Title
Asia Brewery, Inc. vs. Equitable PCI Bank
Case
G.R. No. 190432
Decision Date
Apr 25, 2017
Asia Brewery sued Equitable PCI Bank over stolen checks, alleging liability for forged endorsements. RTC dismissed for lack of cause of action; Supreme Court reversed, ruling dismissal premature and remanding for trial.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 190432)

Facts:

Asia Brewery, Inc. and Charlie S. Go, G.R. No. 190432, April 25, 2017, the Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioners filed a complaint for payment, reimbursement, or restitution with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (Civil Case No. 04-336) on 23 March 2004 against respondent Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco de Oro–EPCI, Inc.). Petitioners alleged that between September 1996 and July 1998 ten checks and sixteen demand drafts payable to Go—totaling P3,785,257.38—were endorsed and deposited by an Asia Brewery employee, Raymond U. Keh, who posed as Go, opened accounts at respondent, and withdrew the proceeds; Keh was later convicted for theft but absconded.

Respondent filed its Answer with counterclaims on 7 May 2004 and raised among its affirmative defenses lack of cause of action and nondelivery to the payee. The parties exchanged pleadings and briefing on the defenses, and the RTC set the affirmative defenses for hearing. Instead of conducting further proceedings or trial on the merits, the RTC issued two Orders (dated 30 January 2008 and 23 November 2009) dismissing petitioners’ Complaint for lack of cause of action and denying petitioners’ motions for reconsideration; the RTC likewise denied respondent’s counterclaims. In reaching that result the RTC relied on Development Bank of Rizal v. Sima Wei and distinguished Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals, finding the circumstances did not show negligence by the collecting bank.

Only petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 45 (the petition was miscaptioned “Petition for Certiorari” in the rollo). Petitioners asked...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Was the RTC’s dismissal of the Complaint for lack of cause of action proper prior to trial?
  • Did the Complaint, on its face, state a cause of action against the bank despite allegations that the instruments never reac...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.