Você está na página 1de 3

CEBU INTL FINANCE CORP v CA, Vicente Alegre  CIFC filed a motion for leave of court to file a

[October 12, 1999] | [Quisumbing, J] third-party complaint against BPI


 BPI was impleaded by CIFC to enforce a right,
CIFC is a quasi-banking institution engaged in money- for contribution and indemnity, with respect
market operations to Alegre’s claim
 CIFC asserted that the Check it issued in favor
April 25 1991. Alegre invested with CIFC Php500,000 of Alegre was genuine, valid and sufficiently
in cash funded
 PN issued by CIFC to mature on May 27, 1991.
 Note for Php 516,238.67 covered Alegre’s CIFC sought to recover its lost funds and formally
placement plus interest at 20.5% for 32 days filed against BPI for collection of a sum of money
 Collection suit alleged that BPI unlawfully
CIFC issued BPI check for Php514,390.94 in favor of deducted from CIFC’s checking account,
Alegre as proceeds of the matured investment plus counterfeit checks amounting to
interest Php1,724,364.58.
 Check was drawn from petitioner’s current  Action included the prayer to collect the
account maintained with BPI in Makati amount of the check paid to Alegre but
dishonored by BPI
Jun 17 1991. Alegre’s wife deposited the check with
RCBC in Puerto Princesa CIFC’s motion for leave of court to file a third-party
 BPI dishonored the Check with the annotation complaint against BPI was granted by CIFC
that the Check (is) Subject of an Investigation  BPI moved to dismiss the complaint on the
 BPI took custody of the Check pending an ground of pendency of another action
investigation of several counterfeit checks  RTC dismissed the third-party complaint after
drawn against CIFC’s checking account. finding that the same filed by CIFC against BPI
 BPI used the check to trace the perpetrators is similar to its ancillary claim against the
of the forgery. bank

Alegre notified CIFC of the dishonored check and During the hearing, Vito Arieta, BPI’s Bank Manager
demanded that he be paid in cash testified that the bank dishonored the check, retained
 CIFC refused the request, instead instructed the original copy and forwarded only a certified true
Alegre to wait for its ongoing bank copy to RCBC.
reconciliation with BPI  When Arieta was recalled, he testified that
 A formal demand through counsel was made BPI encashed and deducted the amount from
by Alegre. CIFC promised to replace the check the account of CIFC but the proceeds and the
but required an impossible condition that the check remained in BPI’s custody
original must first be surrendered  Bank’s move was in accordance with the
Compromise Agreement1 it entered with CIFC
Alegre filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of to end the litigation
money against the petitioner

1
Compromise agreement submitted for approval of the court 2. Thereupon, defendant shall debit the sum of P
provided that: 514,390.94 from the aforesaid current account
1. Defendant BPI shall pay to the plaintiff [CIFC] the representing payment/discharge of BPI Check No.
amount of P1,724,364.58 plus P 20,000 litigation 513397 payable to Vicente Alegre.
expenses as full and final settlement of all of plaintiffs
claims as contained in the Amended Complaint dated 3. In case plaintiff is adjudged liable to Vicente Alegre in
September 10, 1992. The aforementioned amount shall Civil Case No. 92-515 arising from the alleged dishonor
be credited to plaintiffs current account No. 0011-0803- of BPI Check No. 513397, plaintiff cannot go after the
59 maintained at defendants Main Branch upon defendant: otherwise stated, the defendant shall not be
execution of this Compromise Agreement. liable to the plaintiff.Plaintiff [CIFC] may however set-
up the defense of payment/discharge stipulated in par.
2 above
BPI filed a separate collection suit against Vicente
Alegre. Petitioner cites the NIL
 Complaint alleged that Alegre connived with NIL 137. Liability of drawee retaining or destroying
certain Lina A. Pena and Lita A. Anda and bill - Where a drawee to whom a bill is delivered for
forged several checks of BPI’s client, CIFC acceptance destroys the same, or refuses within
 Counterfeit checks amounted to twenty-four hours after such delivery or such other
Php1,724.364.58 period as the holder may allow, to return the bill
 BPI prevented encashment of some checks accepted or non-accepted to the Holder, he will be
amounting to Php295,775.07 deemed to have accepted the same.
 BPI admitted that the check, payable to Alegre
for Php514,390.94 was deducted from BPI’s Petitioner asserts that since BPI accepted the
claim, hence the balance of the loss incurred instrument, bank is primarily liable for the payment
by BPI was Php914,198.57 plus costs of suit of the check
for Php20,000. Records are silent on the  when BPI offset the value of the check against
outcome of this case the losses from the forged checks allegedly
committed by Alegre, the check was deemed
RTC, in the complaint for recovery of sum of money paid.
ruled in favor of Alegre. CA affirmed
Perez v CA
ISSUES and RATIO A money market is a market a money market is a
1. WON NCC 1249 applies - YES market dealing in standardized short-term
credit instruments (involving large amounts) where
Petitioner contends that the provisions of the NIL are lenders and borrowers do not deal directly with each
the pertinent laws to govern its money market other but through a middle man or dealer in open
transaction with private respondent, not para 2 of market. In a money market transaction, the investor
NCC 1249.2 is a lender who loans his money to a borrower
through a middleman or dealer.
Petitioner stresses that it had already been
discharged from liability of paying the value of the The money market transaction between the
check due to the following circumstances: petitioner and Alegre is in the nature of a loan
1) There was ACCEPTANCE of the subject check  Alegre accepted the check, instead of
by BPI, the drawee bank, as defined under the requiring payment in money yet when he
Negotiable Instruments Law, and therefore, presented it to RCBC for encashment, it was
BPI, the drawee bank, became primarily liable dishonored by non-acceptance, with BPI’s
for the payment of the check, and annotation: Check (is) subject of an
consequently, the drawer, herein petitioner, investigation
was discharged from its liability thereon;  Under these circumstances and after the
2) Moreover, BPI, the drawee bank, has not notice of dishonor, the holder has an
validly DISHONORED the subject check; and, immediate right of recourse against the
3) The act of BPI, the drawee bank of drawer, and consequently could immediately
debiting/deducting the value of the check file an action for the recovery of the value of
from petitioners account amounted to and/or the check
constituted a discharge of the drawers
(petitioners) liability under the In a loan transaction, the obligation to pay a sum
instrument/subject check. certain in money may be paid in money, which is the
legal tender or, by the use of a check. A check is not a

2NCC 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the of payment only when they have been cashed, or when through
currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such the fault of the creditor they have been impaired.
currency, then in the currency, which is legal tender in the
Philippines. In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation
The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of shall be held in abeyance.
exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect
legal tender, and therefore cannot constitute valid A Contract entered into in the name of another by one
tender of payment. who has no authority or legal representation, or who
has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable,
PAL v CA: unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the
A negotiable instrument is only a substitute for person on whose behalf it has been executed, before it
money and not money, the delivery of such an is revoked by the other contracting party.
instrument does not by itself operate as payment. A
BPI’s confiscation of Alegre’s money constitutes
check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check,
garnishment without going through a valid
is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment proceeding.
of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be
refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. Mere Garnishment - an attachment by means of which the
delivery checks does not discharge the obligation plaintiff seeks to subject to his claim the property of
under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished the defendant in the hands of a third person or money
and remains suspended until the payment by owed to such third person or a garnishee to the
commercial document is actually realized. defendant

2. WON the BPI check was validly discharged CIFC has not yet tendered a valid payment of its
obligations to Alegre.
When the bank deducted the amount of the CHECK  Tender of payment involves a positive and
unconditional act by the obligor of offering
from CIFCs current account, this did not ipso
legal tender currency as payment to the
facto operate as a discharge or payment of the
obligee for the formers obligation and
instrument. Although the value of the CHECK was demanding that the latter accept the same.
deducted from the funds of CIFC, it was not delivered  Tender of payment cannot be presumed by a
to the payee, Vicente Alegre. Instead, BPI offset the mere inference from surrounding
amount against the losses it incurred from forgeries circumstances.
of CIFC checks, allegedly committed by Alegre. The
confiscation of the value of the check was agreed Third party complaint properly dismissed on the
upon by CIFC and BPI. The parties intended to ground of lis pendens.
amicably settle the collection suit filed by CIFC by Elements:
entering into a compromise agreement. a. identity of parties
b. identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for
which are founded on the same acts
Compromise – contract whereby the parties, by
c. identity in the two cases should be such that the
making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or
judgment rendered in one would amount to res
put an end to one already commenced. judicata in the other.
Compromise agreement could not bind a party who
did not sign the compromise agreement nor avail of Petition DENIED.
its benefits.
 Thus, the stipulations in the compromise
agreement is unenforceable against Vicente
Alegre, not a party thereto. His money could
not be the subject of an agreement between
CIFC and BPI. Although Alegre’s money
was in custody of the bank, the bank’s
possession of it was not in the concept of an
owner. BPI cannot validly appropriate the
money as its own.

NCC 1317. No one may contract in the name of another


without being authorized by the latter, or unless he
has by law a right to represent him.