This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CABILZO Case Digest
METROBANK vs. CABILZO G.R. No. 154469 December 6, 2006 510 SCRA 259 FACTS: On 12 November 1994, Cabilzo issued a Metrobank Check No. 985988, payable to “CASH” and postdated on 24 November 1994 in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1, 000.00). The check was drawn against Cabilzo’s Account with Metrobank Pasong Tamo Branch under Current Account No. 618044873-3 and was paid by Cabilzo to a certain Mr. Marquez, as his sales commission. Subsequently, the check was presented to Westmont Bank for payment. Westmont Bank, in turn, indorsed the check to Metrobank for appropriate clearing. After the entries thereon were examined, including the availability of funds and the authenticity of the signature of the drawer, Metrobank cleared the check for encashment in accordance with the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC) Rules. On 16 November 1994, Cabilzo’s representative was at Metrobank Pasong Tamo Branch to make some transaction when he was asked by bank personnel if Cabilzo had issued a check in the amount of P91, 000.00 to which the former replied in the negative. On the afternoon of the same date, Cabilzo himself called Metrobank to reiterate that he did not issue a check in the amount of P91, 000.00 and requested that the questioned check be returned to him for verification, to which Metrobank complied. Upon receipt of the check, Cabilzo discovered that Metrobank Check No. 985988 which he issued on 12 November 1994 in the amount of P1, 000.00 was altered to P91, 000.00 and the date 24 November 1994 was changed to 14 November 1994.Hence, Cabilzo demanded that Metrobank re-credit the amount of P91, 000.00 to his account. Metrobank, however, refused reasoning that it has to refer the matter first to its Legal Division for appropriate action. Repeated verbal demands followed but Metrobank still failed to re-credit the amount of P91, 000.00 to Cabilzo’s account
On 30 June 1995, Cabilzo, thru counsel, finally sent a letter-demand to Metrobank for the payment of P90, 000.00, after deducting the original value of the check in the amount of P1, 000.00. Such written demand notwithstanding, Metrobank still failed or refused to comply with its obligation. Consequently, Cabilzo instituted a civil action for damages against Metrobank before the RTC of Manila, Branch 13. In his Complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 9575651, Renato D. Cabilzo v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Cabilzo prayed that in addition to his claim for reimbursement, actual and moral damages plus costs of the suit be awarded in his favor.
ISSUE: Whether equitable estoppel can be appreciated in favor of petitioner HELD: The degree of diligence required of a reasonable man in the exercise of his tasks and the performance of his duties has been faithfully complied with by Cabilzo. In fact, he was wary enough that he filled with asterisks the spaces between and after the amounts, not only those stated in words, but also those in numerical figures, in order to prevent any fraudulent insertion, but unfortunately, the check was still successfully altered, indorsed by the collecting bank, and cleared by the drawee bank, and encashed by the perpetrator of the fraud, to the damage and prejudice of Cabilzo.
Metrobank cannot asseverate that Cabilzo was negligent and this negligence was the proximate cause of the loss in the absence of even a scintilla proof to buttress such claim. . must suffer a loss. misleading. Metrobank’s representation that it is an innocent party is flimsy and evidently. it must be borne by the one whose erroneous conduct.Metrobank cannot lightly impute that Cabilzo was negligent and is therefore prevented from asserting his rights under the doctrine of equitable estoppel when the facts on record are bare of evidence to support such conclusion. Negligence is not presumed but must be proven by the one who alleges it. which petitioner failed to. each guiltless of any intentional or moral wrong. The doctrine of equitable estoppel states that when one of the two innocent persons. Metrobank’s reliance on this dictum is misplaced. either by omission or commission. At the same time. For one. was the cause of injury.
Respondent to pay petitioner the balance of her outstanding loans of P1.069.00 plus 14.34 and P203. SABENIANO Case Digest CITIBANK vs. attorney’s fees of P200. Citibank exercised its right to set-off respondent’s outstanding loans with her deposits and money. . The remittance of US $149. October 16. null and void.000.99 from respondent’s Citibank-Geneva account is declared illegal. exemplary damages for P250.5% per annum 2.000.632. on the other hand to pay Citibank her indebtedness.CITIBANK vs. RTC declared the act illegal. 3.897. 2006 FACTS: Petitioner Citibank is a banking corporation duly authorized under the laws of the USA to do commercial banking activities n the Philippines. ISSUE: Whether petitioner may exercise its right to set-off respondent’s loans with her deposits and money in Citibank-Geneva RULING: Petition is partly granted with modification. Sabeniano was a client of both Petitioners Citibank and FNCB Finance. 156132. Citibank to pay respondent moral damages of P300.150. 1. Petitioner alleged that respondent obtained several loans from the former and in default.847.No.R. null and void and ordered the petitioner to refund the amount plus interest. CA affirmed the decision entirely in favor of the respondent. SABENIANO G. 4. Respondent filed a complaint against petitioners claiming to have substantial deposits.40 inclusive off interest. the proceeds of which were supposedly deposited automatically and directly to respondent’s account with the petitioner Citibank and that allegedly petitioner refused to despite repeated demands. ordering Sabeniano. Citibank is ordered to return to respondent the principal amount of P318.000. thus Citibank is ordered to refund said amount in Philippine currency or its equivalent using exchange rate at the time of payment.
NUGUID vs. petitioner demanded payment of the sums above-mentioned. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it the eradication of civil liability.000. Subsequently. petitioner can deposit the checks. the latter lent the former her money. A person acquitted of a criminal charge. The basic principle in civil liability ex delicto is that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. every month. HELD: No.00.000. is not necessarily civilly free because the quantum of proof required in criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) . Thereafter.000. unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in the final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.NUGUID vs. crime being one of the five sources of obligations under the Civil Code. Thus.00. As security for the P1. she was persuaded to release P100.00 to the accused until the total amount reached P1. but respondent refused to acknowledge the indebtedness. The trial court convicted the defendant. NICDAO G. respondent gave petitioner open dated checks with the assurance that if the entire amount is not paid within one (1) year. a crime has a dual character: (1) as an offense against the State because of the disturbance of the social order and (2) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime unless it involves the crime of treason. thus acquitting Nicdao. espionage. petitioner deposited all aforementioned checks in the bank totaling P1. From the standpoint of its effects. CLARITA S. The checks were all returned for having been drawn against insufficient funds. whether done intentionally or negligently and whether or not punishable by law.00. What gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation of everyone to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission.150. The criminal complaints allege that respondent and her husband approached petitioner and asked her if they could borrow money to settle some obligations. rebellion. but to no avail. NICDAO Case Digest EMMA P. No. Petitioner now contends that the civil liability of the defendant was not extinguished by the acquittal. however. Hence.000. a complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed against the respondent. ISSUE: Whether respondent remains civilly liable to petitioner despite her acquittal. Having been convinced by them and because of the close relationship of respondent to petitioner. 150785 September 15. Nicdao is charged with having committed the crime of Violation of BP 22 in fourteen (14) counts. The CA reversed the decision. A verbal and written demand was made upon respondent to pay the amount represented by the bounced checks.R. contempt and others (wherein no civil liability arises on the part of the offender either because there are no damages to be compensated or there is no private person injured by the crime. 2006 FACTS: Accused Clarita S.150.150.
is greater than that required for civil liability (mere preponderance of evidence). If the acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt. Acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases: (1) where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases. . The statements of the appellate court leave no doubt that respondent. the accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act complained of. In order to be completely free from civil liability. had already been completely relieved of civil liability. a person's acquittal must be based on the fact that he did not commit the offense. In this petition. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the offense charged. we find no reason to ascribe any civil liability to respondent. her supposed civil liability had already been fully satisfied and extinguished by payment. who was acquitted from the charges against her. As found by the CA. (2) where the court declared the accused's liability is not criminal but only civil in nature and (3) where the civil liability does not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act of which the accused was acquitted.
After due trial. the present case. ISSUE: Whether petitioner is guilty of estafa under paragraph 2 (d). PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Case Digest ALFONSO FIRAZA vs. Damage to payee. petitioner issued the check to induce private complainant to execute the deed of sale in his favor.” Meanwhile. Hence. 2. sold the subdivided lots. Private complainant had already transferred the title to the property to petitioner who subsequently subdivided the land and started selling the subdivided portions of the land. Daraga. despite several demands. Article 315 of the revised Penal Code. the trial court convicted petitioner and ruled that petitioner knew t the time of the issuance of the check that it was not funded. Article 315 of the RPC are the following: 1. and retained the unsold lots. the Philippine National Bank (PNB) dishonored the check by reason of “account closed. Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued. petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge.FIRAZA vs.R. In an agreement dated 13 May 1994. As found by the Court of Appeals. petitioner failed to pay the value of the dishonored check. 395532-S for payment. All the elements are present in this case. The trial court did not accept petitioner’s defense that the private complainant knew that said check was not funded and that the same was issued only as a guaranty for the payment of the balance of the purchase price of the land. 2007 FACTS: Henry Samar. (private complainant) was the owner of a parcel land located in Peñafrancia. the decision was appealed by the Court of Appeals. It was established that private complainant would not have parted with his property if he knew that the checks were not funded. No. The damage suffered by private complainant had also been established. Yet. Upon his arraignment. Jr. petitioner failed to pay the amount of the dishonored check. and 3. Albay. Petitioner issued PNB Check No. private complainant charged petitioner with estafa for violation of paragraph 2 (d). HELD: The elements of estafa under paragraph 2 (d). Despite verbal and written demands for the payment of the value of the check. When private complainant presented PNB Check No. 395532-S to obtain the title of the land from private complainant. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. Petitioner’s claim that private complainant knew that the checks did not have sufficient funds was denied by private complainant who testified that he was informed that petitioner’s account was in good standing and that there were sufficient funds for the postdated checks issued. Articled 315 of the Revised Penal Code. 154721 March 22. private complainant sold the land to Alfonzo Firaza to be paid on several occasion. Upon appeal. petitioner subdivided the land. . Thus. Lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check.
” Respondents filed a collection suit against petitioner and Lobitana before the trial court.142119406-CA was ordered stopped.142119406-CA (a cross-check) was negotiated and indorsed to respondents by petitioner in exchange for cash in the sum of P948. as in this case.” The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner acted in good faith in ordering the stoppage of payment of the subject check and thus.000. (b) may be negotiated only once — to one who has an account with a bank. the same was dishonored by the drawee bank when they tried to deposit it for reason “PAYMENT STOPPED. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents and declared them due course holders of the subject check. he is not a holder in due . Realizing he had been deceived. However. Check No. (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue. petitioner discovered that the documents covered rights over government properties.00. thus: A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (a) That it is complete and regular upon its face. Metrobank. he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.00 to be secured by a real estate mortgage on several parcels of land situated in Canjulao. attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. However.000. The other two checks were already encashed by the payees. since there was no privity between respondents and defendants. Meanwhile. he must not be made liable for those amounts. Cebu-Mabolo Branch. Issue: WON The respondents were holders in due course? Held: PETITION GRANTED. only the payment of Check No. and without notice that it has been previously dishonored. if such was the fact. answered that the checks were suffiiently funded. which is also their depositary bank. C-MA. what he perceived to be his right to stop the payment of the check which he rediscounted. Section 52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law defines a holder in due course. petitioner advised Metrobank to stop payment of his checks. The Court of Appeals opined that petitioner “was only exercising (although incorrectly). otherwise. Lapu-lapu City. In the case of a crossed check. Drawee bank. Maria Luisa Judal-Loot Facts: Petitioner was induced to lend a syndicate P3. Upon scrutinizing the documents involving the properties. moral damages. (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him.000. and (c) warns the holder that it has been issued for a definite purpose so that the holder thereof must inquire if he has received the check pursuant to that purpose. (c) That he took it in good faith and for value. the following principles must additionally be considered: A crossed check (a) may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank.Roberto Dino vs. which respondents borrowed from Metrobank and charged against their credit line. C-MA. CA affirmed but modified the trial court’s decision by deleting the award of interest.
However. Consequently. Hence. who turned out to be a syndicate defrauding gullible individuals. The Negotiable Instruments Law does not provide that a holder who is not a holder in due course may not in any case recover on the instrument. Based on the foregoing. title to the check or the nature of her possession. there is no consideration for the issuance of the check. in this case Lobitana’s. Petitioner issued the subject check supposedly for a loan in favor of Consing’s group. Among such defenses is the absence or failure of consideration. Failing in this respect.[ which petitioner sufficiently established in this case. the fact that respondents are not holders in due course does not automatically mean that they cannot recover on the check. petitioner cannot be obliged to pay the face value of the check. This respondents failed to do. Since there is in fact no valid loan to speak of. . The only disadvantage of a holder who is not in due course is that the negotiable instrument is subject to defenses as if it were non-negotiable. respondents are guilty of gross negligence amounting to legal absence of good faith. respondents are not deemed holders in due course of the subject check.course. Respondents’ verification from Metrobank on the funding of the check does not amount to determination of Lobitana’s title to the check. contrary to Section 52(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Law. respondents had the duty to ascertain the indorser’s.
then when the spouses sued Santos on a separate civil action. The filing in their own names negate their claim that they acted as mere agents in selling the rice. HELD: First. The holder of a negotiable instrument need not even proceed Santos is not an indispensable party to the suit against the against the maker before suing the indorser. After the instrument is dishonored by nonpayment. In payment thereof. If it was truly the intention of the parties to have a contract of agency. only a certain portion has been paid for. They didn't do so. the spouses are liable on the check. there is no contract of agency. Respondents alleged that since spouses anticipated the forthcoming suit against them. That on the total number of cavans. checks have been issued but on presentment. .UAZON V. she took it in good faith and didn't knew that the same were unfunded. spouses Tuazon purchased from their predecessor-in-interest cavans of rice. HEIRS OF BARTOLOME RAMOS 463 SCRA 408 FACTS: Respondents alleged that on a relevant date. they should have instituted the same on behalf and for the respondents. and that in case they were dishonored. They became principal debtors whose liability becomes identical to that of the original obligor. they made fictitious sales over their properties. the spouses averred that it was the wife of Bartolome who effected the sale and that Maria was merely her agent in selling the rice. The true buyer of the cavans was Santos. The spouses further averred that when Ramos got the check from Santos. according to their tenor. the checks were dishonored. indorsers cease to be merely secondarily liable. As defense. As indorser. spouses. Tuazon warranted that upon due presentment. Second. she would pay the corresponding amount.