Case Digest (G.R. No. 85419)
Facts:
Development Bank of Rizal v. Sima Wei, et al., G.R. No. 85419, March 09, 1993, Supreme Court Second Division, Campos, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Development Bank of Rizal (the Bank) sued respondents Sima Wei and/or Lee Kian Huat, Mary Cheng Uy, Samson Tung, Asian Industrial Plastic Corporation (Plastic Corporation) and Producers Bank of the Philippines furnishing a two-fold complaint filed July 6, 1986: (1) to collect P1,032,450.02 balance on a promissory note executed by Sima Wei on June 9, 1983, and (2) to enforce payment on two China Banking Corporation checks allegedly issued by Sima Wei in favor of the Bank.
The antecedent transactions: on June 9, 1983 Sima Wei executed a promissory note for P1,820,000.00 due June 24, 1983 (32% interest); after partial payments a balance of P1,032,450.02 remained. On November 18, 1983 she purportedly issued two crossed checks payable to the Bank (No. 384934 for P550,000.00 and No. 384935 for P500,000.00) drawn on China Banking Corporation; those checks were not delivered to the Bank. The checks ultimately came into the possession of Lee Kian Huat, who deposited them, without the Bank’s indorsement, into the account of Plastic Corporation at the Balintawak branch of Producers Bank. Mary Cheng Uy, branch manager, on the assurance of Samson Tung (Plastic Corporation president), instructed acceptance and credit to Plastic Corporation despite the checks being crossed and payable to the Bank and lacking its indorsement.
At trial the defendants (except Lee) moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action; the Regional Trial Court granted dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed (CA G.R. CV No. 11980, October 12, 1988). Represented by its Legal Liquidator, the Bank sought review by certiorari under Rule 45, assigning as errors that (1) the Court of Appeals ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Section 13, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court applicable to permit the joinder of the respondents as alternative defendants?
- Does the petitioner Bank have a cause of action against the respondents arising from the two China Banking Corporation checks that were not delivered to the Bank?
- Is respondent Sima Wei nevertheless liable to the Bank on the promissory note despite her contention that she paid ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)