prosecution agency like the fiscals
office. Being an artificial person, The Central Bank is limited
to its statutory powers and the nearest power to which
prosecution of violators of banking laws may be attributed is
its power to sue and be sued. But this corporate power of
litigation evidently refers to civil cases only. Central Bank and
its officers have already done what they can by referring
the matter to the special prosecutors of the Department of
Justice for prosecution and investigation. Moreover, it is a
settled rule that mandamus will not lie to compel a prosecuting
officer, like the Secretary of Justice, to prosecute a case in
court.
Violations of banking laws constitute a public offense, the
prosecution of which is a matter of public interest and
hence, anyone even private individuals can denounce such
violations before the prosecuting authorities. Since Perez
himself could cause the filing of criminal complaints against
those allegedly involved in the anomalous loans, if any, then he
has a plain, adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary
course of law, which makes mandamus against respondents
improper. Hence, the order of the lower court dismissing
the petition was affirmed.
their assigned tasks even though the former are not engaged in
any business or activity.
METROBANK V. CABLIZO
FACTS:
Cablizo maintained an account with petitioner. It drew a check
payable to cash payable to a certain Marquez, for the
latters sales commission. The check was subsequently
deposited in Westmont bank and the latter submitted it
with Metrobank for clearing. The check was cleared.
Thereafter, the banks representative asked Cablizo if he
issued a check for P91,000. The answer was in the
negative. This prompted Cablizo to call Metrobank and ask
for the recrediting of P90,000 but petitioner failed to
recredit the amount prompting Cablizo to file an action
against it.
HELD:
An alteration is said to be material if it alters the effect of
the instrument. It means an unauthorized change in the
instrument that purports to modify in any respect the
obligation of a party or an unauthorized addition of
words or numbers or other change to an incomplete
instrument relating to the obligation of the party. In
other words, a material alteration is one which changes
the items which are required to be stated under Section 1 of
the NIL.
The check in issue was materially altered when its amount
was increased from P1000 to P91000. Cablizo was not the
one who authorized or made such increase. There is no
HELD: NO.
The provisions of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960
and PD No. 1246, insofar as it amends Section 8 of Republic Act
No. 6426, are hereby held to be INAPPLICABLE to this case
because of its peculiar circumstances. Respondents are hereby
required to comply with the writ of execution issued in the civil
case and to release to petitioners the dollar deposit of Bartelli
in such amount as would satisfy the judgment.
Supreme Court ruled that the questioned law makes futile
the favorable judgment and award of damages that Salvacion
and her parents fully deserve. It then proceeded to show that
the economic basis for the enactment of RA No. 6426 is not
anymore present; and even if it still exists, the questioned law
still denies those entitled to due process of law for being
unreasonable and oppressive. The intention of the law may be
good when enacted. The law failed to anticipate the iniquitous
effects producing outright injustice and inequality such as the
case before us.
The SC adopted the comment of the Solicitor General who
argued that the Offshore Banking System and the Foreign
Currency Deposit System were designed to draw deposits from
foreign lenders and investors and, subsequently, to give the
latter protection. However, the foreign currency deposit made
by a transient or a tourist is not the kind of deposit encouraged
by PD Nos. 1034 and 1035 and given incentives and protection
by said laws because such depositor stays only for a few days
in the country and, therefore, will maintain his deposit in the
bank only for a short time. Considering that Bartelli is just a
tourist or a transient, he is not entitled to the protection of
Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246
against attachment, garnishment or other court processes.
Further, the SC said: In fine, the application of the law depends
on the extent of its justice. Eventually, if we rule that the
questioned Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960
which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any other
order or process of any court, legislative body, government
agency or any administrative body whatsoever, is
applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result
especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused
Greg Bartelli. This would negate Article 10 of the New Civil
Code which provides that in case of doubt in the
interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
NOTES:
On February 4, 1989, Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American
tourist, coaxed and lured petitioner Karen Salvacion, then
12 years old to go with him to his apartment. Therein, Greg
Bartelli detained Karen Salvacion for four days, or up to
February 7, 1989 and was able to rape the child once on
February 4, and three times each day on February 5, 6, and
7, 1989. On February 7, 1989, after policemen and people
living nearby, rescued Karen, Greg Bartelli was arrested