Case Summary (G.R. No. 248049)
Factual Background and Procedural History
A check amounting to P97,650.00 dated August 7, 1981, was issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture payable to F. Abante Marketing. The check was drawn on Philippine National Bank. F. Abante Marketing, a client of Capitol City Development Bank, deposited the check which went through PBCom and was cleared by PNB. PBCom credited Capitol City Development Bank’s account for the amount, but on October 19, 1981, PNB returned the check alleging a "material alteration" in the check’s serial number and debited PBCom’s account accordingly. PBCom debited Capitol’s account but Capitol could not debit F. Abante Marketing’s account because the funds had already been withdrawn. Capitol demanded reimbursement, and after unsuccessful demands, filed a civil case against PBCom, which then filed a third-party complaint against PNB seeking indemnity. PNB likewise filed a fourth-party complaint against F. Abante Marketing.
Issues Presented
- Whether the alteration of the serial number of a check constitutes a material alteration under the Negotiable Instruments Law.
- Whether a certification issued by a Ministry official regarding the check’s authenticity can be given evidentiary weight without presentation of the certifier as a witness.
- Whether a drawee bank may recover from the collecting bank the value of a check when it failed to return the check within the 24-hour clearing period due to alleged tampering.
- Whether attorney's fees can be imposed on petitioner PNB absent malice or ill will.
Legal Analysis on Material Alteration of Serial Number
The petitioner bank relied on Section 125 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, which defines a material alteration as any unauthorized change that affects the instrument’s effect, listing items such as the date, sum payable, parties, etc. Petitioner argued that any change altering the effect is material, citing specifically Section 125(f), which includes any change or addition that alters the instrument’s effect.
However, the Court clarified that a material alteration concerns changes to essential requisites enumerated in Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law: writing and signature, unconditional promise to pay, sum certain in money, payable on demand or at fixed time, payable to order or bearer, and the drawee’s identity.
The serial number of a check is not a requisite for negotiability under Section 1. Hence, alteration of the serial number does not affect the relations between parties, the drawer, drawee, payee, or amount payable. As such, it is classified as an immaterial or innocent alteration, which does not void the instrument but may only limit enforcement according to the original tenor.
The Court further held that the issuer of the check, the Ministry of Education and Culture, was clearly identified by name on the check itself, making the serial number a redundant identifier that does not affect the check’s integrity or liability. Consequently, PNB could not refuse to honor the check based solely on the altered serial number.
Evidentiary Weight of the Ministry's Certification
PNB submitted a certification from Minrado C. Batonghinog, Cashier III of MEC, claiming that the check was not issued nor released by the Ministry and that the serial number was not among those requisitioned. However, the certification’s author was not presented in court to authenticate the document or be cross-examined.
The Court agreed with the trial court’s refusal to give weight to this certification due to lack of proper proof of authenticity, emphasizing basic rules of evidence requiring identification or acknowledgment by the purported signatory or competent witness. Moreover, since the alteration was deemed immaterial, the certification did not affect the check’s negotiability.
Drawee Bank's Right to Recover After Non-Return within Clearing Period
Since the Court found no material alteration warranting refusal to honor the check, PNB’s failure to return the check within the 24-hour clearing period negated any right to recover the value from PBCom. The check was negotiable and valid; thus, PNB was obliged to honor the check and pay the amount due.
Award of Attorney's Fees
The award of attorney’s fees of P10,000.00 to Capitol from PBCom and by extension from PNB was questioned. The trial
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 248049)
Facts of the Case
- A check numbered 7-3666-223-3 dated August 7, 1981, for P97,650.00 was issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture (now the Department of Education, Culture and Sports - DECS), payable to F. Abante Marketing.
- The check was drawn against the Philippine National Bank (PNB), the petitioner.
- F. Abante Marketing, a client of Capitol City Development Bank (Capitol), deposited the check into its savings account with Capitol on August 11, 1981.
- Capitol deposited the check with the Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom), which then forwarded the check to petitioner (PNB) for clearing.
- PNB initially cleared the check as good, and PBCom credited Capitol’s account with the amount.
- On October 19, 1981, PNB returned the check to PBCom and debited PBCom’s account, citing a "material alteration" in the check number.
- PBCom then debited Capitol’s account for the amount and returned the check to PNB, who again returned it to PBCom.
- Capitol could not debit F. Abante Marketing’s account as the latter had already withdrawn the amount by October 15, 1981.
- Capitol demanded clarification and re-crediting from PBCom, who sought the same from PNB; demands remained unheeded.
- Capitol filed a civil suit against PBCom, which filed a third-party complaint against PNB for reimbursement/indemnity.
- PNB filed a fourth-party complaint against F. Abante Marketing.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila rendered judgment ordering:
- PBCom to reimburse Capitol for P97,650.00 plus 12% interest.
- PNB to indemnify PBCom for whatever amount PBCom pays to Capitol.
- F. Abante Marketing to indemnify PNB for whatever amount PNB pays PBCom.
- PBCom to pay Capitol P10,000.00 for attorney’s fees, and have reimbursement rights from PNB; PNB to be reimbursed by F. Abante Marketing for attorney’s fees.
- Counterclaims of PBCom and PNB were dismissed.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC ruling by exempting PBCom from attorney’s fees liability and ordering PNB to honor the check with interest and pay Capitol attorney’s fees of P10,000.00; PBCom was to re-credit Capitol after PNB honored the check.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- PNB filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues Presented
- Whether the alteration of the serial number of a check constitutes a material alteration under the Negotiable Instruments Law.
- Whether the certification issued by the Ministry of Education can be given evidentiary weight.
- Whether a drawee bank that fails to return a check within the 24-hour clearing period may recover the value of the check from the collecting bank.
- Whether PNB may be held liable for attorney’s fees absent malice or ill will.
Legal Framework on Material Alteration (Negotiable Instruments Law)
- Section 125 of the Negotiable Instruments Law defines a material alteration as any unauthorized chan