Case Digest (G.R. No. 173259)
Facts:
Philippine National Bank v. F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc., G.R. No. 173259 (related G.R. No. 173278), July 2, 2012, Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. (FFCCI) maintained a combo (savings/current) account and a dollar savings account with Philippine National Bank (PNB) at its Timog Avenue Branch, with Felipe Cruz (President) and Angelita A. Cruz (Secretary-Treasurer) as the authorized signatories. Both signatories traveled to the United States in March 1995 and were absent when, on March 27 and April 24, 1995, applications for two large manager’s/cashier’s checks allegedly bearing Felipe’s signature — P9,950,000.00 payable to Gene B. Sangalang and P3,260,500.31 payable to Paul Bautista — were presented to and approved by PNB and the amounts debited from FFCCI’s combo account.
Upon Angelita’s return she reviewed monthly statements (February–August 1995), discovered the large debits, and claimed they were unauthorized and fraudulent. FFCCI demanded restoration of the amounts; PNB refused. FFCCI sued PNB and its accountant, Aurea Caparas, alleging fraud and seeking damages. PNB answered that it exercised due diligence, that standard procedures and signature comparisons were followed, and that FFCCI’s delay in examining statements and its conduct in entrusting Caparas were proximate causes of the loss.
At trial the Regional Trial Court (Manila, Branch 46) found both parties negligent: FFCCI negligent for clothing Caparas with apparent authority, effectively waiving the two-signature rule, and for delay in notifying the bank; PNB negligent for failing to personally verify the legitimacy of the large withdrawals and thus having the last clear chance to prevent the loss. The trial court ordered PNB to pay the full P13,210,500.31 plus interest.
On January 31, 2006 the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 81349 affirmed with modification, holding PNB liable but apportioning damages 60% to PNB and 40% to FFCCI on grounds of PNB’s failure to follow signature-verification procedure (notably the absence of the bank verifier’s signature) and FFCCI’s contributory negligence in entrusting Caparas and delaying notification. FFCCI sought rev...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding PNB negligent and holding it liable for the greater portion of the loss arising from the unauthorized d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)