Traders Royal Bank vs. RPN, Inc.
Traders Royal Bank vs. RPN, Inc.
*
G.R. No. 138510. October 10, 2002.
______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
609
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178bfc4ba282f023122003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
4/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 390
amount of the check to a third person who has forged the signature
of the payee, the loss falls on such bank who cashed the check.—In
the instant case, the 3 checks were payable to the BIR. It was
established, however, that said checks were never delivered or
paid to the payee BIR but were in fact presented for payment by
some unknown persons who, in order to receive payment therefor,
forged the name of the payee. Despite this fraud, petitioner TRB
paid the 3 checks in the total amount of P9,790,716.87. Petitioner
ought to have known that, where a check is drawn payable to the
order of one person and is presented for payment by another and
purports upon its face to have been duly indorsed by the payee of
the check, it is the primary duty of petitioner to know that the
check was duly indorsed by the original payee and, where it pays
the amount of the check to a third person who has forged the
signature of the payee, the loss falls upon petitioner who cashed
the check. Its only remedy is against the person to whom it paid
the money.
Same; Same; Same; Crossed Checks; The crossing of a check
should put a bank on guard; The effects of a crossed check are that
(a) the check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank,
(b) the check may be negotiated only once to one who has an
account with a bank, and, (c) the act of crossing the check serves as
a warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a
definite purpose so that he must inquire if he has received the
check pursuant to that purpose, otherwise, he is not a holder in
due course.—It should be noted further that one of the subject
checks was crossed. The crossing of one of the subject checks
should have put petitioner on guard; it was duty-bound to
ascertain the indorser’s title to the check or the nature of his
possession. Petitioner should have known the effects of a crossed
check: (a) the check may not be encashed but only deposited in the
bank; (b) the check may be negotiated only once to one who has an
account with a bank and (c) the act of crossing the check serves as
a warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a
definite purpose so that he must inquire if he has received the
check pursuant to that purpose, otherwise, he is not a holder in
due course. By encashing in favor of unknown persons checks
which were on their face payable to the BIR, a government agency
which can only act only through its agents, petitioner did so at its
peril and must suffer the consequences of the unauthorized or
wrongful endorsement. In this light, petitioner TRB cannot
exculpate itself from liability by claiming that respondent
networks were themselves negligent.
610
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178bfc4ba282f023122003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
4/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 390
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178bfc4ba282f023122003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
4/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 390
CORONA, J.:
Petitioner seeks
1
the review and prays for the reversal of
the Decision of April 30, 1999 of Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 54656, the dispositive portion of which reads:
______________
612
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178bfc4ba282f023122003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
4/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 390
the three (3) managers checks (Nos. 30652, 30650 and 30796)
intended as payment for their taxes were never delivered nor paid
to the BIR by Mrs. Vera. Instead, the checks were presented for
payment by unknown persons to defendant Security Bank and
Trust Company (SBTC), Taytay Branch as shown by the bank’s
routing symbol transit number (BRSTN 01140027) or clearing
code stamped on the reverse sides of the checks.
Meanwhile, for failure of the plaintiffs to settle their
obligations, the BIR issued warrants of levy, distraint and
garnishment against them. Thus, they were constrained to enter
into a compromise and paid BIR P18,962,225.25 in settlement of
their unpaid deficiency taxes.
Thereafter, plaintiffs sent letters to both defendants,
demanding that the amounts covered by the checks be reimbursed
or credited to
3
their account. The defendants refused, hence, the
instant suit.
1) To plaintiff RPN-9—P4,155,835.00
2) To Plaintiff IBC-13—P3,949,406.12
3) To Plaintiff BBC-2—P1,685,475.72
plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of this case in court.
______________
613
______________
615
______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178bfc4ba282f023122003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
4/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 390
7 Bataan Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Inc. vs. CA, 230 SCRA 643
(1994).
8 Insular Drug Co. vs. National, 58 Phil. 685 (1933).
9 PNB vs. CA, 315 SCRA 309 (1999).
616
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178bfc4ba282f023122003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
4/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 390
617
______________
618
Judgment modified.
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178bfc4ba282f023122003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
4/11/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 390
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178bfc4ba282f023122003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12