Title
Supreme Court
Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 112214
Decision Date
Jun 18, 1998
A.T. Diaz Realty issued a P60,000 check to Ricardo Lorenzo's agent, Crispulo Arboleda, for land purchase. Diaz ordered a stop payment, but SBTC mistakenly encashed it. SBTC sued Arboleda and Amador Libongco to recover the funds, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arboleda and Libongco, stating they were entitled to the payment and SBTC was not liable due to a clause in the stop payment order.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161872)

Relevant Facts

In 1983, A.T. Diaz Realty issued a P60,000 check in favor of Ricardo Lorenzo—represented by Crispulo Arboleda—to pay for part of the purchase price of land. The funds were also intended to cover capital gains tax and reimburse Servando Solomon for delinquent real estate taxes. After initiating a stop payment order on the check due to issues with reimbursement, Arboleda cashed the check despite the order, leading to a series of events culminating in this legal dispute.

Legal Proceedings and Decisions

The trial court ruled against the Petitioner, suggesting that Arboleda was entitled to keep the funds as he was owed a commission and because no valid receipts were provided to confirm payment of the capital gains tax. The decision claimed that the transaction was completed before the stop payment order was issued, and thus, the bank should not have recredited A.T. Diaz Realty.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision. They maintained that the stop payment order was a misrepresentation since it cited an "incomplete transaction." The appellate court noted that the bank's liability was mitigated due to its internal agreements stating that it would not be liable for payments made through inadvertent errors.

Petitioner's Arguments

The Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the lower court's ruling and failing to recognize Arboleda's obligation to return the funds. The Petitioner relied on Article 2154 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that if a payment is made without legal right, the recipient must return it. However, the Respondents contested the claim, asserting no contractual relationship existed between the Petitioner and them.

Analysis of Defenses

The Supreme Court underscored that there was no valid contractual relationship that allowed the Petitioner to claim the funds from Arboleda, as he had not been notified of the stop payment order effectively. The check was issued by Anita Diaz, which meant that any liability lay with her rather than the Petitioner. The Supreme Court also noted that a

...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.