Title
Equitable Banking Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 74451
Decision Date
May 25, 1988
NELL advanced funds for a letter of credit, but a check intended for the bank was misused by Casals. The Supreme Court ruled the Bank not liable, citing NELL’s ambiguous check and negligence as the cause of the fraud.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 74451)

Case Background and Transaction Details

This petition for review on certiorari arises from a contractual dispute between Equitable Banking Corporation (the "Bank") and Edward J. Nell Co. ("NELL"). The initial dispute stems from a sale of two garrett skidders initiated in 1975 by Liberato V. Casals, representing Casville Enterprises, Inc., to NELL. Casals, after negotiating payment terms that included an irrevocable domestic letter of credit in favor of NELL, provided checks as part of the payment process.

Allegations of Fault and Liability

As the transaction progressed, a check issued by NELL, amounting to P427,300.00, was made payable to "EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION A/C of CASVILLE ENTERPRISES INC." Despite the explicit restriction, described as "for payee's account only," the Bank credited this amount to Casville's account, which resulted in a financial loss for NELL when the checks given by Casville as collateral were dishonored due to a closed account.

Lower Court Judgments

The Trial Court found the Bank liable for the erroneous crediting of the check to Casville’s account, holding that the Bank’s actions led to NELL’s defraudation. NELL was awarded the amount of the check plus interest and attorney's fees, with the court emphasizing the Bank's responsibility for its employee’s oversight.

Appellate Court Rulings

The Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling but later articulated that the ambiguity presented by the check's wording, which involved two potential payees, could lead to confusion regarding its proper endorsement. The ambiguity, according to the court, should be interpreted against NELL, as it was the source of such ambiguity in drafting the check.

Legal Analysis of Responsibility and Mistake

The Bank argued that the check was ambiguous and that it was not initially a non-negotiable instrument before it was improperly marked as such by the teller, who acted contrary to established banking protocols. NELL’s reliance on Casals and the failure to maintain oversight over the check’s

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.