11/8/2016

G.R.No.74451

TodayisTuesday,November08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.74451May25,1988
EQUITABLEBANKINGCORPORATION,petitioner,
vs.
THEHONORABLEINTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURTandTHEEDWARDJ.NELLCO.,respondents.
WilliamR.Vetoforpetitioner.
Pelaez,Adriano&Gregorioforrespondents.

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.:
InthisPetitionforReviewoncertioraripetitioner,EquitableBankingCorporation,praysthattheadversejudgment
againstitrenderedbyrespondentAppellateCourt, 1dated4October1985,anditsmajorityResolution,dated28April
1986,denyingpetitioner'sMotionforReconsideration,2beannulledandsetaside.

ThefactspertinenttothisPetition,assummarizedbytheTrialCourtandadoptedbyreferencebyRespondent
AppellateCourt,emanatedfromthecaseentitled"EdwardJ.NellCo.vs.LiberatoV.Casals,CasvilleEnterprises,
Inc.,andEquitableBankingCorporation"oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal(CivilCaseNo.25112),andread:
From the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds that sometime in 1975 defendant
LiberatoCasalswenttoplaintiffEdwardJ.NellCompanyandtolditsseniorsalesengineer,Amado
Claustrothathewasinterestedinbuyingoneoftheplaintiff'sgarrettskidders.Plaintiffwasadealer
of machineries, equipment and supplies. Defendant Casals represented himself as the majority
stockholder,presidentandgeneralmanagerofCasvilleEnterprises,Inc.,afirmengagedinthelarge
scale production, procurement and processing of logs and lumber products, which had a plywood
plantinSta.Ana,MetroManila.
After defendant Casals talked with plaintiff's sales engineer, he was referred to plaintiffs executive
vicepresident, Apolonio Javier, for negotiation in connection with the manner of payment. When
Javieraskedforcashpaymentfortheskidders,defendantCasalsinformedhimthathiscorporation,
defendantCasvilleEnterprises,Inc.,hadacreditlinewithdefendantEquitableBankingCorporation.
Apparently, impressed with this assertion, Javier agreed to have the skidders paid by way of a
domestic letter of credit which defendant Casals promised to open in plaintiffs favor, in lieu of cash
payment. Accordingly, on December 22, 1975, defendant Casville, through its president, defendant
Casals,orderedfromplaintifftwounitsofgarrettskidders...
ThepurchaseorderforthegarrettskiddersbearingNo.0051anddatedDecember22,1975(Exhibit
"A")containedthefollowingtermsandconditions:
Two(2)unitsGARRETTSkiddersModel30Acompleteasbasicallydescribedinthebulletin
PRICE:F.O.B.dock
ManilaP485,000.00/unit
Fortwo(2)unitsP970,000.00
SHIPMENT:Wewillinformyouthedateandnameofthevesselassoonasarranged.
TERMS:ByirrevocabledomesticletterofcredittobeissuedinfavorofTHEEDWARDJ.NELLCO.
orORDERpayableinthirtysix(36)monthsandwillbeopenedwithinninety(90)daysafterdateof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/may1988/gr_74451_1988.html

1/6

11/8/2016

G.R.No.74451

shipment. at first installment will be due one hundred eighty (180) days after date of shipment.
Interest14%perannum(ExhibitA)
xxxxxxxxx
... in a letter dated April 21, 1976, defendants Casals and Casville requested from plaintiff the
delivery of one (1) unit of the bidders, complete with tools and cables, to Cagayan de Oro, on or
before Saturday, April 24,1976, on board a Lorenzo shipping vessel, with the information that an
irrevocableDomesticLetterofCreditwouldbeopenedinplaintiff'sfavoronorbeforeJune30,1976
underthetermsandconditionsagreedupon(Exhibit"B")
On May 3, 1976, in compliance with defendant Casvile's recognition request, plaintiff shipped to
CagayandeOroCityaGarrettskidder.PlaintiffpaidtheshippingcostintheamountofP10,640.00
becauseoftheverbalassuranceofdefendantCasvillethatitwouldbecoveredbytheletterofcredit
soontobeopened.
xxxxxxxxx
On July 15, 1976, defendant Casals handed to plaintiff a check in the amount of P300,000.00
postdated August 4, 1976, which was followed by another check of same date. Plaintiff considered
thesecheckseitheraspartialpaymentfortheskidderthatwasalreadydeliveredtoCagayandeOro
orasreimbursementforthemarginaldepositthatplaintiffwassupposedtopay.
In a letter dated August 3, 1976 (Exhibit "C"), defendants Casville informed the plaintiff that their
application for a letter of credit for the payment of the Garrett skidders had been approved by the
Equitable Banking Corporation. However, the defendants said that they would need the sum of
P300,000.00tostandascollateralormarginaldepositinfavorofEquitableBankingCorporationand
anadditionalamountofP100,000.00,alsoinfavorofEquitableBankingCorporation,toclearthetitle
oftheEstradapropertybelongingtodefendantCasalswhichhadbeenapprovedassecurityforthe
trustreceiptstobeissuedbythebank,coveringtheabovementionedequipment.
Although the marginal deposit was supposed to be produced by defendant Casville Enterprises,
plaintiffagreedtoadvancethenecessaryamountinordertofacilitatethetransaction.Accordingly,on
August5,1976,plaintiffissuedacheckintheamountofP400,000.00(Exhibit"2")drawnagainstthe
First National City Bank and made payable to the order of Equitable Banking Corporation and with
thefollowingnotationormemorandum:
a/cofCasvilleEnterprisesInc.forMarginaldepositandpaymentofbalanceonEstrada
Property to be used as security for trust receipt for opening L/C of Garrett Skidders in
favoroftheEdwardJ.NellCo."Saidchecktogetherwiththecashdisbursementvoucher
(Exhibit"2A")containingtheexplanation:
Payment for marginal deposit and other expenses re opening of L/C for account of
CasvilleEnt..
A covering letter (Exhibit "3") was also sent and when the three documents were presented to
Severino Santos, executive vice president of defendant bank, Santos did not accept them because
thetermsandconditionsrequiredbythebankfortheopeningoftheletterofcredithadnotyetbeen
agreedon.
On August 9, 1976, defendant Casville wrote the bank applying for two letters of credit to cover its
purchasefromplaintiffoftwoGarrettskidders,underthefollowingtermsandconditions:
a)OnsightLetterofCreditforP485,000.00b)One36monthsLetterofCreditforP606,000.00c)
P300,000.00CASHmarginaldeposit1d)RealEstateCollateraltosecuretheTrustReceiptse)We
shall chattel mortgage the equipments purchased even after payment of the first L/C as additional
securityforthebalanceofthesecondL/Candf)Otherconditionsyoudeemnecessarytoprotectthe
interestofthebank."
InaletterdatedAugust11,1976(Exhibit"Dl"),defendantbankrepliedstatingthatitwasreadyto
openthelettersofcreditupondefendant'scomplianceofthefollowingtermsandconditions:
c)30% cash margin deposit d) Acceptable Real Estate Collateral to secure the Trust Receipts e)
Chattel Mortgage on the equipment and Ashville f) Other terms and conditions that our bank may
impose.
Defendant Casville sent a copy of the foregoing letter to the plaintiff enclosing three postdated
checks. In said letter, plaintiff was informed of the requirements imposed by the defendant bank
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/may1988/gr_74451_1988.html

2/6

11/8/2016

G.R.No.74451

pointing out that the "cash marginal required under paragraph (c) is 30% of Pl,091,000.00 or
P327,300.00plusanotherP100,000.00tocleanuptheEstradapropertyoratotalofP427,300.00"
and that the check covering said amount should be made payable "to the Order of EQUITABLE
BANKING CORPORATION for the account of Casville Enterprises Inc." Defendant Casville also
statedthatthethree(3)enclosedpostdatedcheckswereintendedasreplacementofthechecksthat
were previously issued to plaintiff to secure the sum of P427,300.00 that plaintiff would advance to
defendantbankfortheaccountofdefendantCasville.AllthenewcheckswerepostdatedNovember
19, 1976 and drawn in the sum of Pl45,500.00 (Exhibit "F"), P181,800.00 (Exhibit "G") and
P100,000.00(Exhibit"H").
On the same occasion, defendant Casals delivered to plaintiff TCT No. 11891 of the Register of
DeedsofQuezonCityandTCTNo.50851oftheRegisterofDeedsofRizalcoveringtwopiecesof
realestateproperties.
Subsequently,CesarUmali,plaintiffscreditandcollectionmanager,accompaniedbyarepresentative
of defendant Casville, went to see Severino Santos to find out the status of the credit line being
sought by defendant Casville. Santos assured Umali that the letters of credit would be opened as
soonastherequirementsimposedbydefendantbankinitsletterdatedAugust11,1976hadbeen
compliedwithbydefendantCasville.
OnAugust16,1976,plaintiffissuedacheckforP427,300.00,payabletothe"orderofEQUITABLE
BANKINGCORPORATIONA/CCASVILLEENTERPRISES,INC."anddrawnagainstthefirstNational
CityBank(Exhibit"El").Thecheckdidnotcontainthenotationfoundinthepreviouscheckissuedby
theplaintiff(Exhibit"2")butthesubstanceofsaidnotationwasreproducedinacoveringletterdated
August16,1976thatwentwiththecheck(Exhibit"E"). Boththecheckandthecoveringletterwere
sent to defendant bank through defendant Casals. Plaintiff entrusted the delivery of the check and
the latter to defendant Casals because it believed that no one, including defendant Casals, could
encashthesameasitwasmadepayabletothedefendantbankalone.Besides,defendantCasals
wasknowntothebankastheonefollowinguptheapplicationforthelettersofcredit.
< re |a n 1 w >

UponreceivingthecheckforP427,300.00entrustedtohimbyplaintiffdefendantCasalsimmediately
depositeditwiththedefendantbankandthebanktelleracceptedthesamefordepositindefendant
Casville's checking account. After depositing said check, defendant Casville, acting through
defendantCasals,thenwithdrewalltheamountdeposited.
Meanwhile, upon their presentation for encashment, plaintiff discovered that the three checks
(Exhibits"F,"G"and"H")inthetotalamountofP427,300.00,thatwereissuedbydefendantCasville
ascollateralwerealldishonoredforhavingbeendrawnagainstaclosedaccount.
As defendant Casville failed to pay its obligation to defendant bank, the latter foreclosed the
mortgageexecutedbydefendantCasvilleontheEstradapropertywhichwassoldinapublicauction
saletoathirdparty.
Plaintiffallowedsometimebeforefollowinguptheapplicationforthelettersofcreditknowingthatit
took time to process the same. However, when the three checks issued to it by defendant Casville
were dishonored, plaintiff became apprehensive and sent Umali on November 29, 1976, to inquire
aboutthestatusoftheapplicationforthelettersofcredit.Whenplaintiffwasinformedthatnoletters
ofcreditwereopenedbythedefendantbankinitsfavorandthendiscoveredthatdefendantCasville
had in the meanwhile withdrawn the entire amount of P427,300.00, without paying its obligation to
thebankplaintifffiledtheinstantaction.
While the the instant case was being tried, defendants Casals and Casville assigned the garrett
skidder to plaintiff which credited in favor of defendants the amount of P450,000.00, as partial
satisfactionofplaintiff'sclaimagainstthem.
DefendantsCasalsandCasvillehardlydisputedtheirliabilitytoplaintiff.Notonlydidtheyshowlack
of interest in disputing plaintiff's claim by not appearing in most of the hearings, but they also
assignedtoplaintiffthegarrettskidderwhichisanactionofclearrecognitionoftheirliability.
WhatisleftfortheCourttodetermine,therefore,isonlytheliabilityofdefendantbanktoplaintiff.
xxxxxxxxx
Resolving that issue, the Trial Court rendered judgment, affirmed by Respondent Court in toto, the pertinent
portionofwhichreads:
xxxxxxxxx
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/may1988/gr_74451_1988.html

3/6

11/8/2016

G.R.No.74451

Defendants Casals and Casville Enterprises and Equitable Banking Corporation are ordered to pay
plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P427,300.00, representing the amount of plaintiff's check
which defendant bank erroneously credited to the account of defendant Casville and which
defendants Casal and Casville misappropriated, with 12% interest thereon from April 5, 1977, until
thesaidsumisfullypaid.
Defendant Equitable Banking Corporation is ordered to pay plaintiff attorney's fees in the sum of
P25,000.00.
Proportionatecostagainstallthedefendants.
SOORDERED.
ThecrucialissuetoresolveiswhetherornotpetitionerEquitableBankingCorporation(briefly,theBank)isliable
to private respondent Edward J. Nell Co. (NELL, for short) for the value of the second check issued by NELL,
Exhibit"El,"whichwasmadepayable
to the order of EQUITABLE Ashville BANIUNG CORPORATION A/C OF CASVILLE ENTERPRISES
INC.
andwhichtheBanktellercreditedtotheaccountofCasville.
TheTrialCourtfoundthattheamountofthesecondcheckhadbeenerroneouslycreditedtotheCasvilleaccount
heldtheBankliableforthemistakeofitsemployeesandorderedtheBanktopayNELLthevalueofthecheckin
thesumofP427,300.00,withlegalinterest.ExplainedtheTrialCourt:
The Court finds that the check in question was payable only to the defendant bank and to no one
else.Althoughthewords"A/COFCASVILLEENTERPRISESINC."appearonthefaceofthecheck
afterorunderthenameofdefendantbank,thepayeewasstillthelatter.Theadditionofsaidwords
didnotinanywaymakeCasvilleEnterprises,Inc.thePayeeoftheinstrumentforthewordsmerely
indicatedforwhoseaccountorinconnectionwithwhataccountthecheckwasissuedbytheplaintiff.
Indeed, the bank teller who received it was fully aware that the check was not negotiable since he
stamped thereon the words "NONNEGOTIABLE For Payee's Account Only" and "NON
NEGOTIABLETELLERNO.4,August17,1976EQUITABLEBANKINGCORPORATION.
ButsaidtellershouldhaveexercisedmoreprudenceinthehandlingofIdcheckbecauseitwasnot
made out in the usual manner. The addition of the words A/C OF CASVILLE ENTERPRISES INC."
should have placed the teller on guard and he should have clarified the matter with his superiors.
Insteadofdoingso,however,thetellerdecidedtorelyonhisownjudgmentandattheriskofmaking
a wrong decision, credited the entire amount in the name of defendant Casville although the latter
was not the payee named in the check. Such mistake was crucial and was, without doubt, the
proximatecauseofplaintiffsdefraudation.
xxxxxxxxx
RespondentAppellateCourtupheldtheaboveconclusionsstatinginaddition:
1) The appellee made the subject check payable to appellant's order, for the account of Casville
Enterprises,Inc.Inthelightoftheotherfacts,thedirectivewasfortheappellantbanktoapplythe
valueofthecheckaspaymentfortheletterofcreditwhichCasvilleEnterprises,Inc.hadpreviously
applied for in favor of the appellee (Exhibit D1, p. 5). The issuance of the subject check was
precisely to meet the bank's prior requirement of payment before issuing the letter of credit
previouslyappliedforbyCasvilleEnterprisesinfavoroftheappellee
xxxxxxxxx
Wedisagree.
1)Thesubjectcheckwasequivocalandpatentlyambiguous.Bymakingthecheckread:
PaytotheEQUITABLEBANKINGCORPORATIONOrderofA/COFCASVILLEENTERPRISES,INC.
the payee ceased to be indicated with reasonable certainty in contravention of Section 8 of the Negotiable
InstrumentsLaw.3Asworded,itcouldbeacceptedasdeposittotheaccountofthepartynamedafterthesymbols"A/C,"
or payable to the Bank as trustee, or as an agent, for Casville Enterprises, Inc., with the latter being the ultimate
beneficiary.Thatambiguityistobetakencontraproferentemthatis,construedagainstNELLwhocausedtheambiguityand
couldhavealsoavoideditbytheexerciseofalittlemorecare.Thus,Article1377oftheCivilCode,provides:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/may1988/gr_74451_1988.html

4/6

11/8/2016

G.R.No.74451

Art.1377.The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party
whocausedtheobscurity.
2) Contrary to the finding of respondent Appellate Court, the subject check was, initially, not nonnegotiable.
Neitherwasitacrossedcheck.Therubberstampingtransversallonthefaceofthesubjectcheckofthewords
"Nonnegotiable for Payee's Account Only" between two (2) parallel lines, and "Nonnegotiable, Teller No. 4,
August 17, 1976," separately boxed, was made only by the Bank teller in accordance with customary bank
practice,andnotbyNELLasthedrawerofthecheck,andsimplymeantthatthereafterthesamecheckcouldno
longerbenegotiated.
3)NELL'sownactsandomissionsinconnectionwiththedrawing,issuanceanddeliveryofthe16August1976
check, Exhibit "El," and its implicit trust in Casals, were the proximate cause of its own defraudation: (a) The
originalcheckof5August1976,Exhibit"2,"waspayabletotheordersolelyof"EquitableBankingCorporation."
NELL changed the payee in the subject check, Exhibit "E", however, to "Equitable Banking Corporation, A/C of
Casville Enterprises Inc.," upon Casals request. NELL also eliminated both the cash disbursement voucher
accompanyingthecheckwhichread:
Payment for marginal deposit and other expense re opening of L/C for account of Casville
Enterprises.
andthememorandum:
a/cofCasvilleEnterprisesInc.forMarginaldepositandpaymentofbalanceonEstradaPropertyto
be used as security for trust receipt for opening L/C of Garrett Skidders in favor of the Edward
AshvilleJNellCo.
Evidencingtherealnatureofthetransactionwasmerelyaseparatecoveringletter,dated16August1976,which
Casals,sinisterlyenough,suppressedfromtheBankofficialsandteller.
(b) NELL entrusted the subject check and its covering letter, Exhibit "E," to Casals who, obviously, had his own
antagonistic interests to promote. Thus it was that Casals did not purposely present the subject check to the
ExecutiveVicePresidentoftheBank,whowasawareofthenegotiationsregardingtheLetterofCredit,andwho
had rejected the previous check, Exhibit "2," including its three documents because the terms and conditions
requiredbytheBankfortheopeningoftheLetterofCredithadnotyetbeenagreedon.
(c)NELLwasextremelyaccommodatingtoCasals.Thus,tofacilitatethesalestransaction,NELLevenadvanced
themarginaldepositforthegarrettskidder.Itis,indeed,abnormalforthesellerofgoods,thepriceofwhichisto
becoveredbyaletterofcredit,toadvancethemarginaldepositforthesame.
(d) NELL had received three (3) postdated checks all dated 16 November, 1976 from Casvine to secure the
subject check and had accepted the deposit with it of two (2) titles of real properties as collateral for said
postdatedchecks.Thus,NELLwaserroneouslyconfidentthatitsinterestsweresufficientlyprotected.Neverhad
it suspected that those postdated checks would be dishonored, nor that the subject check would be utilized by
Casalsforapurposeotherthanforopeningtheletterofcredit.
In the last analysis, it was NELL's own acts, which put it into the power of Casals and Casville Enterprises to
perpetuatethefraudagainstitand,consequently,itmustbeartheloss(Blondeau,etal.,vs.Nano,etal.,61Phil.
625 [1935] Sta. Maria vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, 89 Phil. 780 [1951] Republic of the
Philippinesvs.EquitableBankingCorporation,L15895,January30,1964,10SCRA8).
...Asbetweentwoinnocentpersons,oneofwhommustsuffertheconsequenceofabreachoftrust,
theonewhomadeitpossiblebyhisactofconfidencemustbeartheloss.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisgrantedandtheDecisionofrespondentAppellateCourt,dated4October1985,and
its majority Resolution, dated 28 April 1986, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, are hereby SET
ASIDE.TheDecisionofthethenCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal,BranchXI.ismodifiedinthatpetitionerEquitable
Banking Corporation is absolved from any and all liabilities to the private respondent, Edward J. Nell Company,
andtheAmendedComplaintagainstpetitionerbankisherebyordereddismissed.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Yap,C.J.,ParasandSarmiento,J.J.,concur.
Padilla,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/may1988/gr_74451_1988.html

5/6

11/8/2016

G.R.No.74451

1Pennedby,JusticeCrisolitoPascualandconcurredinbyJusticesJoseC.Campos,Jr.,Serafin
AshvilleECamilon,andDesiderioP.Jurado.
2WithJusticeDesiderioP.Jurado,dissenting
3Section8....
Wheretheinstrumentispayabletoorder,thepayeemustbenamedorotherwiseindicatedtherein
withreasonablecertainty.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/may1988/gr_74451_1988.html

6/6