G.R. No. 193250 - Philippine National Bank vs. Tria

Philippine National Bank (PNB) maintained an account for the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) at its MWSS branch (PNB-MWSS).
On September 21, 2001, MWSS opened Current Account (C/A) No. 244-850099-6 with PNB-MWSS, depositing an initial amount of PhP 6,714,621.13 on October 10, 2001.
The account was established to serve as the depository for a loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) meant to finance Contract No. MS-O1C.
Withdrawals from the account required issuance of PNB checks with three independent signatures from MWSS, Maynilad Water Services, Inc. (MWSI), and the contractor, China-Geo Engineering Corporation.

On April 16, 2003, the account became dormant with a balance of PhP 5,397,154.07.
Amelio C. Tria, then Branch Manager of PNB-MWSS, requested a listing of the dormant accounts and even borrowed the physical folders containing MWSS records and that of C/A 244-850099-6.
Tria inquired about irregularities involving manager’s check transactions committed by the former branch accountant, indicating early internal concerns.

On April 22, 2004, MWSS sent a letter-request to PNB-MWSS instructing the deduction of PhP 5,200,000 (plus charges) from C/A 244-850099-6, purportedly with the approval of MWSS’s duly authorized signatories.
Based on the letter-request and accompanying documents—including a Manager’s Check Application Form—the Sales and Service Officer, Agnes F. Bagasani, and Fund Transfer Processor, Edsel B. Francisco, verified the transaction.
Following internal evaluation, Manager’s Check No. 1165848 was prepared and issued in favor of a certain Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes for the amount of PhP 5,200,000.

On April 26, 2004, coinciding with a cash delivery of PhP 8,660,000 to PNB-MWSS, Tria accompanied Atty. Reyes to the PNB-Circle Branch for the encashment of the check.
At PNB-Circle, Tria informed the Sales and Service Officer, George T. Flandez, that the branch (PNB-MWSS) had insufficient cash and that Atty. Reyes was a valued client urgently needing to complete his transaction.
Flandez confirmed the issuance of the check via communication with PNB-MWSS, where Sales and Service Head Geraldine C. Veniegas verified and sent an email confirmation.
During the encashment process, Tria signed the check over a handwritten note identifying him as the “payee identified” and further assisted in counting the cash, actions that raised internal suspicions.

In August 2004, Veniegas noted Tria’s sudden insistence on revising the Minutes of a Meeting—even after his retirement was impending—indicating potential cover-up measures.
On February 2, 2005, MWSS employee Zaida Pulida’s inquiry about the account balance led to the discovery of the debit entry for PhP 5,200,000 and the absence of key documents (duplicate copy of the manager’s check, application form, and letter of authority).
MWSS formally communicated its non-authorization of the withdrawal, demanding restoration of the withdrawn amount and alerting PNB of the irregularity.

Employees of both PNB-MWSS and PNB-Circle (including Veniegas, Bagasani, Francisco, and Flandez) filed separate complaint-affidavits accusing Tria of qualified theft.
In his counter-affidavit, Tria contended that no personal property was taken without PNB’s consent and shifted blame to Flandez for the later stages of the encashment.
The initial investigation by the Assistant City Prosecutor resulted in a Resolution dismissing the charge for qualified theft against Tria, based on the contention that his identification of the payee was not the triggering act for payment.

PNB sought reconsideration from the Office of the City Prosecutor and later filed a petition for review with both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA affirmed prior resolutions dismissing probable cause against Tria and Atty. Reyes/John Doe by highlighting that internal bank procedures appeared to verify the transaction.
PNB questioned the CA’s decision on the basis of alleged grave abuse of discretion, asserting that the evidentiary record revealed collusion and misrepresentation that overcame the internal verifications.

Whether the actions taken by Tria—including his active intervention and misrepresentation during the issuance and encashment of Manager’s Check No. 1165848—constitute the crime of qualified theft.

Did Tria’s role as branch manager and his subsequent steps (such as revising meeting minutes and personally accompanying the payee) evidence grave abuse of confidence?
Was the bank’s internal approval process sufficient to infer collective consent, or did Tria’s actions negate proper authority?

Whether the issuance and encashment of a manager’s check by a bank official, which theoretically signifies the bank’s order to pay its own funds, requires the explicit consent of the bank in every instance.

How does the doctrine that a manager’s check is tantamount to a certified check affect the determination of unauthorized withdrawal?
Can the act of encashment be legally justified if the initiating party (Tria) misrepresented the payee’s identity and omitted necessary verifications?

Whether the omission or unavailability of key supporting documents (such as the letter-request and related approvals) undermines the defense that the withdrawal was authorized by MWSS.

Does the absence of these documents, coupled with the internal anomalies, establish sufficient probable cause to proceed with criminal charges?
To what extent does Tria’s failure to verify the authenticity of the request contribute to his criminal liability?