Você está na página 1de 4

FACTS:

Lim Sio Wan (deposited 1st money market) > Allied Bank > (pre-terminated and withdrawn) Santos > (through
forged indorsement of Lim Sio Wan deposited in FCC account) Metrobank > (release in exchange of undertaking of
reimbursement) FCC > (through Santos, as officer of Producers bank, deposited money market) Producers Bank

I September 21, 1983: FCC had deposited a money market placement for P 2M with Producers
Bank
II
Santos was the money market trader assigned to handle FCC’s account

Such deposit is evidenced by Official Receipt and a Letter

When the placement matured, FCC demanded the payment of the proceeds of the
placement

III November 14, 1983: Lim Sio Wan deposited with Allied Banking Corporation (Allied) a money
market placement of P 1,152,597.35 for a term of 31 days
IV
V December 5, 1983: a person claiming to be Lim Sio Wan called up Cristina So, an officer of
Allied, and instructed the latter to pre-terminate Lim Sio Wan’s money market placement, to issue a
manager’s check representing the proceeds of the placement, and to give the check to Deborah Dee Santos
who would pick up the check. Lim Sio Wan described the appearance of Santos
VI
Santos arrived at the bank and signed the application form for a manager’s check to be
issued

The bank issued Manager’s Check representing the proceeds of Lim Sio Wan’s
money market placement in the name of Lim Sio Wan, as payee, cross-checked "For
Payee’s Account Only" and given to Santos

VII Allied manager’s check was deposited in the account of Filipinas Cement Corporation
(FCC) at Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), with the forged signature of Lim Sio Wan as
indorser
VIII
Metrobank stamped a guaranty on the check, which reads: "All prior endorsements and/or
lack of endorsement guaranteed."

Upon the presentment of the check, Allied funded the check even without checking the
authenticity of Lim Sio Wan’s purported indorsement.

amount on the face of the check was credited to the account of FCC

IX December 9, 1983: Lim Sio Wan deposited with Allied a second money market placement to
mature on January 9, 1984
X
XI December 14, 1983: upon the maturity date of the first money market placement, Lim Sio Wan
went to Allied to withdraw it. She was then informed that the placement had been pre-terminated upon her
instructions which she denied
XII
XIII Lim Sio Wan filed with the RTC against Allied to recover the proceeds of her first money
market placement
XIV
Allied filed a third party complaint against Metrobank and Santos

Metrobank filed a fourth party complainagainst FCC


FCC for its part filed a fifth party complaint against Producers Bank.

Summonses were duly served upon all the parties except for Santos, who was no longer
connected with Producers Bank

XV May 15, 1984: Allied informed Metrobank that the signature on the check was forged
XVI
Metrobank withheld the amount represented by the check from FCC.

Metrobank agreed to release the amount to FCC after the FCC executed an undertaking,
promising to indemnify Metrobank in case it was made to reimburse the amount

Lim Sio Wan thereafter filed an amended complaint to include Metrobank as a party-
defendant, along with Allied.

XVII RTC : Allied Bank to pay Lim Sio Wan plus damages and atty. fees
XVIII
Allied Bank’s cross-claim against Metrobank is DISMISSED.

Metrobank’s third-party complaint as against Filipinas Cement Corporation is


DISMISSED

Filipinas Cement Corporation’s fourth-party complaint against Producer’s Bank is


DISMISSED

XIX CA: Modified. Allied Banking Corporation to pay 60% and Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company 40%
XX
ISSUE: W/N Allied should be solely liable to Lim Sio Wan.

HELD: YES. CA affirmed. Modified Porudcers Bank to reimburse Allied and Metrobank.

1 Articles 1953 and 1980 of the Civil Code


2

Art. 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is
bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality.

Art. 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the
provisions concerning simple loan.

1 bank deposit is in the nature of a simple loan or mutuum


2
3 money market is a market dealing in standardized short-term credit instruments (involving large
amounts) where lenders and borrowers do not deal directly with each other but through a middle man or
dealer in open market. In a money market transaction, the investor is a lender who loans his money to a
borrower through a middleman or dealer.
4
Lim Sio Wan, as creditor of the bank for her money market placement, is entitled to
payment upon her request, or upon maturity of the placement, or until the bank is released from its
obligation as debtor

5 GR: collecting bank which indorses a check bearing a forged indorsement and presents it to the
drawee bank guarantees all prior indorsements, including the forged indorsement itself, and ultimately
should be held liable therefor
6
7 EX: when the issuance of the check itself was attended with negligence.
8
9 Allied negligent in issuing the manager’s check and in transmitting it to Santos without even a
written authorization
10
Allied did not even ask for the certificate evidencing the money market placement or call
up Lim Sio Wan at her residence or office to confirm her instructions.

Allied’s negligence must be considered as the proximate cause of the resulting loss.

11 When Metrobank indorsed the check without verifying the authenticity of Lim Sio Wan’s
indorsement and when it accepted the check despite the fact that it was cross-checked payable to payee’s
account only
12
contributed to the easier release of Lim Sio Wan’s money and perpetuation of the fraud

13 Given the relative participation of Allied and Metrobank to the instant case, both banks cannot be
adjudged as equally liable. Hence, the 60:40 ratio of the liabilities of Allied and Metrobank, as ruled by the
CA, must be upheld.
14
15 FCC, having no participation in the negotiation of the check and in the forgery of Lim Sio Wan’s
indorsement, can raise the real defense of forgery as against both banks
16
17 Producers Bank was unjustly enriched at the expense of Lim Sio Wan
18
Producers Bank should reimburse Allied and Metrobank for the amounts ordered to pay Lim Sio
Wan

Facts: Lorenzo Ting issued a check payable to “cash or bearer.” With Felipe Ang’s signature
(indorsement in blank) at the back thereof, the instrument was received by Ang Tiong who thereafter
presented it to the bank for payment. The drawee bank dishonored it. Ang Tiong made written demands
on both Ting and Ang to make good the amount represented by the check. These demands unheeded.
Ang Tiong then filed suit for collection. The trial court adjudged for herein petitioner. Only Felipe Ang
appealed, maintaining that he is only an accommodation party.
Issue: WON Felipe Ang is an accommodation party? What is the liability of an accommodation indorser?
Held: NO. Felipe Ang is a general indorser (Section 63, Negotiable Instruments Law), in the absence of
any indication by appropriate words his intention to be bound in some other capacity. Even on the
assumption that Ang is a mere accommodation party as he professes to be, he is nevertheless by the
clear mandate of section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, yet “ liable on the instrument to a holder
for value notwithstanding that such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him to be only an
accommodation party”. To paraphrase, the accommodation party is liable to a holder for value as if
the contract was not for accommodation. It is not a valid defense that the accommodation party did not
receive any valuable consideration when he executed the instrument. Nor is it correct to say that the
holder for value is not a holder in due course merely because at the time he acquired the instrument, he
knew that the indorser was only an accommodation party.
That the appellant, again assuming him to be an accommodation indorser, may obtain security from the
maker to protect himself against the danger of insolvency of the latter, cannot in any manner affect his
liability to the appellee, as the said remedy is a matter of concern exclusively between accommodation
indorser and accommodated party. So that the fact that the appellant stands only as a surety in relation to
the maker, granting this to be true for the sake of argument, is immaterial to the claim of the appellee, and
does not a whit diminish nor defeat the rights of the latter who is a holder for value. The liability of the
appellant remains primary and unconditional. To sanction the appellant’s theory is to give unwarranted
legal recognition to the patent absurdity of a situation where an indorser, when sued on an instrument by
a holder in due course and for value, can escape liability on his indorsement by the convenient expedient
of interposing the defense that he is a mere accomodation indorser.

FACTS
Private respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Isabelo R. Racho, together with the spouses Mr. and Mrs. Flaviano
Lagasca, executed a deed of mortgage, in favor of petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
and subsequently, another deed of mortgage, in connection with two loans granted by the latter in the sums
of P 11,500.00 and P 3,000.00, respectively. A parcel of land co-owned by said mortgagor spouses, was
given as security under the aforesaid two deeds. They also executed a ‘promissory note” which states in
part:
… for value received, we the undersigned … JOINTLY, SEVERALLY and SOLIDARILY, promise to
pay the GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM the sum of . . . (P 11,500.00) Philippine
Currency, with interest at the rate of six (6%) per centum compounded monthly payable in . . .
(120)equal monthly installments of . . . (P 127.65) each.
Both parties relied on the provisions of Section 29 of Act No. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable
Instruments Law, which provide that an accommodation party is one who has signed an instrument as
maker, drawer, acceptor of indorser without receiving value therefor, but is held liable on the instrument to
a holder for value although the latter knew him to be only an accommodation party.
ISSUE
Whether or not the executed promissory note is a negotiable instrument.
RULING
NO.The promissory note hereinbefore quoted, as well as the mortgage deeds subject of this case, are
clearly not negotiable instruments. These documents do not comply with the fourth requisite to be
considered as such under Section 1 of Act No. 2031 because they are neither payable to order nor to
bearer. The note is payable to a specified party, the GSIS. Absent the aforesaid requisite, the provisions of
Act No. 2031 would not apply; governance shall be afforded, instead, by the provisions of the Civil Code
and special laws on mortgages.