Case Digest (G.R. No. 107508)
Facts:
Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107508, April 25, 1996, First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) sought review under Rule 45 of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 24776 (April 29, 1992) and its September 16, 1992 denial of reconsideration.A check (No. SN 7‑3666‑223‑3) dated August 7, 1981 for P97,650.00 was issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) payable to F. Abante Marketing, drawn on PNB. On August 11, 1981 F. Abante deposited the check into its savings account with Capitol City Development Bank (Capitol). Capitol deposited the item with Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) which presented it to PNB for clearing. PNB initially cleared the check and PBCom credited Capitol’s account.
On October 19, 1981, PNB returned the check to PBCom and debited PBCom’s account, asserting a “material alteration” — specifically an alteration in the check’s serial number. PBCom debited Capitol, but Capitol could not debit F. Abante because the payee had already withdrawn the funds (October 15, 1981). Capitol demanded re‑credit from PBCom; PBCom sought reimbursement from PNB, which refused.
Capitol sued PBCom in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. PBCom filed a third‑party complaint against PNB for reimbursement/indemnity; PNB filed a fourth‑party complaint against F. Abante. On October 3, 1989 the RTC ruled in favor of Capitol: it ordered PBCom to re‑credit Capitol P97,650.00 plus 12% interest from October 19, 1981; ordered PBCom indemnified by PNB for whatever it pays; ordered PNB indemnified by F. Abante for whatever it pays PBCom; and awarded P10,000 attorneys’ fees to Capitol (to be reimbursed through indemnity chains). PBCom and PNB’s counterclaims were dismissed.
On appeal the CA, by decision dated April 29, 1992, modified the RTC: it exempted PBCom from liability for attorneys’ fees, ordered PNB to honor the check for P97,650.00 with interest as declared by the trial court, and ordered PNB to pay Capitol attorneys’ fees of P10,000; after PNB honors the check PBCom was to re‑credit Capitol’s account. PNB’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on September 16, 1992.
PNB then filed the present petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), raising four issues: (1) whether alteration of the serial number is a material alteration under the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031); (2) whether a MEC certific...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the alteration of the serial number of a check a material alteration under the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031, Sec. 125)?
- May the certification of the Ministry of Education and Culture be given weight in evidence where its author was not presented to authenticate it?
- May a drawee bank that failed to return a check within the twenty‑four (24) hour clearing period recover the value of the check from the collecting bank when the alleged ground for return is tampering?
- May attorneys’ fees be awarded against a party (PNB) in the absence of malice or ill will where the trial cour...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)