Case Summary (G.R. No. 190432)
Key Dates
- Complaint filed: March 23, 2004
- RTC dismissal Order: January 30, 2008
- RTC denial of reconsideration: November 23, 2009
- Supreme Court decision: April 25, 2017
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution
- Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031)
- Rules of Court, Rules 16 and 33
- Relevant jurisprudence:
• Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals (1992)
• Development Bank of Rizal v. Sima Wei (1993)
• Bank of America NT&SA v. Court of Appeals (2003)
• Pamaran v. Bank of Commerce (2016)
• PNB v. Spouses Rivera (2016)
Background Facts
Between September 1996 and July 1998, ten checks and sixteen demand drafts totaling ₱3,785,257.38 were issued to Charlie Go. Each bore the annotation “endorsed by PCI Bank, Ayala Branch, All Prior Endorsement And/Or Lack of Endorsement Guaranteed.” Although payable to Go, none reached him. Instead, Raymond Keh opened bank accounts in Go’s name at PCI Bank, deposited the instruments, withdrew proceeds, then absconded. Keh was convicted of theft but did not satisfy any judgment.
Procedural History
ABI and Go sued PCI Bank for payment, reimbursement, or restitution. PCI Bank answered, asserting lack of cause of action among other defenses, and counterclaimed. Without conducting trial, the RTC granted PCI Bank’s demurrer to petitioners’ evidence, dismissed the complaint for “lack of cause of action,” and denied respondent’s counterclaims. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. PCI Bank did not appeal; petitioners sought review under Rule 45.
Issues Presented
Whether the complaint stated a cause of action against PCI Bank despite:
- Alleged non-delivery of instruments to the payee;
- The bank’s assertion that only the drawers or purchasers of the drafts could be liable;
- The bank’s special defense and demurrer to evidence based on “lack of cause of action.”
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Payee status and right to payment were sufficiently alleged.
- Delivery may be actual or constructive; Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law presumes valid delivery.
- Lack of delivery is a defense personal to the drawer, not the collecting bank.
- The bank guaranteed all prior endorsements and was estopped from denying liability.
- Dismissal before trial based solely on pleadings and photocopies was improper; no evidence was received to support the bank’s demurrer.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Admission that instruments never reached the payee deprives petitioners of holder status and any cause of action.
- Liability lies with the drawers or purchasers of the demand drafts, not the collecting bank as a mere presenter.
- Development Bank of Rizal v. Sima Wei supports dismissing claims where the payee never acquired rights through delivery.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Distinction between “failure to state” and “lack of” cause of action:
- Failure to state is tested on the pleadings before any evidence;
- Lack of cause of action (demurrer to evidence) is only after the plaintiff rests.
The RTC erred by dismissing at the pleadings stage without evidence or fact-finding.
Procedural prerequisite:
A demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 must await the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. The order dismissing before any trial contradicted Rule 33 and prior rulings (Bank of America; Pamaran; Manila Banking).Delivery presumption and prima facie cause of action:
Section 16 presumes valid delivery when the instrument is out of the signatory’s possession. Petitioners alleged endorsement guarantee
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 190432)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners: Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI), a Philippine corporation; and Charlie S. Go (Go), ABI’s Assistant Vice President for Finance at the time of filing.
- Respondent: Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc.), a banking institution organized under Philippine law.
- Petition: Rule 45 petition for review of the RTC of Makati City’s Orders in Civil Case No. 04-336, which dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action and denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- RTC Orders:
• Order dated 30 January 2008 (Branch 139, Judge Benjamin T. Pozon) – Dismissal of Complaint and denial of counterclaims for lack of cause of action.
• Order dated 23 November 2009 (Branch 59, Judge Winlove Dumayas) – Denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Antecedent Facts
- Instruments: Between September 1996 and July 1998, ten (10) checks and sixteen (16) demand drafts totaling ₱3,785,257.38 were issued in the name of Charlie S. Go.
- Endorsement Guarantee: All instruments bore the notation “endorsed by PCI Bank, Ayala Branch, All Prior Endorsement And/Or Lack of Endorsement Guaranteed.”
- Crossing: Except for demand drafts issued by the Lucena City and Ozamis branches of Allied Bank, all instruments were crossed.
- Disposition of Instruments: None reached the payee Go. They were misappropriated by Raymond U. Keh, ABI’s Sales Accounting Manager, who opened accounts in Go’s name, deposited the instruments, and withdrew the proceeds.
- Criminal Proceedings: Keh was convicted of theft and ordered to pay the instrument values but fled the country before collection.
- Demand for Payment: On 19 November 2003, Go demanded payment, reimbursement, or restitution from the bank, relying on Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals (284 Phil. 615, 1992).
Complaint and Responsive Pleadings
- Complaint (23 March 2004):
• Sought payment of the instrument values from respondent.
• Alleged wrongful conversion and entitlement under “moneys had and received.” - Answer with Counterclaims (7 May 2004):
• Raised lack of cause of action as sp