PCIB v. CA

Facts:

This case is composed of three consolidated petitions involving several checks, payable to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, but was embezzled allegedly by an organized syndicate.

I. G. R. Nos. 121413 and 121479

On October 19, 1977, plaintiff Ford issued a Citibank check amounting to P4,746,114.41 in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the payment of manufacturer’s taxes. The check was deposited with defendant IBAA (now PCIB), subsequently cleared the the Central Bank, and paid by Citibank to IBAA. The proceeds never reached BIR, so plaintiff was compelled to make a second payment. Defendant refused to reimburse plaintiff, and so the latter filed a complaint. An investigation revealed that the check was recalled by Godofredo Rivera, the general ledger accountant of Ford, and was replaced by a manager’s check. Alleged members of a syndicate deposited the two manager’s checks with Pacific Banking Corporation. Ford filed a third party complaint against Rivera and PBC. The case against PBC was dismissed. The case against Rivera was likewise dismissed because summons could not be served. The trial court held Citibank and PCIB jointly and severally liable to Ford, but the Court of Appeals only held PCIB liable.

II. G. R. No. 128604

Ford drew two checks in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, amounting to P5,851,706.37 and P6,311,591.73. Both are crossed checks payable to payee’s account only. The checks never reached BIR, so plaintiff was compelled to make second payments. Plaintiff instituted an action for recovery against PCIB and Citibank.

On investigation of NBI, the modus operandi was discovered. Gorofredo Rivera made the checks but instead of delivering them to BIR, passed it to Castro, who was the manager of PCIB San Andres. Castro opened a checking account in the name of a fictitious person “Reynaldo Reyes”. Castro deposited a worthless Bank of America check with the same amount as that issued by Ford. While being routed to the Central Bank for clearing, the worthless check was replaced by the genuine one from Ford.

The trial court absolved PCIB and held Citibank liable, which decision was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.

Issues:

(1) Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of Ford

(2) Has petitioner Ford the right to recover from the collecting bank (PCIBank) and the drawee bank (Citibank) the value of the checks intended as payment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue?

Held:

(2) The general rule is that if the master is injured by the negligence of a third person and by the concuring contributory negligence of his own servant or agent, the latter's negligence is imputed to his superior and will defeat the superior's action against the third person, asuming, of course that the contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the injury of which complaint is made. As defined, proximate cause is that which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause produces the injury and without the result would not have occurred. It appears that although the employees of Ford initiated the transactions attributable to an organized syndicate, in our view, their actions were not the proximate cause of encashing the checks payable to the CIR. The degree of Ford's negligence, if any, could not be characterized as the proximate cause of the injury to the parties. The mere fact that the forgery was committed by a drawer-payor's confidential employee or agent, who by virtue of his position had unusual facilities for perpertrating the fraud and imposing the forged paper upon the bank, does notentitle the bank toshift the loss to the drawer-payor, in the absence of some circumstance raising estoppel against the drawer. This rule likewise applies to the checks fraudulently negotiated or diverted by the confidential employees who hold them in their possession.

(2) We have to scrutinize, separately, PCIBank's share of negligence when the syndicate achieved its ultimate agenda of stealing the proceeds of these checks.

a. G. R. Nos. 121413 and 121479

On record, PCIBank failed to verify the authority of Mr. Rivera to negotiate the checks. The neglect of PCIBank employees to verify whether his letter requesting for the replacement of the Citibank Check No. SN-04867 was duly authorized, showed lack of care and prudence required in the circumstances. Furthermore, it was admitted that PCIBank is authorized to collect the payment of taxpayers in behalf of the BIR. As an agent of BIR, PCIBank is duty bound to consult its principal regarding the unwarranted instructions given by the payor or its agent. It is a well-settled rule that the relationship between the payee or holder of commercial paper and the bank to which it is sent for collection is, in the absence of an argreement to the contrary, that of principal and agent. A bank which receives such paper for collection is the agent of the payee or holder.

Indeed, the crossing of the check with the phrase "Payee's Account Only," is a warning that the check should be deposited only in the account of the CIR. Thus, it is the duty of the collecting bank PCIBank to ascertain that the check be deposited in payee's account only. Therefore, it is the collecting bank (PCIBank) which is bound to scrutinize the check and to know its depositors before it could make the clearing indorsement "all prior indorsements and/or lack of indorsement guaranteed".

Lastly, banking business requires that the one who first cashes and negotiates the check must take some precautions to learn whether or not it is genuine. And if the one cashing the check through indifference or other circumstance assists the forger in committing the fraud, he should not be permitted to retain the proceeds of the check from the drawee whose sole fault was that it did not discover the forgery or the defect in the title of the person negotiating the instrument before paying the check. For this reason, a bank which cashes a check drawn upon another bank, without requiring proof as to the identity of persons presenting it, or making inquiries with regard to them, cannot hold the proceeds against the drawee when the proceeds of the checks were afterwards diverted to the hands of a third party. In such cases the drawee bank has a right to believe that the cashing bank (or the collecting bank) had, by the usual proper investigation, satisfied itself of the authenticity of the negotiation of the checks. Thus, one who encashed a check which had been forged or diverted and in turn received payment thereon from the drawee, is guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to the success of the fraud practiced on the drawee bank. The latter may recover from the holder the money paid on the check.

b. G. R. No. 128604

In this case, there was no evidence presented confirming the conscious participation of PCIBank in the embezzlement. As a general rule, however, a banking corporation is liable for the wrongful or tortuous acts and declarations of its officers or agents within the course and scope of their employment. A bank will be held liable for the negligence of its officers or agents when acting within the course and scope of their employment. It may be liable for the tortuous acts of its officers even as regards that species of tort of which malice is an essential element. In this case, we find a situation where the PCIBank appears also to be the victim of the scheme hatched by a syndicate in which its own management employees had participated. But in this case, responsibility for negligence does not lie on PCIBank's shoulders alone.

Citibank failed to notice and verify the absence of the clearing stamps. For this reason, Citibank had indeed failed to perform what was incumbent upon it, which is to ensure that the amount of the checks should be paid only to its designated payee. The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. Thus, invoking the doctrine of comparative negligence, we are of the view that both PCIBank and Citibank failed in their respective obligations and both were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees resulting in the encashment of Citibank Check Nos. SN 10597 AND 16508. Thus, we are constrained to hold them equally liable for the loss of the proceeds of said checks issued by Ford in favor of the CIR.