Allied Banking Corp. v. Lim Sio Wan, G.R. No.

133179

Facts:
Santos was the money market trader assigned to handle FCC’s account. Such
deposit is evidenced by Official Receipt and a Letter. When the placement
matured, FCC demanded the payment of the proceeds of the placement.
November 14, 1983: Lim Sio Wan deposited with Allied Banking Corporation
(Allied) a money market placement of P 1,152,597.35 for a term of 31 days
December 5, 1983: a person claiming to be Lim Sio Wan called up Cristina
So, an officer of Allied, and instructed the latter to pre-terminate Lim Sio
Wan’s money market placement, to issue a manager’s check representing the
proceeds of the placement, and to give the check to Deborah Dee Santos who
would pick up the check. Lim Sio Wan described the appearance of Santos
Santos arrived at the bank and signed the application form for a manager’s
check to be issued.
The bank issued Manager’s Check representing the proceeds of Lim Sio Wan’s
money market placement in the name of Lim Sio Wan, as payee, cross-
checked "For Payee’s Account Only" and given to Santos.
Allied manager’s check was deposited in the account of Filipinas Cement
Corporation (FCC) at Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), with the
forged signature of Lim Sio Wan as indorser.
Metrobank stamped a guaranty on the check, which reads: "All prior
endorsements and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed."
Upon the presentment of the check, Allied funded the check even without
checking the authenticity of Lim Sio Wan’s purported indorsement. The
amount on the face of the check was credited to the account of FCC.
December 9, 1983: Lim Sio Wan deposited with Allied a second money market
placement to mature on January 9, 1984.
December 14, 1983: upon the maturity date of the first money market
placement, Lim Sio Wan went to Allied to withdraw it. She was then informed
that the placement had been pre-terminated upon her instructions which she
denied.
Lim Sio Wan filed with the RTC against Allied to recover the proceeds of her
first money market placement.
Allied filed a third party complaint against Metrobank and Santos.
Metrobank filed a fourth party complaint against FCC.
FCC for its part filed a fifth party complaint against Producers Bank.
Summonses were duly served upon all the parties except for Santos, who was
no longer connected with Producers Bank
May 15, 1984: Allied informed Metrobank that the signature on the check was
forged.
Metrobank withheld the amount represented by the check from FCC.
Metrobank agreed to release the amount to FCC after the FCC executed an
undertaking, promising to indemnify Metrobank in case it was made to
reimburse the amount.
Lim Sio Wan thereafter filed an amended complaint to include Metrobank as
a party-defendant, along with Allied.
RTC decision: Allied Bank to pay Lim Sio Wan plus damages and atty. fees.
Allied Bank’s cross-claim against Metrobank is DISMISSED.
Metrobank’s third-party complaint as against Filipinas Cement Corporation
is DISMISSED.
Filipinas Cement Corporation’s fourth-party complaint against Producer’s
Bank is DISMISSED.
CA: Modified RTC’s decision: Allied Banking Corporation to pay 60% and
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company 40%.
Issue: Whether or not Allied should be solely liable to Lim Sio Wan.

Ruling:
YES. Art. 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible
thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an
equal amount of the same kind and quality.
Art. 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and
similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple
loan.
 GR: collecting bank which indorses a check bearing a forged indorsement
and presents it to the drawee bank guarantees all prior indorsements,
including the forged indorsement itself, and ultimately should be held
liable therefor

 EX: when the issuance of the check itself was attended with negligence.

 Allied negligent in issuing the manager’s check and in transmitting it to

Santos without even a written authorization.

 Allied did not even ask for the certificate evidencing the money market
placement or call up Lim Sio Wan at her residence or office to confirm her
instructions.

 Allied’s negligence must be considered as the proximate cause of the

resulting loss.

 When Metrobank indorsed the check without verifying the authenticity of

Lim Sio Wan’s indorsement and when it accepted the check despite the
fact that it was cross-checked payable to payee’s account only ontributed
to the easier release of Lim Sio Wan’s money and perpetuation of the fraud.

 Given the relative participation of Allied and Metrobank to the instant

case, both banks cannot be adjudged as equally liable. Hence, the 60:40
ratio of the liabilities of Allied and Metrobank, as ruled by the CA, must
be upheld.

 FCC, having no participation in the negotiation of the check and in the

forgery of Lim Sio Wan’s indorsement, can raise the real defense of forgery
as against both banks.

 Producers Bank was unjustly enriched at the expense of Lim Sio Wan.

Zosa v. Estrella, G.R. No. 149984

SPOUSES ROLANDO M. ZOSA and LUISA Y. ZOSA, petitioners, vs. HON.
SANTIAGO ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 67, CHINATRUST (PHILS.)
COMMERCIAL BANK CORPORATION, NOTARY PUBLIC JAIME P.
PORTUGAL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR PASIG CITY, and
CHAILEASE FINANCE CORPORATION, respondents.

Facts:
The controversy started respondent Chinatrust (Phils.) Commercial Bank
Corporation (Chinatrust) demanded from the petitioners (Sps. Zosa) the
payment of their loan totaling P89,426,732.29, and because they weren’t able
to pay, Chinatrust extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgaged real property and
its improvements under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18718. To keep the
respondent notary public from carrying out the public auction sale of the
subject property, petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 67620 for injunction,
specific performance, and damages, with prayer for the issuance of an
injunctive relief, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch
67.
In its September 28, 1999 Resolution, the trial court issued a temporary
restraining order (TRO) preventing the respondents from selling the property.
It later issued a writ of preliminary injunction on October 15, 1999.
Several months after respondent Chinatrust filed its December 9, 1999
Answer, 6 the trial court, on motion of the respondent, dismissed the
complaint, on June 26, 2000, for petitioners' failure to prosecute. Thereafter,
it issued the August 21, 2000 Clarificatory Order stating that, with the
dismissal of the case, the writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued had
been automatically dissolved. The trial court, in its November 23, 2000
Omnibus Order, further denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Aggrieved, petitioners, on December 4, 2000, filed a Notice of Appeal
questioning the June 26, 2000 Order, the August 21, 2000 Clarificatory
Order, and the November 23, 2000 Omnibus Order of the RTC. Their appeal
was consequently docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69892 with the Court of
Appeals (CA).
On January 28, 2001, petitioners also filed with the CA, a petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the same Orders of the
trial court. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62915.

Later, the appellate court, in the assailed June 22, 2001 Decision, dismissed
for lack of merit the petition for extraordinary writ in CA-G.R. SP No. 62915.
It also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in the further challenged
September 5, 2001 Resolution.
In the meantime, on August 30, 2001, respondent Chailease Finance
Corporation, the highest bidder in the auction sale, registered in its name the
subject property.
Subsequently, on May 16, 2002, the CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 69892, rendered
the challenged Resolution dismissing petitioners' appeal for forum
shopping and for the absence in the appellants' brief of page references to the
record as required in Section 13 (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.
The appellate court, on August 23, 2002, in the further assailed Resolution,
denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Rejected repeatedly by the appellate court, petitioners instituted two
petitions for review on certiorari before us: (1) G.R. No. 149984 questioning
the June 22, 2001 Decision and the September 5, 2001 Resolution in CA-G.R.
SP No. 62915; and (2) G.R. No. 154991 assailing the May 16, 2002 Resolution
and the August 23, 2002 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 69892. On December
2, 2002, we resolved to consolidate the two petitions.

Issue:
Did the Court commit unjust enrichment against the petitioner?

Ruling:
Petitions are denied. The successive filing of a notice of appeal and a petition
for certiorari both to assail the trial court's dismissal order for non-suit
constitutes forum shopping. Forum shopping consists of filing multiple
suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable
judgment.
There is forum shopping where there exist: (a) identity of parties, or at least
such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such
that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which
party is successful would amount to res judicata. By filing multiple suits
in multiple fora for the same action would increase the chances of favorable
decisions and this is exactly what the proscription on forum shopping seeks
to put right. Unscrupulous party litigants, taking advantage of a variety of
competent tribunals, may repeatedly try their luck in several different fora
until a favorable result is reached. To avoid the resultant confusion, the Court
adheres strictly to the rules against forum shopping, and any violation of
these rules results in the dismissal of the case.

Asentista v. JUPP and Co., G.R. No. 229404

Facts:
Asentista was employed by JUPP as sales secretary on April 16, 2007. On
March 14, 2008, she became a regular employee of the company as a sales
assistant and was later appointed in July 2010 as a sales agent of JUPP for
its Northern Mindanao area. As a sales agent, Asentista became entitled to a
sales commission of two percent for every attained monthly quota. However,
JUPP failed to give Asentista her earned sales commission despite repeated
requests.
Meanwhile in 2011, JUPP, through its Administrative and Finance Officer
Malou Ramiro, issued a new Toyota Avanza vehicle to Asentista in view of her
sales performance in the Cagayan De Oro area. The ownership of the car,
however, remains with the company. Notwithstanding lack of agreement,
JUPP deducted car plan participation payment amounting to P113,000.00
and one year rental payment of P68,721.36 from her unpaid sales
commission.
Asentista resigned and returned the company car. She filed a claim for unpaid
commission and refund for car plan deduction for a sum of P210,077.99.
JUPP responded that since the employment agreement signed by Asentista
did not include any remuneration for a sales commission and car
participation plan, her claim lacked any legal basis for entitlement. Further,
Asentista was only allowed to use the Toyota Avanza with car participation
during the amortization period for both her personal and official use due to
the generosity of JUPP. JUPP also admitted that despite lack of explicit
provision in the employment agreement, Asentista was given during her
employment discretionary sales commission subject to the sole prerogative of
the company.
The Court dismissed Asentista’s case for lack of merit. On appeal, Asentista’s
petition was granted. JUPP appealed to the CA. Due to this, Asentista
petitioned to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
1. Is Asentista entitled to the claim unpaid commission?
2. Did JUPP commit unjust enrichment?

Ruling:
1. SC says YES. The silence of the employment agreement including sales
commission as part of remuneration does not affect her entitlement. As
provided by Section 97(f) of the Labor Code, employee's wage has been
defined as "remuneration of earnings, however designated, capable of
being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a
time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating
 the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a
written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be
done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair
and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished
by the employer to the employee. In the same way, the Court cannot
subscribe to the assertion of the respondents that the burden of proof
to prove monetary claims rests on the employee. It is a settled labor
doctrine that in cases involving non-payment of monetary claims of
employees, the employer has the burden of proving that the
employees did receive their wages and benefits and that the same
were paid in accordance with law.
2. YES. The respondents committed unjust enrichment against Asentista
when it allowed her to use the company vehicle to further the
performance of her function as a sales agent then unilaterally, without
any consent, deduct car participation and amortization payment to
Asentista's sales commission, to the latter's prejudice.

Rodriguez v. Your Own Home Development Corporation, G.R. No.

199451

Facts:
Tarcisius Rodriguez (Tarcisius), was hired as the project coordinator/manager
and was tasked to find a property for a housing project of YHDC. Rodriguez
found Rosillas’ land and the latter agreed to sell her land for P1,200,000.
However, Rodriguez lied to YHDC and said that Rosillas asked for P4,000,000.
Rodriguez also collected around P500,000 from YOHDC in the guise that he’s
also going to pay for the surveyor of the land, Engr. Delos Reyes. YOHDC
issued checks for all of Rodriguez’ demands. Tarcisius received all four (4)
checks. However, instead of delivering them to Rosillas and Delos Reyes,
Tarcisius and his wife, Iris, (collectively, the Rodriguez Spouses), deposited
two (2) checks—one of Rosillas' Checks and one of Delos Reyes' Checks—
totaling P754,400.00 in their personal Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)
Account No. 3293-0730-06. The other two (2) checks were deposited in the
Rodriguez Spouses' other personal bank account, BPI Account No. 0065-
0506-25. YOHDC demanded from Tarcisius the amount of the checks which
he failed to return. Tarcisius then requested to settle YOHDC's claim by way
of transferring properties. However, no settlement was reached with Tarcisius.
YOHDC first sought reimbursement from Metrobank, which advised it to
direct its claim against BPI. BPI suggested that YOHDC course its documents
through Metrobank. Pursuant to Metrobank's instructions, YOHDC
submitted Rosillas' and Delos Reyes' Checks and affidavits to Metrobank,
which, in turn, forwarded them to BPI.
BPI then advised the Rodriguez Spouses to deposit the amount of
P1,508,800.00 in their BPI bank account so that it could respond to YOHDC's
complaint. The Rodriguez Spouses complied and deposited the amount of
P1,508,800.00 in their BPI Account No. 3293-0994-39. However, they
requested BPI to suspend its action on YOHDC's claim and instructed it not
to deduct the amount until they have clarified the matter. BPI denied this
request and sent Metrobank Special Clearing Receipt No. 065273 to
reimburse the amounts of the four (4) checks totaling P1,508,000.00.
Thereafter, Metrobank credited the amount to YOHDC.
The Sps. Rodriguez filed a complaint for Damages against BPI, Rosillas, Delos
Reyes, and Metrobank. The Rodriguez Spouses claimed that Rosillas' Checks
were received by Rosillas' agent, Godofredo Syquioco (Syquioco). As for Delos
Reyes' Checks, the Rodriguez Spouses asserted that Delos Reyes received
P424,000.00 from the proceeds of Metrobank Check Nos. 181043813 and
181043841. They claimed that all four (4) checks were encashed through BPI
with the assistance of Iris. The RTC dismissed the case however, it noted that
in Delos Reyes' Acknowledgement dated July 9, 1995, he admitted receiving
portions of the proceeds of his Checks in the amount of P424,000.00. Thus,
based on the principle against unjust enrichment, it ordered YOHDC to
reimburse the Rodriguez Spouses P424,000.00, representing the amount that
Delos Reyes had received.
On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC decision and said that YOHDC is not
liable to pay the Sps. Rodriguez for the checks issued to Engr. Delos Reyes
because the document that said that Delos Reyes admitted to receiving
P424,000 is a private document and the authenticity was not proven.
Iris (Rodriguez’ wife) filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied and
subsequently filed this said petition on the grounds of:
Uunjust enrichment, arguing that the payment to Delos Reyes of
P424,000.00 was at her expense, since she had no obligation to pay
him, and it was YOHDC who was bound to pay him for his services
YOHDC’s reply were:
 YODHC claims that it is undisputed that the four (4) checks were not
endorsed, encashed, deposited, or transacted by Rosillas or Delos
Reyes to BPI;
 In Delos Reyes' notarized Affidavit, he categorically stated that he did
not receive, deposit, encash, or endorse his Checks, or receive their
proceeds
 Reiterates the Court of Appeals' ruling that if P424,000.00 was really
the amount intended for Delos Reyes, his Checks would have been
issued in that amount, not in the amount of P508,000.00. Moreover,
Delos Reyes' Checks would have been given directly to Delos Reyes
himself, instead of being deposited in Iris' account.

Issue:
Whether or not Your Own Home Development Corporation is liable to Iris
Rodriguez for P424,000.00 based on the principle of unjust enrichment.

Ruling:
NO. First, Iris raised a factual issue on whether Delos Reyes indeed received
the money. It does not simply ask to resolve which law properly applies given
the set of facts in this case. It requires a review of the evidence and the
determination of the truth or falsity of the parties' allegations. For Iris to claim
any right to the amounts returned to YOHDC, she must prove her claim with
the required quantum of evidence. As established, considering there was a
previous duly notarized affidavit stating that Delos Reyes did not receive any
proceeds from his Checks, it was incumbent upon Iris to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that he indeed had been paid and that he had released
YOHDC from paying him its obligation. The court gave more weight to Delos
Reyes’ affidavit that said that he did not receive any money from Rodriguez.
The return of the money by Metrobank to YHDC was just. Considering that
Metrobank is the drawee bank, it is obligated to return the full amounts of
the checks upon discovering that they were not paid to the correct payees.
Iris Rodriguez’ Petition was denied.