Case Digest (G.R. No. 177526)
Facts:
Philippine Savings Bank v. Chowking Food Corporation, G.R. No. 177526, July 04, 2008, Third Division, Reyes, R.T., J., writing for the Court.Between March 15 and August 10, 1989, Joe Kuan Food Corporation issued five PSBank checks in favor of Chowking Food Corporation totaling P556,981.86. On their respective due dates Chowking’s acting accounting manager, Rino T. Manzano, endorsed and presented the checks for encashment at PSBank’s Bustos branch. The checks were cashed despite containing only Manzano’s endorsement and lacking signatures of Chowking’s other authorized signatories; Manzano subsequently absconded with and misappropriated the proceeds.
Chowking demanded reimbursement from PSBank; when the bank refused, Chowking filed Civil Case No. 94-50776 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 5, impleading PSBank, its president Antonio S. Abacan, and Bustos branch head Erlinda O. Santos. PSBank and Santos filed cross-claims and third-party complaints against Manzano; service on Manzano proved ineffective and his third-party complaint was eventually archived; Manzano was later declared in default after publication of summons.
On August 24, 1998 the RTC found for Chowking and ordered PSBank and Santos jointly and severally to pay P556,981.86 with interest, attorney’s fees, exemplary damages and alleged unrealized profits; claims against Abacan were dismissed. On January 11, 1999 the RTC granted reconsideration and amended its decision to dismiss Chowking’s complaint against PSBank and Santos and instead ordered Manzano to reimburse Chowking. Chowking appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On January 31, 2007 the CA (Bruselas, Jr., with Reyes and Santiago-Lagman, JJ., concurring) granted Chowking’s appeal, set aside the RTC’s amended order, and reinstated the RTC decision of August 24, 1998, deleting only attorney’s fees, exemplary damages and the claimed unrealized profits; the CA held Santos negligent and PSBank solidarily liable under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code and relevant banking pre...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is respondent estopped from asserting its claim against petitioner?
- Was respondent’s negligence the proximate cause of its loss, thereby absolving petitioner from l...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)