Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

PNB V. PICORNELL against all parties liable thereon.

Among the parties liable thereon is an

46 PHIL 716 indorser of the instrument. Such an indorser who indorses without
qualification, inter alia, engaged that on due presentment, the instrument
FACTS: Picornell followed the instructions of Hyndman, Tavera and Venutra
shall be accepted or paid, or both, according to its tenor, and that if it be
by buying bales of tobacco. He was able to obtain in National Bank a sum
dishonored, and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he
of money together with his commission. He drafted a bill of exchange
will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who
against the firm and in favor of the bank. It was received by National Bank
may be compelled to pay it. Maniego may also be deemed an
and was accepted thereafter by the firm. However, on alleged conditions of
accommodation party in the light of the facts (i.e. without receiving value
the tobacco, the bill of exchange was not paid.
for the same). As such, she isl iable on the instrument to a holder for value,
notwithstanding such holder at the time of taking the instrument knew her to
HELD: This action for recovery is for the value of the bill of exchange. The
be only an accommodation party, although she has the right, after paying the
firm accepted the bill unconditionally but did not pay it at maturity, wherefore
holder, to obtain reimbursement from the party accommodated.
its responsibility to pay the same is clear. The question whether or not the
tobacco was worth the value of the bill doesnt concern the bank.
Such partial want of consideration if it was, doesnt exist with respect ANG TIONG VS. TING
to the bank which paid Picornell the full value of the said bill of exchange. GR L-26767, 22 February 1968
The bank was a holder in due course, and was such for value full and
Facts: Lorenzo Ting issued a check for P4,000 payable to cash or bearer.
complete. The firm cannot escape liability.
With Felipe Angs signature (indorsement in blank) at the back thereof, the
instrument was received by Ang Tiong who thereafter presented it to the
PEOPLE VS. MANIEGO bank for payment. The drawee bank dishonored it. Ang Tiong made written
GR L-30910, 27 February 1987 demands on both Ting and Ang to make good the amount represented by
the check. These demands unheeded. Ang Tiong filed suit for collection. The
Facts: Julia Maniego was an indorser of several checks drawn by her sister,
trial court adjudged for Ang Tiong. Only Ang appealed, maintaining that he is
Milagros Pamintuan, which were dishonored after they had been exchange
only an accommodation party.
with cash belonging to the Government, then in the official custody of Lt.
Rizalino Ubay. Ubay, Pamintuan and Maniego were indicted for the crime of Issue: Whether Felipe Ang is an accommodation party.
malversation. Ubay and Maniego were arraigned, while Pamintuan fled to
Held: Felipe Ang is a general indorser (Section 63, Negotiable Instruments
the United States. Ubay was found guilty while Maniego was acquitted.
Law), in the absence of any indication by appropriate words his intention to
Both, however, were ordered to pay in solidum the amount of P57,434.50 to
be bound in some other capacity. Even on the assumption that Ang is a
the government. Maniego appealed.
mere accommodation party, he is liable on the instrument to a holder for
Issue: Whether Maniego is liable even if she is a mere indorser. value notwithstanding that such holder at the time of taking the instrument
knew him to be only an accommodation party (Section 29,Negotiable
Held: Under the law, the holder or last indorsee of a negotiable instrument
Instruments Law). Assuming further that Ang is an accommodation indorser,
has the right to enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof
the fact that Ang may obtain security from the maker to protect himself
against the danger of insolvency of the latter cannot in any manner affect his Ratio decidendi:
liability to Ang Tiong, as the said remedy is a matter of concern exclusively
1.) Banco de Oro by its own acts, stamped its guarantee is now estopped
between an accommodation indorser and an accommodated party. The
from claiming that the checks under consideration are not negotiable
liability of Felipe Ang remains primary and unconditional.
The Checks were accepted for deposit by Banco de Oro stamping thereon
its guarantee, in order that it can clear said Checks with Equitable Banking
GR No. L-7491, 20 Jan 1988
By such deliberate and positive attitude of Banco de Oro, it has for all legal
Facts: Equitable Banking Corp. drew 6 crossed Managers Check payable
intents and purposes treated the said Checks as negotiable instruments and
to certain member of its establishment. Subsequently, the Checks were
accordingly assumed the warranty of the endorser when it stamped its
deposited with Banco de Oro to the credit of its depositor, a certain Aida
guarantee of prior endorsement at the back.
2.) The participation of the two banks in the clearing operation of PCHC is
Following the normal procedures, and after stamping at the back of the of
a manifestation of their submission to its jurisdiction.
the Checks the usual endorsements: All prior and/or lack of endorsement
guaranteed, Banco de Oro sent the checks for clearing through PCHC. 3.) Although the subject Checks are non-negotiable, the responsibility of
Accordingly, Equitable Banking Corp. paid the Checks. Its clearing account petitioner as endorser thereof remains. While the drawer generally owes no
was debited for the value of the Checks and Banco de Oros clearing duty of diligence to the collecting banks, the law imposes a duty of diligence
account was credited for the same amount. in the collecting bank to scrutinize Checks deposited with it for the purpose
of determining their genuineness and regularity.
Thereafter, Equitable Banking Corp. discovered that the endorsements at
the back of the Checks were forged or otherwise belong to the persons other The collecting bank being primarily engaged in banking holds itself out to the
than the payees. Pursuant to the PCHC Clearing Rules and Regulations, public as the expert and the law holds it to a high standard of conduct.
Equitable Bank presented the checks directly to the Banco de Oro to claim ______________________________________________________
reimbursement. However, the latter refused.
Issue: GR 107382, 31 January 1996
1.) Were the subject Checks non-negotiable? Facts: The Province of Tarlac maintains a current account with the
Philippine National Bank (PNB Tarlac Branch) where the provincial funds are
2.) Is the Negotiable Instruments Law applicable in deciding controversies
deposited. Portions of the funds were allocated to the Concepcion
of this nature by the PCHC?
Emergency Hospital. Checks were issued to it and were received by the
3.) Was Banco de Oro negligent and thus responsible for any undue hospitals administrative officer and cashier (Fausto Pangilinan). Pangilinan,
payment? through the help of Associated Bank but after forging the signature ofthe
hospitals chief (Adena Canlas), was able to deposit the checks in his instituted actions to recover the amounts from the collecting (depository) and
personal account. All the checks bore the stamp All drawee banks.
prior endorsement guaranteed Associated Bank. Through post-audit, the pr
Issue: Whether Ford has the right to recover from the collecting bank (PCI
ovince discovered that the hospital did not receive several allotted checks,
Bank) and/or the drawee bank(Citibank) the value of the checks.
and sought the restoration of the debited amounts from PNB. In turn, PNB
demanded reimbursement from Associated Bank. Both banks resisted Held: The mere fact that forgery was committed by a drawer-payors
payment. Hence, the present action. confidential employee or agent, who by virtue of his position had unusual
facilities to perpetrate the fraud and imposing the forged paper upon the
Issue: Who shall bear the loss resulting from the forged checks.
bank, does not entitle the bank to shift the loss to the drawer-payor, in the
Held: PNB is not negligent as it is not required to return the check to the absence of some circumstance raising estoppel against the drawer. The rule
collecting bank within 24 hours as the banks involved are covered by Central applies to checks fraudulently negotiated or diverted by the confidential
Bank Circular 580 and not the rules of the Philippine Clearing employees who hold them in their possession. In GRs 121413 and
House. Associated Bank, and not PNB, is the one duty-bound to warrant the 121479, PCI Bank failed to verify the authority of Mr. Rivera to negotiate the
instrument as genuine, valid and subsisting at the time of indorsement checks. Furthermore, PCI Banks clearing stamp which guarantees prior or
pursuant to Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. The stamp lack of indorsements render PCI Bank liable as it allowed Citibank without
guaranteeing prior indorsement is not an empty rubric; the collecting bank is any other option but to pay the checks. PCI Bank, being a depository
held accountable for checks deposited by its customers. However, due to /collecting bank of the BIR, had the responsibility to make sure that the
the fact that the Province of Tarlac is equally negligent in permitting crossed checks were deposited in Payees account only as found in
Pangilinan to collect the checks when he was no longer connected with the the instrument. In GR 128604, on the other hand, the switching operation
hospital, it shares the burden of loss from the checks bearing a forged involving the checks, while in transit for clearing, were the clandestine or
indorsement. Therefore, the Province can only recover 50%of the amount hidden actuations performed by the members of the syndicate in their own
from the drawee bank (PNB), and the collecting bank (Associated Bank) is personal, covert and private capacity; without the knowledge nor official or
liable to PNB for50% of the same amount. conscious participation of PCIBank in the process of embezzlement. Central
______________________________________________________ Bank Circular 580 (1977), however, provide d that any theft affecting items in
transit for clearing are for the account of the sending bank (herein PCI
Bank). Still, Citibank was likewise negligent in the performance of its duties
GR 121413, 29 January 2001
as it failed to establish its payment of Fords checks were made in due
Facts: Ford issued Citibank checks in favor of the Commissioner of Internal course and legally in order. The fact that drawee bank did not discover the
Revenue as payments of its taxes, through the depository bank Insular Bank irregularity seasonably constitutes negligence in carrying out the banks duty
of Asia and America (later PCI Bank). Proceeds of the checks were never to its depositors.
received by the Commissioner, but were encashed and diverted to the
accounts of members of a syndicate, to which Fords General Ledger
Accountant Godofredo Rivera belongs. Upon demand of the Commissioner
anew, Ford was forced to make second payment of its taxes. Thus, Ford