METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. RENATO D.

CABILZO
G.R. No. 154469, December 6, 2006
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
FACTS:
Cablizo maintained an account with petitioner (MBTC).  It drew a check
payable to cash payable worth P1,000 and post-dated to 24 Nov. 1994 to a
certain Marquez. The check was subsequently deposited in Westmont bank
and the latter submitted it with Metrobank for clearing.  The check was
cleared.   
 
Cablizo later found that the amount had been altered to P91,000 and
the date to 14 Nov. 1994. Respondent requested that petitioner recredit the
P90,000 but petitioner refused. Cablizo filed an action against MBTC.   
Issue:
1. Was there material alteration to the instrument?
2. Who should be held responsible?
 
HELD:
1. Yes, an alteration is said to be material if it alters the effect of the
instrument.  It means an unauthorized change in the instrument that
purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party or an
unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete
instrument relating to the obligation of the party. Hence, material alteration
is one which changes the items which are required to be stated under
Section 1 of the NIL.   
 
The check in issue was materially altered when its amount was
increased from P1,000 to P91,000, the date changed, and Cablizo did not
authorized, makes or allow said alterations.
2. Metrobank is to be held responsible as it was remiss in its duties. The
doctrine of equitable estoppel is inapplicable against Cablizo. This states that
when one of the two innocent persons, each guilty of an intentional or moral
wrong, must suffer a loss, it must be borne by the one whose erroneous
conduct, either by omission or commission, was the cause of the injury. 
Negligence is never presumed and there is no showing that respondent was
negligent in exercising what was due in a prudent man which could have
otherwise prevented the loss.
Metrobank, on the other hand, was the one remiss in its duties. The
alterations were visible in the eye and yet the bank allowed someone not
acquainted with the examination of checks to do the same. Petitioner should
have exercised meticulous care in handling the affairs of its clients especially
if the client’s money is involved.