Title
Supreme Court
Philippine National Bank vs. Tria
Case
G.R. No. 193250
Decision Date
Apr 25, 2012
Former PNB manager Tria facilitated unauthorized withdrawal of PhP 5.2M via fraudulent manager’s check, leading to Supreme Court ruling of qualified theft, reversing lower courts’ dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 193250)

Summary of Facts

On October 10, 2001, the MWSS opened Current Account No. 244-850099-6 at PNB-MWSS with an initial deposit to fund a loan from the Asian Development Bank. The account required triple signatures for withdrawals, one from MWSS, one from Maynilad Water Services, Inc., and one from the contractor, China-Geo Engineering Corporation. By April 16, 2003, the account became dormant with a remaining balance of PhP 5,397,154.07. Tria engaged in activities related to this dormant account, ultimately leading to a request for a withdrawal of PhP 5,200,000, ostensibly approved by MWSS.

Withdrawal Transaction

On April 22, 2004, a letter-request appeared from MWSS directing PNB to deduct PhP 5,200,000 from the account, allegedly signed by authorized MWSS representatives. Bank officials, including Sales and Service Officer Agnes F. Bagasani and Fund Transfer Processor Edsel B. Francisco, processed the transaction, issuing Manager's Check No. 1165848 in favor of Atty. Reyes. Tria confirmed its authenticity when it was presented for encashment at another PNB branch. He assured the encashment officer that there were no funds available at PNB-MWSS but backed Atty. Reyes' identity as a valued client.

Discovery of Fraud

In February 2005, MWSS discovered the unauthorized withdrawal after an incongruence was noted relating to the manager’s check that was purportedly encashed without their consent. Upon investigatory measures, it became evident that the withdrawal had been unauthorized as the necessary documents for the transaction were missing, and further verification with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines revealed no record of Atty. Reyes as a member.

Initial Judicial Proceedings

PNB commenced its investigation and accused Tria of qualified theft, leading to several complaint-affidavits from bank employees detailing the transaction's circumstances. Tria provided a counter-affidavit denying the accusations, asserting that there had been no theft, intention to gain unlawfully, nor abuse of confidence. His defense centered on the assertion that the responsibility for the check encashment lay with the approving bank officer rather than himself.

Resolutions by the Prosecutor's Office

Despite the evidence presented by PNB, the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office determined that evidence was insufficient to charge Tria with qualified theft. The resolution highlighted that the encashment relied primarily on the verification performed by PNB services, concluding the absence of probable cause against Tria. PNB’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting an appeal to the Department of Justice, which also dismissed PNB's petition.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals upheld the Department of Justice's conclusions, asserting that PNB had not sufficiently demonstrated probable cause against Tria or Atty. Reyes. The appellate court concluded that Tria's identification of the payee did not constitute sufficient grounds for criminal liability, emphasizing that the encashment by PNB employees was verified independently and cited the lack of consent for the transaction.

Supreme Court Ruling

Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was determined that the Court of Appeals had overlooked critical factual elements related to the circumstances of the check's issuance and encashment, leading to a flawed conclusion regarding consent. The Supreme Court emphasized that mere identification b

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.