FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 235893. June 6, 2018.]

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK [UCPB] , petitioner, vs. ZAPANTA

REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT JAIME V. ZAPANTA , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June
6, 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235893 — United Coconut Planters Bank [UCPB] v. Zapanta
Realty and Development Corporation, represented by its President Jaime V.
Zapanta . AcICHD

This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced
in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly resolves to DENY the
same for: (1) raising factual issues; and (2) failure to su ciently show that the Court of
Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing petitioner's appeal in CA-
G.R. CV No. 107846.
The instant petition seeks to have this Court review the evidence presented
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) concerning the alteration of thirty-nine (39) forged
checks and the trial court's consideration of respondent Zapanta Realty and
Development Corporation's witness. Time and again, this Court has explained that only
questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The factual ndings
of the CA bind this Court. 1 This rule holds true here especially since the RTC and the CA
were unanimous in their factual findings and conclusions.
Petitioner assails the CA's nding that "[petitioner] was amiss in its obligation to
detect the alterations [(i.e.,] the insertion of the words 'or cash'[)] in the said 19 checks."
2 Petitioner insists that "[a] perusal of the checks involved shows that the names of the
supposed 'speci ed payees' were written in such a way as to leave enough space for
the words 'or cash' to be written on the space provided for. There are also no erasures
in the names of the payees that are visible to the naked eye and the names of the
supposed 'speci ed payees' were typed very similar[ly] to the words 'or cash.' The sizes
of the letters in the names of the supposed 'speci ed payees' are also the same as in
the words 'or cash.'" 3
In Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals , 4 this Court ruled that "a material
alteration is one which changes the items which are required to be stated under Section
1 of the Negotiable Instrument[s] Law." 5 Corollary, Section 1 (d) of the Negotiable
Instruments Law states that "[a]n instrument. . . must conform to the following
requirements x x x (d) [that it m]ust be payable to order or to bearer." It cannot be both
payable to the order of a speci ed payee and payable to bearer ( i.e., the checks being
payable "to the order of cash"). 6 This prohibition is clearly stated in Section 128 of the
said law where bills of exchanges, such as the checks subject of this case, may not be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 addressed "to two or more drawees in the alternative." caITAC

Therefore, the checks payable to "Juan R. Zapanta or cash," "Isabel V. Zapanta or

cash," "Rodolfo V. Zapanta or cash," "Jaime R. Zapanta or cash," "Edna Z. Manlapaz or
cash," and "Zeta Realty Corp. or cash" should have alerted petitioner for being highly
irregular. Its failure to detect such irregularities led to the improper debiting of
respondent's bank account, which petitioner was properly liable for.
Neither can petitioner nd solace in this Court's pronouncement in Ilusorio v.
Court of Appeals. 7 Unlike in Ilusorio where the petitioner therein was found to have
negligently "accorded his secretary unusual degree of trust and unrestricted access to
his credit cards, passbooks, check books, bank statements, including custody and
possession of cancelled checks and reconciliation of accounts," 8 respondent herein
cannot be said to have been equally negligent. On the contrary, respondent furnished
petitioner with Board Resolutions containing speci c instructions regarding the
requirement of two authorized signatories. 9 Thus, petitioner's failure to comply with its
contractual obligation to ensure that checks were signed by two authorized signatories
was a result of its own doing.
ACCORDINGLY , the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated August 24,
2017 and Resolution dated November 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 107846.
SO ORDERED. " Leonardo-De Castro, J. , designated as Acting Chairperson of
the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Jardeleza, J. , no
part, Perlas-Bernabe, J. , designated Additional Member per Ra e dated March 21,
2018; Tijam, J. , on o cial leave; Gesmundo, J. , designated as Acting Member per
Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Acting Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 169 (2016), citing Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
and Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).

2. Rollo, p. 33.

3. Id. at 9.

4. 326 Phil. 504 (1996).

5. Id. at 511.

6. See Sec. 9 (d) of the Negotiable Instruments Law which states:

   Sec. 9. When payable to bearer . — The instrument is payable to bearer:

xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

    (d) When the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of any person; x x x

7. 441 SCRA 335 (2002).

8. Id. at 344.

9. See rollo, p. 31.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com