FIRST DIVISION ENGR. JOSE E. CAYANAN, G.R. No.

172954 Petitioner, Promulgated: - versus NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, October 5, 2011 INC., Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION VILLARAMA, JR., J. Petitioner Engr. Jose E. Cayanan appeals the May 31, 2006 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 65538 finding him civilly liable for the value of the five checks which are the subject of Criminal Case Nos. 166549-53. The antecedent facts are as follows: North Star International Travel Incorporated (North Star) is a corporation engaged in the travel agency business while petitioner is the owner/general manager of JEAC International Management and Contractor Services, a recruitment agency. On March 17,[2] 1994, Virginia Balagtas, the General Manager of North Star, in accommodation and upon the instruction of its client, petitioner herein, sent the amount of US$60,000[3] to View Sea Ventures Ltd., in Nigeria from her personal account in Citibank Makati. On March 29, 1994, Virginia again sent US$40,000 to View Sea Ventures by telegraphic transfer,[4] with US$15,000 coming from petitioner. Likewise, on various dates, North Star extended credit to petitioner for the airplane tickets of his clients, with the total amount of such indebtedness under the credit extensions eventually reaching P510,035.47.[5] To cover payment of the foregoing obligations, petitioner issued the following five checks to North Star: Check No : 246822 Drawn Against : Republic Planters Bank Amount : P695,000.00 Dated/Postdated : May 15, 1994 Payable to : North Star International Travel, Inc. Check No Drawn Against Amount Dated/Postdated Payable to Check No Drawn Against Amount Dated/Postdated Payable to Check No Drawn Against Amount Dated/Postdated Payable to Check No Drawn Against Amount Dated/Postdated : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 246823 Republic Planters Bank P278,000.00 May 15, 1994 North Star International Travel, Inc. 246824 Republic Planters Bank P22,703.00 May 15, 1994 North Star International Travel, Inc. 687803 PCIB P1,500,000.00 April 14, 1994 North Star International Travel, Inc. 687804 PCIB P35,000.00 April 14, 1994

Payable to : North Star International Travel, Inc.[6] When presented for payment, the checks in the amount of P1,500,000 and P35,000 were dishonored for insufficiency of funds while the other three checks were dishonored because of a stop payment order from petitioner.[7] North Star, through its counsel, wrote petitioner on September 14, 1994[8] informing him that the checks he issued had been dishonored. North Star demanded payment, but petitioner failed to settle his obligations. Hence, North Star instituted Criminal Case Nos. 166549-53 charging petitioner with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, or the Bouncing Checks Law, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City. The Informations,[9] which were similarly worded except as to the check numbers, the dates and amounts of the checks, alleged: That on or about and during the month of March 1994 in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the authorized signatory of [JEAC] Intl Mgt & Cont. Serv. did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make out[,] draw and issue to North Star Intl. Travel Inc. herein rep. by Virginia D. Balagtas to apply on account or for value the checks described below: xxxx said accused well knowing that at the time of issue thereof, did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the face amount of such check upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason PAYMENT STOPPED/DAIF and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor the accused failed to pay the payee the face amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment thereof within five (5) banking days after receiving notice. Contrary to law. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges. After trial, the MeTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of B.P. 22. Thus: WHEREFORE, finding the accused, ENGR. JOSE E. CAYANAN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year for each of the offense committed. Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the complainant North Star International Travel, Inc. represented in this case by Virginia Balagtas, the sum of TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND AND SEVEN HUNDRED THREE PESOS (P2,530,703.00) representing the total value of the checks in [question] plus FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY[-]FOUR THOUSAND SEVENTY[-]EIGHT PESOS AND FORTY[-]TWO CENTAVOS (P484,078.42) as interest of the value of the checks subject matter of the instant case, deducting therefrom the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P220,000.00) paid by the accused as interest on the value of the checks duly receipted by the complainant and marked as Exhibit FF of the record. xxxx SO ORDERED.[10] On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted petitioner of the criminal charges. The RTC also held that there is no basis for the imposition of the civil liability on petitioner. The RTC ratiocinated that: In the instant cases, the checks issued by the accused were presented beyond the period of NINETY (90) DAYS and therefore, there is no violation of the provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and the accused is not considered to have committed the offense. There being no offense committed, accused is not criminally liable and there would be no basis for the imposition of the civil liability arising from the offense.[11] Aggrieved, North Star elevated the case to the CA. On May 31, 2006, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC insofar as the civil aspect is concerned and held petitioner civilly liable for the value of the subject checks. The fallo of the CA decision reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the RTC insofar as Cayanan's civil liability is concerned, is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The

indemnity awarded by the MeTC in its September 1, 1999 Decision is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.[12] The CA ruled that although Cayanan was acquitted of the criminal charges, he may still be held civilly liable for the checks he issued since he never denied having issued the five postdated checks which were dishonored. Petitioner now assails the CA decision raising the lone issue of whether the CA erred in holding him civilly liable to North Star for the value of the checks.[13] Petitioner argues that the CA erred in holding him civilly liable to North Star for the value of the checks since North Star did not give any valuable consideration for the checks. He insists that the US$85,000 sent to View Sea Ventures was not sent for the account of North Star but for the account of Virginia as her investment. He points out that said amount was taken from Virginias personal dollar account in Citibank and not from North Stars corporate account. Respondent North Star, for its part, counters that petitioner is liable for the value of the five subject checks as they were issued for value. Respondent insists that petitioner owes North Star P2,530,703 plus interest of P264,078.45, and that the P220,000 petitioner paid to North Star is conclusive proof that the checks were issued for value. The petition is bereft of merit. We have held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable considerationwhich may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side.[14] Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, it is presumed that every party to an instrument acquires the same for a consideration or for value.[15] As petitioner alleged that there was no consideration for the issuance of the subject checks, it devolved upon him to present convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption and prove that the checks were in fact issued without valuable consideration. [16] Sadly, however, petitioner has not presented any credible evidence to rebut the presumption, as well as North Stars assertion, that the checks were issued as payment for the US$85,000 petitioner owed. Notably, petitioner anchors his defense of lack of consideration on the fact that he did not personally receive the US$85,000 from Virginia. However, we note that in his pleadings, he never denied having instructed Virginia to remit the US$85,000 to View Sea Ventures. Evidently, Virginia sent the money upon the agreement that petitioner will give to North Star the peso equivalent of the amount remitted plus interest. As testified to by Virginia, Check No. 246822 dated May 15, 1994 in the amount of P695,000.00 is equivalent to US$25,000; Check No. 246823 dated May 15, 1994 in the amount of P278,000 is equivalent to US$10,000; Check No. 246824 in the amount of P22,703 represents the one month interest for P695,000 and P278,000 at the rate of twenty-eight (28%) percent per annum;[17] Check No. 687803 dated April 14, 1994 in the amount of P1,500,000 is equivalent to US$50,000 and Check No. 687804 dated 14 April 1994 in the amount of P35,000 represents the one month interest for P1,500,000 at the rate of twenty-eight (28%) percent per annum.[18] Petitioner has not substantially refuted these averments. Concomitantly, petitioners assertion that the dollars sent to Nigeria was for the account of Virginia Balagtas and as her own investment with View Sea Ventures deserves no credence. Virginia has not been shown to have any business transactions with View Sea Ventures and from all indications, she only remitted the money upon the request and in accordance with petitioners instructions. The evidence shows that it was petitioner who had a contract with View Sea Ventures as he was sending contract workers to Nigeria; Virginia Balagtass participation was merely to send the money through telegraphic transfer in exchange for the checks issued by petitioner to North Star. Indeed, the transaction between petitioner and North Star is actually in the nature of a loan and the checks were issued as payment of the principal and the interest. As aptly found by the trial court: It is to be noted that the checks subject matter of the instant case were issued in the name of North Star International Inc., represented by private complainant Virginia Balagtas in replacement of the amount of dollars remitted by the latter to Vie[w] Sea Ventures in Nigeria. x x x But Virginia Balagtas has no business transaction with Vie[w] Sea Ventures where accused has been sending his contract workers and the North Star provided the trip tickets for said workers sent by the accused. North Star International has no participation at all in the transaction between accused and the Vie[w] Sea

Ventures except in providing plane ticket used by the contract workers of the accused upon its understanding with the latter. The contention of the accused that the dollars were sent by Virginia Balagtas to Nigeria as business investment has not been shown by any proof to set aside the foregoing negative presumptions, thus negates accused contentions regarding the absence of consideration for the issuance of checks. x x x[19] Petitioner claims that North Star did not give any valuable consideration for the checks since the US$85,000 was taken from the personal dollar account of Virginia and not the corporate funds of North Star. The contention, however, deserves scant consideration. The subject checks, bearing petitioners signature, speak for themselves. The fact that petitioner himself specifically named North Star as the payee of the checks is an admission of his liability to North Star and not to Virginia Balagtas, who as manager merely facilitated the transfer of funds. Indeed, it is highly inconceivable that an experienced businessman like petitioner would issue various checks in sizeable amounts to a payee if these are without consideration. Moreover, we note that Virginia Balagtas averred in her Affidavit[20] that North Star caused the payment of the US$60,000 and US$25,000 to View Sea Ventures to accommodate petitioner, which statement petitioner failed to refute. In addition, petitioner did not question the Statement of Account No. 8639[21] dated August 31, 1994 issued by North Star which contained itemized amounts including the US$60,000 and US$25,000 sent through telegraphic transfer to View Sea Ventures per his instruction. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that when petitioner issued the subject checks to North Star as payee, he did so to settle his obligation with North Star for the US$85,000. And since the only payment petitioner made to North Star was in the amount of P220,000.00, which was applied to interest due, his liability is not extinguished. Having failed to fully settle his obligation under the checks, the appellate court was correct in holding petitioner liable to pay the value of the five checks he issued in favor of North Star. WHEREFORE, the present appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65538 is AFFIRMED. With costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, G.R. No. 170325 Petitioner, ERLANDO T. RODRIGUEZ Promulgated: and NORMA RODRIGUEZ, Respondents. September 26, 2008 x--------------------------------------------------x DECISION REYES, R.T., J.: WHEN the payee of the check is not intended to be the true recipient of its proceeds, is it payable to order or bearer? What is the fictitious-payee rule and who is liable under it? Is there any exception? These questions seek answers in this petition for review on certiorari of the Amended Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).[2] The Facts The facts as borne by the records are as follows: Respondents-Spouses Erlando and Norma Rodriguez were clients of petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB), Amelia Avenue Branch, Cebu City. They maintained savings and demand/checking accounts, namely, PNBig Demand Deposits (Checking/Current Account No. 810624-6 under the account name Erlando and/or Norma Rodriguez), and PNBig Demand Deposit (Checking/Current Account No. 810480-4 under the account name Erlando T. Rodriguez). The spouses were engaged in the informal lending business. In line with their business, they had a discounting[3] arrangement with the Philnabank Employees Savings and Loan Association (PEMSLA), an association of PNB employees. Naturally, PEMSLA was likewise a client of PNB Amelia Avenue Branch. The association maintained current and savings accounts with petitioner bank. PEMSLA regularly granted loans to its members. Spouses Rodriguez would rediscount the postdated checks issued to members whenever the association was short of funds. As was customary, the spouses would replace the postdated checks with their own checks issued in the name of the members. It was PEMSLAs policy not to approve applications for loans of members with outstanding debts. To subvert this policy, some PEMSLA officers devised a scheme to obtain additional loans despite their outstanding loan accounts. They took out loans in the names of unknowing members, without the knowledge or consent of the latter. The PEMSLA checks issued for these loans were then given to the spouses for rediscounting. The officers carried this out by forging the indorsement of the named payees in the checks. In return, the spouses issued their personal checks (Rodriguez checks) in the name of the members and delivered the checks to an officer of PEMSLA. The PEMSLA checks, on the other hand, were deposited by the spouses to their account. Meanwhile, the Rodriguez checks were deposited directly by PEMSLA to its savings account without any indorsement from the named payees. This was an irregular procedure made possible through the facilitation of Edmundo Palermo, Jr., treasurer of PEMSLA and bank teller in the PNB Branch. It appears that this became the usual practice for the parties. For the period November 1998 to February 1999, the spouses issued sixty nine (69) checks, in the total amount of P2,345,804.00. These were payable to forty seven (47) individual payees who were all members of PEMSLA.[4] Petitioner PNB eventually found out about these fraudulent acts. To put a stop to this scheme, PNB closed the current account of PEMSLA. As a result, the PEMSLA checks deposited by the spouses were returned or dishonored for the reason Account Closed. The corresponding Rodriguez checks, however, were deposited as usual to the PEMSLA savings account. The amounts were duly

debited from the Rodriguez account. Thus, because the PEMSLA checks given as payment were returned, spouses Rodriguez incurred losses from the rediscounting transactions. RTC Disposition Alarmed over the unexpected turn of events, the spouses Rodriguez filed a civil complaint for damages against PEMSLA, the Multi-Purpose Cooperative of Philnabankers (MCP), and petitioner PNB. They sought to recover the value of their checks that were deposited to the PEMSLA savings account amounting to P2,345,804.00. The spouses contended that because PNB credited the checks to the PEMSLA account even without indorsements, PNB violated its contractual obligation to them as depositors. PNB paid the wrong payees, hence, it should bear the loss. PNB moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. PNB argued that the claim for damages should come from the payees of the checks, and not from spouses Rodriguez. Since there was no demand from the said payees, the obligation should be considered as discharged. In an Order dated January 12, 2000, the RTC denied PNBs motion to dismiss. In its Answer,[5] PNB claimed it is not liable for the checks which it paid to the PEMSLA account without any indorsement from the payees. The bank contended that spouses Rodriguez, the makers, actually did not intend for the named payees to receive the proceeds of the checks. Consequently, the payees were considered as fictitious payees as defined under the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). Being checks made to fictitious payees which are bearer instruments, the checks were negotiable by mere delivery. PNBs Answer included its cross-claim against its co-defendants PEMSLA and the MCP, praying that in the event that judgment is rendered against the bank, the crossdefendants should be ordered to reimburse PNB the amount it shall pay. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of spouses Rodriguez (plaintiffs). It ruled that PNB (defendant) is liable to return the value of the checks. All counterclaims and cross-claims were dismissed. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment, as follows: 1. Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs the total amount of P2,345,804.00 or reinstate or restore the amount of P775,337.00 in the PNBig Demand Deposit Checking/Current Account No. 810480-4 of Erlando T. Rodriguez, and the amount of P1,570,467.00 in the PNBig Demand Deposit, Checking/Current Account No. 810624-6 of Erlando T. Rodriguez and/or Norma Rodriguez, plus legal rate of interest thereon to be computed from the filing of this complaint until fully paid; The defendant PNB is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs the following reasonable amount of damages suffered by them taking into consideration the standing of the plaintiffs being sugarcane planters, realtors, residential subdivision owners, and other businesses: (a) Consequential damages, unearned income in the amount of P4,000,000.00, as a result of their having incurred great dificulty (sic) especially in the residential subdivision business, which was not pushed through and the contractor even threatened to file a case against the plaintiffs; (b) Moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00; (c) Exemplary damages in the amount of P500,000.00; (d) Attorneys fees in the amount of P150,000.00 considering that this case does not involve very complicated issues; and for the (e) Costs of suit.

2.

3.

Other claims and counterclaims are hereby dismissed.[6] CA Disposition

PNB appealed the decision of the trial court to the CA on the principal ground that the disputed checks should be considered as payable to bearer and not to order. In a Decision[7] dated July 22, 2004, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC disposition. The CA concluded that the checks were obviously meant by the spouses to be really paid to PEMSLA. The court a quo declared: We are not swayed by the contention of the plaintiffs-appellees (Spouses Rodriguez) that their cause of action arose from the alleged breach of contract by the defendant-appellant (PNB) when it paid the value of the checks to PEMSLA despite the checks being payable to order. Rather, we are more convinced by the strong and credible evidence for the defendant-appellant with regard to the plaintiffs-appellees and PEMSLAs business arrangement that the value of the rediscounted checks of the plaintiffs-appellees would be deposited in PEMSLAs account for payment of the loans it has approved in exchange for PEMSLAs checks with the full value of the said loans. This is the only obvious explanation as to why all the disputed sixty-nine (69) checks were in the possession of PEMSLAs errand boy for presentment to the defendant-appellant that led to this present controversy. It also appears that the teller who accepted the said checks was PEMSLAs officer, and that such was a regular practice by the parties until the defendant-appellant discovered the scam. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the checks were never meant to be paid to order, but instead, to PEMSLA. We thus find no breach of contract on the part of the defendantappellant. According to plaintiff-appellee Erlando Rodriguez testimony, PEMSLA allegedly issued post-dated checks to its qualified members who had applied for loans. However, because of PEMSLAs insufficiency of funds, PEMSLA approached the plaintiffs-appellees for the latter to issue rediscounted checks in favor of said applicant members. Based on the investigation of the defendant-appellant, meanwhile, this arrangement allowed the plaintiffs-appellees to make a profit by issuing rediscounted checks, while the officers of PEMSLA and other members would be able to claim their loans, despite the fact that they were disqualified for one reason or another. They were able to achieve this conspiracy by using other members who had loaned lesser amounts of money or had not applied at all. x x x.[8] (Emphasis added) The CA found that the checks were bearer instruments, thus they do not require indorsement for negotiation; and that spouses Rodriguez and PEMSLA conspired with each other to accomplish this money-making scheme. The payees in the checks were fictitious payees because they were not the intended payees at all. The spouses Rodriguez moved for reconsideration. They argued, inter alia, that the checks on their faces were unquestionably payable to order; and thatPNB committed a breach of contract when it paid the value of the checks to PEMSLA without indorsement from the payees. They also argued that their cause of action is not only against PEMSLA but also against PNB to recover the value of the checks. On October 11, 2005, the CA reversed itself via an Amended Decision, the last paragraph and fallo of which read: In sum, we rule that the defendant-appellant PNB is liable to the plaintiffsappellees Sps. Rodriguez for the following:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Actual damages in the amount of P2,345,804 with interest at 6% per annum from 14 May 1999 until fully paid; Moral damages in the amount of P200,000; Attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000; and Costs of suit.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by Us AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION the assailed decision rendered in Civil Case No. 99-10892, as set forth in the immediately next preceding paragraph hereof, and SETTING ASIDE Our original decision promulgated in this case on 22 July 2004. SO ORDERED.[9] The CA ruled that the checks were payable to order. According to the appellate court, PNB failed to present sufficient proof to defeat the claim of the spouses Rodriguez that they really intended the checks to be received by the specified payees. Thus, PNB is liable for the value of the checks which it paid to PEMSLA without indorsements from the named payees. The award for damages was deemed appropriate in view of the failure of PNB to treat the Rodriguez account with the highest degree of care considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship, which constrained respondents to seek legal action. Hence, the present recourse under Rule 45. Issues The issues may be compressed to whether the subject checks are payable to order or to bearer and who bears the loss? PNB argues anew that when the spouses Rodriguez issued the disputed checks, they did not intend for the named payees to receive the proceeds. Thus, they are bearer instruments that could be validly negotiated by mere delivery. Further, testimonial and documentary evidence presented during trial amply proved that spouses Rodriguez and the officers of PEMSLA conspired with each other to defraud the bank. Our Ruling Prefatorily, amendment of decisions is more acceptable than an erroneous judgment attaining finality to the prejudice of innocent parties. A court discovering an erroneous judgment before it becomes final may, motu proprio or upon motion of the parties, correct its judgment with the singular objective of achieving justice for the litigants.[10] However, a word of caution to lower courts, the CA in Cebu in this particular case, is in order. The Court does not sanction careless disposition of cases by courts of justice. The highest degree of diligence must go into the study of every controversy submitted for decision by litigants. Every issue and factual detail must be closely scrutinized and analyzed, and all the applicable laws judiciously studied, before the promulgation of every judgment by the court. Only in this manner will errors in judgments be avoided. Now to the core of the petition.

As a rule, when the payee is fictitious or not intended to be the true recipient of the proceeds, the check is considered as a bearer instrument. A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand.[11] It is either an order or a bearer instrument. Sections 8 and 9 of the NIL states: SEC. 8. When payable to order. The instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable to the order of a specified person or to him or his order. It may be drawn payable to the order of (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) A payee who is not maker, drawer, or drawee; or The drawer or maker; or The drawee; or Two or more payees jointly; or One or some of several payees; or The holder of an office for the time being.

Where the instrument is payable to order, the payee must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty. SEC. 9. When payable to bearer. The instrument is payable to bearer (a) (b) (c) When it is expressed to be so payable; or When it is payable to a person named therein or bearer; or When it is payable to the order of a fictitious or non-existing person, and such fact is known to the person making it so payable; or (d) When the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of any person; or (e) Where the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank. [12] (Underscoring supplied) The distinction between bearer and order instruments lies in their manner of negotiation. Under Section 30 of the NIL, an order instrument requires an indorsement from the payee or holder before it may be validly negotiated. A bearer instrument, on the other hand, does not require an indorsement to be validly negotiated. It is negotiable by mere delivery. The provision reads: SEC. 30. What constitutes negotiation. An instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer, it is negotiated by delivery; if payable to order, it is negotiated by the indorsement of the holder completed by delivery. A check that is payable to a specified payee is an order instrument. However, under Section 9(c) of the NIL, a check payable to a specified payee may nevertheless be considered as a bearer instrument if it is payable to the order of a fictitious or non-existing person, and such fact is known to the person making it so payable. Thus, checks issued to Prinsipe Abante or Si Malakas at si Maganda, who are well-known characters in Philippine mythology, are bearer instruments because the named payees are fictitious and non-existent. We have yet to discuss a broader meaning of the term fictitious as used in the NIL. It is for this reason that We look elsewhere for guidance. Court rulings in the United States are a logical starting point since our law on negotiable instruments was directly lifted from the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law of the United States.[13] A review of US jurisprudence yields that an actual, existing, and living payee may also be fictitious if the maker of the check did not intend for the payee to in fact receive the proceeds of the check. This usually occurs when the maker places a name of an existing payee on the check for convenience or to cover up an illegal activity.[14] Thus, a check made expressly payable to a non-fictitious and existing person is not necessarily an order instrument. If the payee is not the intended recipient of

the proceeds of the check, the payee is considered a fictitious payee and the check is a bearer instrument. In a fictitious-payee situation, the drawee bank is absolved from liability and the drawer bears the loss. When faced with a check payable to a fictitious payee, it is treated as a bearer instrument that can be negotiated by delivery. The underlying theory is that one cannot expect a fictitious payee to negotiate the check by placing his indorsement thereon. And since the maker knew this limitation, he must have intended for the instrument to be negotiated by mere delivery. Thus, in case of controversy, the drawer of the check will bear the loss. This rule is justified for otherwise, it will be most convenient for the maker who desires to escape payment of the check to always deny the validity of the indorsement. This despite the fact that the fictitious payee was purposely named without any intention that the payee should receive the proceeds of the check.[15] The fictitious-payee rule is best illustrated in Mueller & Martin v. Liberty Insurance Bank.[16] In the said case, the corporation Mueller & Martin was defrauded by George L. Martin, one of its authorized signatories. Martin drew seven checks payable to the German Savings Fund Company Building Association (GSFCBA) amounting to $2,972.50 against the account of the corporation without authority from the latter. Martin was also an officer of the GSFCBA but did not have signing authority. At the back of the checks, Martin placed the rubber stamp of the GSFCBA and signed his own name as indorsement. He then successfully drew the funds from Liberty Insurance Bank for his own personal profit. When the corporation filed an action against the bank to recover the amount of the checks, the claim was denied. The US Supreme Court held in Mueller that when the person making the check so payable did not intend for the specified payee to have any part in the transactions, the payee is considered as a fictitious payee. The check is then considered as a bearer instrument to be validly negotiated by mere delivery. Thus, the US Supreme Court held that Liberty Insurance Bank, as drawee, was authorized to make payment to the bearer of the check, regardless of whether prior indorsements were genuine or not.[17] The more recent Getty Petroleum Corp. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.[18] upheld the fictitious-payee rule. The rule protects the depositary bank and assigns the loss to the drawer of the check who was in a better position to prevent the loss in the first place. Due care is not even required from the drawee or depositary bank in accepting and paying the checks. The effect is that a showing of negligence on the part of the depositary bank will not defeat the protection that is derived from this rule. However, there is a commercial bad faith exception to the fictitious-payee rule. A showing of commercial bad faith on the part of the drawee bank, or any transferee of the check for that matter, will work to strip it of this defense. The exception will cause it to bear the loss. Commercial bad faith is present if the transferee of the check acts dishonestly, and is a party to the fraudulent scheme. Said the US Supreme Court in Getty: Consequently, a transferees lapse of wary vigilance, disregard of suspicious circumstances which might have well induced a prudent banker to investigate and other permutations of negligence are not relevant considerations under Section 3-405 x x x. Rather, there is a commercial bad faith exception to UCC 3-405, applicable when the transferee acts dishonestly where it has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that amount to bad faith, thus itself becoming a participant in a fraudulent scheme. x x x Such a test finds support in the text of the Code, which omits a standard of care requirement from UCC 3-405 but imposes on all parties an obligation to act with honesty in fact. x x x[19] (Emphasis added) Getty also laid the principle that the fictitious-payee rule extends protection even to non-bank transferees of the checks.

In the case under review, the Rodriguez checks were payable to specified payees. It is unrefuted that the 69 checks were payable to specific persons. Likewise, it is uncontroverted that the payees were actual, existing, and living persons who were members of PEMSLA that had a rediscounting arrangement with spouses Rodriguez. What remains to be determined is if the payees, though existing persons, were fictitious in its broader context. For the fictitious-payee rule to be available as a defense, PNB must show that the makers did not intend for the named payees to be part of the transaction involving the checks. At most, the banks thesis shows that the payees did not have knowledge of the existence of the checks. This lack of knowledge on the part of the payees, however, was not tantamount to a lack of intention on the part of respondentsspouses that the payees would not receive the checks proceeds. Considering that respondents-spouses were transacting with PEMSLA and not the individual payees, it is understandable that they relied on the information given by the officers of PEMSLA that the payees would be receiving the checks. Verily, the subject checks are presumed order instruments. This is because, as found by both lower courts, PNB failed to present sufficient evidence to defeat the claim of respondents-spouses that the named payees were the intended recipients of the checks proceeds. The bank failed to satisfy a requisite condition of a fictitious-payee situation that the maker of the check intended for the payee to have no interest in the transaction. Because of a failure to show that the payees were fictitious in its broader sense, the fictitiouspayee rule does not apply. Thus, the checks are to be deemed payable to order. Consequently, the drawee bank bears the loss.[20] PNB was remiss in its duty as the drawee bank. It does not dispute the fact that its teller or tellers accepted the 69 checks for deposit to the PEMSLA account even without any indorsement from the named payees. It bears stressing that order instruments can only be negotiated with a valid indorsement. A bank that regularly processes checks that are neither payable to the customer nor duly indorsed by the payee is apparently grossly negligent in its operations.[21] This Court has recognized the unique public interest possessed by the banking industry and the need for the people to have full trust and confidence in their banks.[22] For this reason, banks are minded to treat their customers accounts with utmost care, confidence, and honesty.[23] In a checking transaction, the drawee bank has the duty to verify the genuineness of the signature of the drawer and to pay the check strictly in

accordance with the drawers instructions, i.e., to the named payee in the check. It should charge to the drawers accounts only the payables authorized by the latter. Otherwise, the drawee will be violating the instructions of the drawer and it shall be liable for the amount charged to the drawers account.[24] In the case at bar, respondents-spouses were the banks depositors. The checks were drawn against respondents-spouses accounts. PNB, as the drawee bank, had the responsibility to ascertain the regularity of the indorsements, and the genuineness of the signatures on the checks before accepting them for deposit. Lastly, PNB was obligated to pay the checks in strict accordance with the instructions of the drawers. Petitioner miserably failed to discharge this burden. The checks were presented to PNB for deposit by a representative of PEMSLA absent any type of indorsement, forged or otherwise. The facts clearly show that the bank did not pay the checks in strict accordance with the instructions of the drawers, respondents-spouses. Instead, it paid the values of the checks not to the named payees or their order, but to PEMSLA, a third party to the transaction between the drawers and the payees. Moreover, PNB was negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees. The trustworthiness of bank employees is indispensable to maintain the stability of the banking industry. Thus, banks are enjoined to be extra vigilant in the management and supervision of their employees. In Bank of the PhilippineIslands v. Court of Appeals,[25] this Court cautioned thus: Banks handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos. By the very nature of their work the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and officials is far greater

than those of ordinary clerks and employees. For obvious reasons, the banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.[26] PNBs tellers and officers, in violation of banking rules of procedure, permitted the invalid deposits of checks to the PEMSLA account. Indeed, when it is the gross negligence of the bank employees that caused the loss, the bank should be held liable.[27] PNBs argument that there is no loss to compensate since no demand for payment has been made by the payees must also fail. Damage was caused to respondents-spouses when the PEMSLA checks they deposited were returned for the reason Account Closed. These PEMSLA checks were the corresponding payments to the Rodriguez checks. Since they could not encash the PEMSLA checks, respondents-spouses were unable to collect payments for the amounts they had advanced. A bank that has been remiss in its duty must suffer the consequences of its negligence. Being issued to named payees, PNB was duty-bound by law and by banking rules and procedure to require that the checks be properly indorsed before accepting them for deposit and payment. In fine, PNB should be held liable for the amounts of the checks. One Last Note We note that the RTC failed to thresh out the merits of PNBs cross-claim against its codefendants PEMSLA and MPC. The records are bereft of any pleading filed by these two defendants in answer to the complaint of respondents-spouses and cross-claim of PNB. The Rules expressly provide that failure to file an answer is a ground for a declaration that defendant

is in default.[28] Yet, the RTC failed to sanction the failure of both PEMSLA and MPC to file responsive pleadings. Verily, the RTC dismissal of PNBs cross-claim has no basis. Thus, this judgment shall be without prejudice to whatever action the bank might take against its co-defendants in the trial court. To PNBs credit, it became involved in the controversial transaction not of its own volition but due to the actions of some of its employees. Considering that moral damages must be understood to be in concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, We resolve to reduce the award of moral damages toP50,000.00.[29] WHEREFORE, the appealed Amended Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award for moral damages is reduced toP50,000.00, and that this is without prejudice to whatever civil, criminal, or administrative action PNB might take against PEMSLA, MPC, and the employees involved. SO ORDERED.

SPS. PEDRO AND FLORENCIA VIOLAGO, G.R. No. 158262 Petitioners, - versus Promulgated: BA FINANCE CORPORATION and AVELINO VIOLAGO, July 21, 2008 Respondents. x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the August 20, 2002 Decision[1] and May 15, 2003 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 48489 entitled BA Finance Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sps. Pedro and Florencia Violago, Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Avelino Violago, Third Party Defendant-Appellant. Petitioners-spouses Pedro and Florencia Violago pray for the reversal of the appellate courts ruling which held them liable to respondent BA Finance Corporation (BA Finance) under a promissory note and a chattel mortgage. Petitioners likewise pray that respondent Avelino Violago be adjudged directly liable to BA Finance. The Facts Sometime in 1983, Avelino Violago, President of Violago Motor Sales Corporation (VMSC), offered to sell a car to his cousin, Pedro F. Violago, and the latters wife, Florencia. Avelino explained that he needed to sell a vehicle to increase the sales quota of VMSC, and that the spouses would just have to pay a down payment of PhP 60,500 while the balance would be financed by respondent BA Finance. The spouses would pay the monthly installments to BA Finance while Avelino would take care of the documentation and approval of financing of the car. Under these terms, the spouses then agreed to purchase a Toyota Cressida Model 1983 from VMSC.[3] On August 4, 1983, the spouses and Avelino signed a promissory note under which they bound themselves to pay jointly and severally to the order of VMSC the amount of PhP 209,601 in 36 monthly installments of PhP 5,822.25 a month, the first installment to be due and payable on September 16, 1983. Avelino prepared a Disclosure Statement of Loan/Credit Transportation which showed the net purchase price of the vehicle, down payment, balance, and finance charges. VMSC then issued a sales invoice in favor of the spouses with a detailed description of the Toyota Cressida car. In turn, the spouses executed a chattel mortgage over the car in favor of VMSC as security for the amount of PhP 209,601. VMSC, through Avelino, endorsed the promissory note to BA Financewithout recourse. After receiving the amount of PhP 209,601, VMSC executed a Deed of Assignment of its rights and interests under the promissory note and chattel mortgage in favor of BA Finance. Meanwhile, the spouses remitted the amount of PhP 60,500 to VMSC through Avelino.[4] The sales invoice was filed with the Land Transportation Office (LTO)-Baliwag Branch, which issued Certificate of Registration No. 0137032 in the name of Pedro on August 8, 1983. The spouses were unaware that the same car had already been sold in 1982 to Esmeraldo Violago, another cousin of Avelino, and registered in Esmeraldos name by the LTO-San Rafael Branch. Despite the spouses demand for the car and Avelinos repeated assurances, there was no delivery of the vehicle. Since VMSC failed to deliver the car, Pedro did not pay any monthly amortization to BA Finance. [5] On March 1, 1984, BA Finance filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 116 in Pasay City a complaint for Replevin with Damages against the spouses. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 1628-P, prayed for the delivery of the vehicle in favor of BA Finance or, if delivery cannot be effected, for the payment of PhP 199,049.41 plus penalty at the rate of 3% per month from February 15,

1984 until fully paid. BA Finance also asked for the payment of attorneys fees, liquidated damages, replevin bond premium, expenses in the seizure of the vehicle, and costs of suit. The RTC issued an Order of Replevin onMarch 28, 1984. The Violago spouses, as defendants a quo, were declared in default for failing to file an answer. Eventually, the RTC rendered on December 3, 1984 a decision in favor of BA Finance. A writ of execution was thereafter issued on January 11, 1985, followed by an alias writ of execution.[6] In the meantime, Esmeraldo conveyed the vehicle to Jose V. Olvido who was then issued Certificate of Registration No. 0014830-4 by the LTO-Cebu City Branch on April 29, 1985. On May 8, 1987, Jose executed a Chattel Mortgage over the vehicle in favor of Generoso Lopez as security for a loan covered by a promissory note in the amount of PhP 260,664. This promissory note was later endorsed to BA Finance, Cebu City branch.[7] On August 21, 1989, the spouses Violago filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Quash Writ of Execution on the basis of lack of a valid service of summons on them, among other reasons. The RTC denied the motions; hence, the spouses filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA, docketed as CA G.R. No. 2002-SP. On May 31, 1991, the CA nullified the RTCs order. This CA decision became final and executory. On January 28, 1992, the spouses filed their Answer before the RTC, alleging the following: they never received the vehicle from VMSC; the vehicle was previously sold to Esmeraldo; BA Finance was not a holder in due course under Section 59 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL); and the recourse of BA Finance should be against VMSC. On February 25, 1995, the Violago spouses, with prior leave of court, filed a Third Party Complaint against Avelino praying that he be held liable to them in the event that they be held liable to BA Finance, as well as for damages. VMSC was not impleaded as third party defendant. In his Motion to Dismiss and Answer, Avelino contended that he was not a party to the transaction personally, but VMSC. Avelinos motion was denied and the third party complaint against him was entertained by the trial court. Subsequently, the spouses belabored to prove that they affixed their signatures on the promissory note and chattel mortgage in favor of VMSC in blank.[8] The RTC rendered a Decision on March 5, 1994, finding for BA Finance but against the Violago spouses. The RTC, however, declared that they are entitled to be indemnified by Avelino. The dispositive portion of the RTCs decision reads: WHEREFORE, defendant-[third]-party plaintiffs spouses Pedro F. Violago and Florencia R. Violago are ordered to deliver to plaintiff BA Finance Corporation, at its principal office the BAFC Building, Gamboa St., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila the Toyota Cressida car, model 1983, bearing Engine No. 21R-02854117, and with Serial No. RX60-804614, covered by the deed of chattel mortgage dated August 4, 1983; or if such delivery cannot be made, to pay, jointly and severally, to the plaintiff the sum of P198,003.06 together with the penalty [thereon] at three percent (3%) a month, from March 1, 1984, until the amount is fully paid. In either case, the defendant-third-party plaintiffs are required to pay, jointly and severally, to the plaintiff a sum equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of P198,003.06 as attorneys fees, and another amount also equivalent to twenty five percent (25%) of the said unpaid balance, as liquidated damages. The defendant-third partyplaintiffs are also required to shoulder the litigation expenses and costs. As indemnification, third-party defendant Avelino Violago is ordered to deliver to defendants-third-party plaintiffs spouses Pedro F. Violago and Florencia R. Violago the aforedescribed motor vehicle; or if such delivery is not possible, to pay to the said spouses the sum of P198,003.06, together with the penalty thereon at three (3%) a month from March 1, 1984, until the amount is entirely paid.

In either case, the third-party defendant should pay to the defendant-third-party plaintiffs spouses a sum equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of P198,003.06 as attorneys fees, and another sum equivalent also to twenty-five percent (25%) of the said unpaid balance, as liquidated damages. Third-party defendant Avelino Violago is further ordered to return to the thirdparty plaintiffs the sum of P60,500.00 they paid to him as down payment for the car; and to pay them P15,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and reimburse them for all the expenses and costs of the suit. The counterclaims of the defendants and third-party defendant, for lack of merit, are dismissed.[9] The Ruling of the CA Petitioners-spouses and Avelino appealed to the CA. The spouses argued that the promissory note is a negotiable instrument; hence, the trial court should have applied the NIL and not the Civil Code. The spouses also asserted that since VMSC was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of sale, the sale was null and void for the failure in the cause or consideration of the promissory note, which in this case was the sale and delivery of the vehicle. The spouses also alleged that BA Finance was not a holder in due course of the note since it knew, through its Cebu City branch, that the car was never delivered to the spouses.[10] On the other hand, Avelino prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against him because he was not a party to the transaction, and for an order to the spouses to pay him moral damages and costs of suit. The appellate court ruled that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument and that BA Finance was a holder in due course, applying Secs. 8, 24, and 52 of the NIL. The CA faulted petitioners for failing to implead VMSC, the seller of the vehicle and creditor in the promissory note, as a party in their Third Party Complaint. Citing Salas v. Court of Appeals,[11] the appellate court reasoned that since VMSC is an indispensable party, any judgment will not bind it or be enforced against it. The absence of VMSC rendered the proceedings in the RTC and the judgment in the Third Party Complaint null and void, not only as to the absent party but also to the present parties, namely the Defendants-Appellants (petitioners herein) and the Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant (Avelino Violago). The CA set aside the trial courts order holding Avelino liable for damages to the spouses without prejudice to the action of the spouses against VMSC and Avelino in a separate action.[12] The dispositive portion of the August 20, 2002 CA Decision reads: IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal of the PlaintiffsAppellants is DISMISSED. The appeal of the Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant isGRANTED. The Decision of the Court a quo is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the Third-Party Complaint against the Third-Party-Defendant-appellant isDISMISSED, without prejudice. The counterclaims of the Third-Party Defendant Appellant against the Defendants-Appellants are DISMISSED, also without prejudice.[13] The spouses Violago sought but were denied reconsideration by the CA per its Resolution of May 15, 2003. The Issues Petitioners raise the following issues: WHETHER OR NOT THE HOLDER OF AN INVALID NEGOTIABLE PROMISSORY NOTE MAY BE CONSIDERED A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

WHETHER OR NOT A CHATTEL MORTGAGE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID DESPITE VITIATION OF CONSENT OF, AND THE FRAUD COMMITTED ON, THE MORTGAGORS BY AVELINO, AND THE CLEAR ABSENCE OF OBJECT CERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE VEIL OF CORPORATE ENTITY MAY BE INVOKED AND SUSTAINED DESPITE THE FRAUD AND DECEPTION OF AVELINO The Courts Ruling The ruling of the appellate court is set aside insofar as it dismissed, without prejudice, the third party complaint of petitioners against Avelino thereby effectively absolving Avelino from any liability under the third party complaint. In addressing the threshold issue of whether BA Finance is a holder in due course of the promissory note, we must determine whether the note is a negotiable instrument and, hence, covered by the NIL. In their appeal to the CA, petitioners argued that the promissory note is a negotiable instrument and that the provisions of the NIL, not the Civil Code, should be applied. In the present petition, however, petitioners claim that Article 1318 of the Civil Code [14]should be applied since their consent was vitiated by fraud, and, thus, the promissory note does not carry any legal effect despite its negotiation. Either way, the petitioners arguments deserve no merit. The promissory note is clearly negotiable. The appellate court was correct in finding all the requisites of a negotiable instrument present. The NIL provides: Section 1. Form of Negotiable Instruments. An instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following requirements: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty. The promissory note signed by petitioners reads: 209,601.00 Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, August 4, 1983

For value received, I/we, jointly and severally, promise to pay to the order of VIOLAGO MOTOR SALES CORPORATION, its office, the principal sum of TWO HUNDRED NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED ONE ONLY Pesos (P209,601.00), Philippines Currency, with interest at the rate stipulated herein below, in installments as follows: Thirty Six (36) successive monthly installments of P5,822.25, the first installment to be paid on 9-16-83, and the succeeding monthly installments on the 16th day of each and every succeeding month thereafter until the account is fully paid, provided that the penalty charge of three (3%) per cent per month or a fraction thereof shall be added on each unpaid installment from maturity thereof until fully paid. xxxx Notice of demand, presentment, dishonor and protest are hereby waived.

(Sgd.) PEDRO F. VIOLAGO 763 Constancia St., Sampaloc, Manila (Address) (Sgd.) Marivic Avaria (WITNESS)

(Sgd.) FLORENCIA R. VIOLAGO same (Address) (Sgd.) Jesus Tuazon (WITNESS)

PAY TO THE ORDER OF BA FINANCE CORPORATION WITHOUT RECOURSE VIOLAGO MOTOR SALES CORPORATION By: (Sgd.) AVELINO A. VIOLAGO, Pres. [15] The promissory note clearly satisfies the requirements of a negotiable instrument under the NIL. It is in writing; signed by the Violago spouses; has an unconditional promise to pay a certain amount, i.e., PhP 209,601, on specific dates in the future which could be determined from the terms of the note; made payable to the order of VMSC; and names the drawees with certainty. The indorsement by VMSC to BA Finance appears likewise to be valid and regular. The more important issue now is whether or not BA Finance is a holder in due course. The resolution of this issue will determine whether petitioners defense of fraud and nullity of the sale could validly be raised against respondent corporation. Sec. 52 of the NIL provides: Section 52. What constitutes a holder in due course.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; (b) That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (c) That he took it in good faith and for value; (d) That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it. The law presumes that a holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder thereof in due course. [16] In this case, the CA is correct in finding that BA Finance meets all the foregoing requisites: In the present recourse, on its face, (a) the Promissory Note, Exhibit A, is complete and regular; (b) the Promissory Note was endorsed by the VMSC in favor of the Appellee; (c) the Appellee, when it accepted the Note, acted in good faith and for value; (d) the Appellee was never informed, before and at the time the Promissory Note was endorsed to the Appellee, that the vehicle sold to the Defendants-Appellants was not delivered to the latter and that VMSC had already previously sold the vehicle to Esmeraldo Violago. Although Jose Olvido mortgaged the vehicle to Generoso Lopez, who assigned his rights to the BA Finance Corporation (Cebu Branch), the same occurred only on May 8, 1987, much later than August 4, 1983, when VMSC assigned its rights over the Chattel Mortgage by the Defendants-Appellants to the Appellee. Hence, Appellee was a holder in due course.[17] In the hands of one other than a holder in due course, a negotiable instrument is subject to the same defenses as if it were non-negotiable.[18] A holder in due course, however, holds the instrument free

from any defect of title of prior parties and from defenses available to prior parties among themselves, and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof. [19] Since BA Finance is a holder in due course, petitioners cannot raise the defense of non-delivery of the object and nullity of the sale against the corporation. The NIL considers every negotiable instrument prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration.[20] In Salas, we held that a party holding an instrument may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof. As such, the maker cannot set up the defense of nullity of the contract of sale.[21] Thus, petitioners are liable to respondent corporation for the payment of the amount stated in the instrument. From the third party complaint to the present petition, however, petitioners pray that the veil of corporate fiction be set aside and Avelino be adjudged directly liable to BA Finance. Petitioners likewise pray for damages for the fraud committed upon them. In Concept Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, we held: It is a fundamental principle of corporation law that a corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it may be connected. But, this separate and distinct personality of a corporation is merely a fiction created by law for convenience and to promote justice. So, when the notion of separate juridical personality is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, or is used as a device to defeat the labor laws, this separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded or the veil of corporate fiction pierced. This is true likewise when the corporation is merely an adjunct, a business conduit or an alter ego of another corporation. xxxx The test in determining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is as follows: 1. Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or dishonest and unjust acts in contravention of plaintiffs legal rights; and The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of.[22]

2. 3.

This case meets the foregoing test. VMSC is a family-owned corporation of which Avelino was president. Avelino committed fraud in selling the vehicle to petitioners, a vehicle that was previously sold to Avelinos other cousin, Esmeraldo. Nowhere in the pleadings did Avelino refute the fact that the vehicle in this case was already previously sold to Esmeraldo; he merely insisted that he cannot be held liable because he was not a party to the transaction. The fact that Avelino and Pedro are cousins, and that Avelino claimed to have a need to increase the sales quota, was likely among the factors which motivated the spouses to buy the car. Avelino, knowing fully well that the vehicle was already sold, and with abuse of his relationship with the spouses, still proceeded with the sale and collected the down payment from petitioners. The trial court found that the vehicle was not delivered to the spouses. Avelino clearly defrauded petitioners. His actions were the proximate cause of petitioners loss. He cannot now hide behind the separate corporate personality of VMSC to escape from liability for the amount adjudged by the trial court in favor of petitioners. The fact that VMSC was not included as defendant in petitioners third party complaint does not preclude recovery by petitioners from Avelino; neither would such non-inclusion constitute a bar to the application of the piercing-of-the-corporate-veil doctrine. We suggested as much in Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, an appellate proceeding involving petitioner Arcillas bid to avoid the adverse CA decision on the argument that he is not personally liable for the amount adjudged since the same constitutes a corporate

liability which nevertheless cannot even be enforced against the corporation which has not been impleaded as a party below. In that case, the Court found as well-taken the CAs act of disregarding the separate juridical personality of the corporation and holding its president, Arcilla, liable for the obligations incurred in the name of the corporation although it was not a party to the collection suit before the trial court. An excerpt from Arcilla: x x x In short, even if We are to assume arguendo that the obligation was incurred in the name of the corporation, the petitioner [Arcilla] would still be personally liable therefor because for all legal intents and purposes, he and the corporation are one and the same. Csar Marine Resources, Inc. is nothing more than his business conduit and alter ego. The fiction of separate juridical personality conferred upon such corporation by law should be disregarded. Significantly, petitioner does not seriously challenge the [CAs] application of the doctrine which permits the piercing of the corporate veil and the disregarding of the fiction of a separate juridical personality; this is because he knows only too well that from the beginning, he merely used the corporation for his personal purposes.[23] WHEREFORE, the CAs August 20, 2002 Decision and May 15, 2003 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 48489 are SET ASIDE insofar as they dismissed without prejudice the third party complaint of petitioners-spouses Pedro and Florencia Violago against respondent Avelino Violago. The March 5, 1994 Decision of the RTC is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. Costs against Avelino Violago. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 161756 December 16, 2005 VICTORIA J. ILANO represented by her Attorney-in-fact, MILO ANTONIO C. ILANO, Petitioners, vs. HON. DOLORES L. ESPAOL, DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: The Court of Appeals having affirmed the dismissal by Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite at Imus, for lack of cause of action, Civil Case No. 2079-00, the complaint filed by herein petitioner Victoria J. Ilano forRevocation/Cancellation of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Checks) with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),1 against herein respondents 15 named defendants (and several John Does), a recital of the pertinent allegations in the complaint, quoted verbatim as follows, is in order: xxx 3. That defendant AMELIA O. ALONZO, is a trusted employee of [petitioner]. She has been with them for several years already, and through the years, defendant ALONZO was able to gain the trust and confidence of [petitioner] and her family; 4. That due to these trust and confidence reposed upon defendant ALONZO by [petitioner], there were occasions when defendant ALONZO was entrusted with [petitioners] METROBANK Check Book containing either signed or unsigned blank checks, especially in those times when [petitioner] left for the United States for medical check-up; 5. Sometime during the second week of December 1999, or thereabouts, defendant ALONZO by means of deceit and abuse of confidence succeeded in procuring Promissory Notes and signed blank checks from [petitioner] who was then recuperating from illness; 6. That as stated, aside from the said blank checks, defendant ALONZO likewise succeeded in inducing [petitioner] to sign the Promissory Notes antedated June 8, 1999 in the amount of PESOS: ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO (Php 1,428,272.00) payable to defendants EDITH CALILAP and DANILO CALILAP, and another Promissory Noted dated March 1999 in the amount of PESOS: ONE MILLION (Php 1,000,000.00) payable to the same defendants EDITH CALILAP and DANILO CALILAP, copies of said Promissory Notes are hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "A-1" hereof; 7. That another Promissory Note antedated October 1, 1999 thru the machination of defendant ALONZO, was signed by [petitioner] in the amount of PESOS: THREE MILLION FORTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED ONE (Php 3,046,401.00) excluding interest, in favor of her co-defendants ESTELA CAMACLANG, ALLAN CAMACLANG, LENIZA REYES, EDWIN REYES, JANE BACAREL and CHERRY CAMACLANG, a copy of said Promissory Note is hereto attached as Annex "B" hereof; 8. That the Promissory Notes and blank checks were procured thru fraud and deceit. The consent of the [petitioner] in the issuance of the two (2) aforementioned Promissory Notes was vitiated. Furthermore, the same were issued for want of consideration, hence, the same should be cancelled, revoked or declared null and void; 9. That as clearly shown heretofore, defendant ALONZO in collusion with her co-defendants, ESTELA CAMACLANG, ALLAN CAMACLANG and ESTELITA LEGASPI likewise was able to induce plaintiff to sign several undated blank checks, among which are: Metrobank Check No. 0111544 Metrobank Check No. 0111545 Metrobank Check No. 0111546 Metrobank Check No. 0111547 Metrobank Check No. 0111515 all in the total amount of Php 3,031,600.00, copies of said checks are hereto attached as Annexes "C", "C-1", "C-2", "C-3" and "C-4", respectively; 10. That aside from the checks mentioned heretofore, defendant ALONZO, confederated and conspired with the following co-defendants, FLORA CABRERA, NEMIA CASTRO, EDITH CALILAP, DANILO CALILAP, GLORIA DOMINGUEZ, CARMENCITA GONZALES and ANNILYN

C. SABALE and took advantage of the signature of [petitioner] in said blank checks which were later on completed by them indicated opposite their respective names and the respective amount thereof, as follows: NAME AMOUNT METROBANK Check No. Flora Cabrera Php 337,584.58 0111460 Flora Cabrera 98,000.00 0111514 Nemia Castro 100,000.00 0111542 Nemia Castro 150,000.00 0084078 Edith Calilap/Danilo Calilap 490,000.00 0111513 Edith Calilap/Danilo Calilap 790,272.00 0111512 Edith Calilap/Danilo Calilap 1,220,000.00 0111462 Gloria Dominguez/ 1,046,040.00 0111543 Carmencita Gonzales Annilyn C. Sable 150,000.00 0085134 Annilyn C. Sable 250,000.00 0085149 Annilyn C. Sable 186,000.00 0085112 Copy attached as Annexes "D", "D-1", "D-2", "D-3", "D-4", "D-5", "D-6", "D-7", "D-8", "D-9" and "D10", respectively; Furthermore, defendant ALONZO colluded and conspired with defendant NEMIA CASTO in procuring the signature of [petitioner] in documents denominated as "Malayang Salaysay" dated July 22, 1999 in the amount of PESOS: ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (Php 150,000.00) and another "Malayang Salaysay" dated November 22, 1999 in the amount of PESOS: ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 100,000.00) Annexes "D-11" and "D-12" hereof; 11. That said defendants took undue advantage of the signature of [petitioner] in the said blank checks and furthermore forged and or falsified the signature of [petitioner] in other unsigned checks and as it was made to appear that said [petitioner] is under the obligation to pay them several amounts of money, when in truth and in fact, said [petitioner] does not owe any of said defendant any single amount; 12. That the issuance of the aforementioned checks or Promissory Notes or the aforementioned "Malayang Salaysay" to herein defendants were tainted with fraud and deceit, and defendants conspired with one another to defraud herein [petitioner] as the aforementioned documents were issued for want of consideration; 13. That the aforesaid defendants conspiring and confederating together and helping one another committed acts of falsification and defraudation which they should be held accountable under law; 14. The foregoing acts, and transactions, perpetrated by herein defendants in all bad faith and malice, with malevolence and selfish intent are causing anxiety, tension, sleepless nights, wounded feelings, and embarrassment to [petitioner] entitling her to moral damages of at least in the amount of PESOS: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 500,000.00); 15. That to avoid repetition of similar acts and as a correction for the public good, the defendants should be held liable to [petitioner] for exemplary damages in the sum of not less than the amount of PESOS: TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 200,000.00); 16. That to protect the rights and interest of the [petitioner] in the illegal actuations of the defendants, she was forced to engage the services of counsel for which she was obliged to pay the sum of PESOS: ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 100,000.00) by way of Attorneys fees plus the amount of PESOS: THREE THOUSAND (Php 3,000.00) per appearance in court; x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The named defendants-herein respondents filed their respective Answers invoking, among other grounds for dismissal,lack of cause of action, for while the checks subject of the complaint had been issued on account and for value, some had been dishonored due to "ACCOUNT CLOSED;" and the allegations in the complaint are bare and general.

By Order2 dated October 12, 2000, the trial court dismissed petitioners complaint for failure "to allege the ultimate facts"-bases of petitioners claim that her right was violated and that she suffered damages thereby. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, petitioner contended that the trial court: A. . . . FAILED TO STATE CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY THE FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH THE APPEALED ORDER WAS BASED, THEREBY RENDERING SAID ORDER NULL AND VOID. B. . . . ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO ALLEGE ULTIMATE FACTS ON WHICH [PETITIONER] RELIES ON HER CLAIM THEREBY DISMISSING THE CASE FOR LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION. C. . . . ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THAT CONTAINED A FAULTY NOTICE OF HEARING AS THE SAME IS MERELY ADDRESSED TO THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT.3 In its Decision4 of March 21, 2003 affirming the dismissal order of the trial court, the appellate court held that the elements of a cause of action are absent in the case: xxx Such allegations in the complaint are only general averments of fraud, deceit and bad faith. There were no allegations of facts showing that the acts complained of were done in the manner alleged. The complaint did not clearly ascribe the extent of the liability of each of [respondents]. Neither did it state any right or cause of action on the part of [petitioner] to show that she is indeed entitled to the relief prayed for. In the first place, the record shows that subject checks which she sought to cancel or revoke had already been dishonored and stamped "ACCOUNT CLOSED." In fact, there were already criminal charges for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 filed against [petitioner] previous to the filing of the civil case for revocation/cancellation. Such being the case, there was actually nothing more to cancel or revoke. The subject checks could no longer be negotiated. Thus, [petitioners] allegation that the [respondents] were secretly negotiating with third persons for their delivery and/or assignment, is untenable. In the second place, we find nothing on the face of the complaint to show that [petitioner] denied the genuineness or authenticity of her signature on the subject promissory notes and the allegedly signed blank checks. She merely alleged abuse of trust and confidence on the part of [Alonzo]. Even assuming arguendo that such allegations were true, then [petitioner] cannot be held totally blameless for her predicament as it was by her own negligence that subject instruments/signed blank checks fell into the hands of third persons. Contrary to [petitioners] allegations, the promissory notes show that some of the [respondents] were actually creditors of [petitioner] and who were issued the subject checks as securities for the loan/obligation incurred. Having taken the instrument in good faith and for value, the [respondents] are therefore considered holders thereof in due course and entitled to payment. x x x (Underscoring supplied) Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari, petitioner faulting the appellate court: 1. . . . in sustaining the dismissal of the complaint upon the ground of failure to state a cause of action when there are other several causes of action which ventilate such causes of action in the complaint; 2. . . . in finding that a requirement that a Decision which should express therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not include cases which had not reached pre-trial or trial stage; 3. . . . in not finding that a notice of hearing which was addressed to the Clerk of Court is totally defective and that subsequent action of the court did not cure the flaw.5 In issue then is whether petitioners complaint failed to state a cause of action. A cause of action has three elements: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. In determining the presence of these elements, inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint6 including its annexes, they being parts thereof.7 If these elements are absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.8

As reflected in the above-quoted allegations in petitioners complaint, petitioner is seeking twin reliefs, one for revocation/cancellation of promissory notes and checks, and the other for damages. Thus, petitioner alleged, among other things, that respondents, through "deceit," "abuse of confidence" "machination," "fraud," "falsification," "forgery," "defraudation," and "bad faith," and "with malice, malevolence and selfish intent," succeeded in inducing her to sign antedated promissory notes and some blank checks, and "[by taking] undue advantage" of her signature on some other blank checks, succeeded in procuring them, even if there was no consideration for all of these instruments on account of which she suffered "anxiety, tension, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and embarrassment." While some of the allegations may lack particulars, and are in the form of conclusions of law, the elements of a cause of action are present. For even if some are not stated with particularity, petitioner alleged 1) her legal right not to be bound by the instruments which were bereft of consideration and to which her consent was vitiated; 2) the correlative obligation on the part of the defendants-respondents to respect said right; and 3) the act of the defendants-respondents in procuring her signature on the instruments through "deceit," "abuse of confidence" "machination," "fraud," "falsification," "forgery," "defraudation," and "bad faith," and "with malice, malevolence and selfish intent." Where the allegations of a complaint are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions, its dismissal is not proper for the defendant may ask for more particulars.9 With respect to the checks subject of the complaint, it is gathered that, except for Check No. 0084078,10 they were drawn all against petitioners Metrobank Account No. 00703-955536-7. Annex "D-8"11 of the complaint, a photocopy of Check No. 0085134, shows that it was dishonored on January 12, 2000due to "ACCOUNT CLOSED." When petitioner then filed her complaint on March 28, 2000, all the checks subject hereof which were drawn against the same closed account were already rendered valueless or non-negotiable, hence, petitioner had, with respect to them, no cause of action. With respect to above-said Check No. 0084078, however, which was drawn against another account of petitioner, albeit the date of issue bears only the year 1999, its validity and negotiable character at the time the complaint was filed on March 28, 2000 was not affected. For Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides: Section 6. Omission; seal; particular money. The validity and negotiable character of an instrument are not affected by the fact that (a) It is not dated; or (b) Does not specify the value given, or that any value had been given therefor; or (c) Does not specify the place where it is drawn or the place where it is payable; or (d) Bears a seal; or (e) Designates a particular kind of current money in which payment is to be made. x x x (Emphasis supplied) However, even if the holder of Check No. 0084078 would have filled up the month and day of issue thereon to be "December" and "31," respectively, it would have, as it did, become stale six (6) months or 180 days thereafter, following current banking practice.12It is, however, with respect to the questioned promissory notes that the present petition assumes merit. For, petitioners allegations in the complaint relative thereto, even if lacking particularity, does not as priorly stated call for the dismissal of the complaint. WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The March 21, 2003 decision of the appellate court affirming the October 12, 2000 Order of the trial court, Branch 20 of the RTC of Imus, Cavite, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in light of the foregoing discussions. The trial court is DIRECTED to REINSTATE Civil Case No. 2079-00 to its docket and take further proceedings thereon only insofar as the complaint seeks the revocation/cancellation of the subject promissory notes and damages. Let the records of the case be then REMANDED to the trial court. SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 113236. March 5, 2001] FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs., COURT OF APPEALS and LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK,respondents. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: This petition assails the decision[1] dated December 29, 1993 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 29546, which affirmed the judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 113 in Civil Case No. PQ-7854-P, dismissing Firestones complaint for damages. The facts of this case, adopted by the CA and based on findings by the trial court, are as follows: [D]efendant is a banking corporation. It operates under a certificate of authority issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines, and among its activities, accepts savings and time deposits. Said defendant had as one of its client-depositors the Fojas-Arca Enterprises Company (Fojas-Arca for brevity). Fojas-Arca maintaining a special savings account with the defendant, the latter authorized and allowed withdrawals of funds therefrom through the medium of special withdrawal slips. These are supplied by the defendant to Fojas-Arca. In January 1978, plaintiff and Fojas-Arca entered into a Franchised Dealership Agreement (Exh. B) whereby Fojas-Arca has the privilege to purchase on credit and sell plaintiffs products. On January 14, 1978 up to May 15, 1978. Pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement, Fojas-Arca purchased on credit Firestone products from plaintiff with a total amount of P4,896,000.00. In payment of these purchases, Fojas-Arca delivered to plaintiff six (6) special withdrawal slips drawn upon the defendant. In turn, these were deposited by the plaintiff with its current account with the Citibank. All of them were honored and paid by the defendant. This singular circumstance made plaintiff believe [sic] and relied [sic] on the fact that the succeeding special withdrawal slips drawn upon the defendant would be equally sufficiently funded. Relying on such confidence and belief and as a direct consequence thereof, plaintiff extended to Fojas-Arca other purchases on credit of its products. On the following dates Fojas-Arca purchased Firestone products on credit (Exh. M, I, J, K) and delivered to plaintiff the corresponding special withdrawal slips in payment thereof drawn upon the defendant, to wit: DATE WITHDRAWAL AMOUNT SLIP NO. June 15, 1978 42127 P1,198,092.80 July 15, 1978 42128 940,190.00 Aug. 15, 1978 42129 880,000.00 Sep. 15, 1978 42130 981,500.00 These were likewise deposited by plaintiff in its current account with Citibank and in turn the Citibank forwarded it [sic] to the defendant for payment and collection, as it had done in respect of the previous special withdrawal slips. Out of these four (4) withdrawal slips only withdrawal slip No. 42130 in the amount of P981,500.00 was honored and paid by the defendant in October 1978. Because of the absence for a long period coupled with the fact that defendant honored and paid withdrawal slips No. 42128 dated July 15, 1978, in the amount of P981,500.00 plaintiffs belief was all the more strengthened that the other withdrawal slips were likewise sufficiently funded, and that it had received full value and payment of Fojas-Arcas credit purchased then outstanding at the time. On this basis, plaintiff was induced to continue extending to Fojas-Arca further purchase on credit of its products as per agreement (Exh. B). However, on December 14, 1978, plaintiff was informed by Citibank that special withdrawal slips No. 42127 dated June 15, 1978 for P1,198,092.80 and No. 42129 dated August 15, 1978 for P880,000.00 were dishonored and not paid for the reason NO ARRANGEMENT. As a consequence, the Citibank debited plaintiffs account for the total sum of P2,078,092.80 representing the aggregate amount of the above-two special withdrawal slips. Under such situation, plaintiff averred that the pecuniary losses it suffered is caused by and directly attributable to defendants gross negligence. On September 25, 1979, counsel of plaintiff served a written demand upon the defendant for the satisfaction of the damages suffered by it. And due to defendants refusal to pay plaintiffs claim, plaintiff has been constrained to file this complaint, thereby compelling plaintiff to incur litigation expenses and attorneys fees which amount are recoverable from the defendant. Controverting the foregoing asseverations of plaintiff, defendant asserted, inter alia that the transactions mentioned by plaintiff are that of plaintiff and Fojas-Arca only, [in] which defendant is not involved;

Vehemently, it was denied by defendant that the special withdrawal slips were honored and treated as if it were checks, the truth being that when the special withdrawal slips were received by defendant, it only verified whether or not the signatures therein were authentic, and whether or not the deposit level in the passbook concurred with the savings ledger, and whether or not the deposit is sufficient to cover the withdrawal; if plaintiff treated the special withdrawal slips paid by Fojas-Arca as checks then plaintiff has to blame itself for being grossly negligent in treating the withdrawal slips as check when it is clearly stated therein that the withdrawal slips are non-negotiable; that defendant is not a privy to any of the transactions between Fojas-Arca and plaintiff for which reason defendant is not duty bound to notify nor give notice of anything to plaintiff. If at first defendant had given notice to plaintiff it is merely an extension of usual bank courtesy to a prospective client; that defendant is only dealing with its depositor Fojas-Arca and not the plaintiff. In summation, defendant categorically stated that plaintiff has no cause of action against it (pp. 1-3, Dec.; pp. 368-370, id).[3] Petitioners complaint[4] for a sum of money and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 113, docketed as Civil Case No. 29546, was dismissed together with the counterclaim of defendant. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. It averred that respondent Luzon Development Bank was liable for damages under Article 2176[5] in relation to Articles 19[6] and 20[7] of the Civil Code. As noted by the CA, petitioner alleged the following tortious acts on the part of private respondent: 1) the acceptance and payment of the special withdrawal slips without the presentation of the depositors passbook thereby giving the impression that the withdrawal slips are instruments payable upon presentment; 2) giving the special withdrawal slips the general appearance of checks; and 3) the failure of respondent bank to seasonably warn petitioner that it would not honor two of the four special withdrawal slips. On December 29, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed decision. It denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. According to the appellate court, respondent bank notified the depositor to present the passbook whenever it received a collection note from another bank, belying petitioners claim that respondent bank was negligent in not requiring a passbook under the subject transaction. The appellate court also found that the special withdrawal slips in question were not purposely given the appearance of checks, contrary to petitioners assertions, and thus should not have been mistaken for checks. Lastly, the appellate court ruled that the respondent bank was under no obligation to inform petitioner of the dishonor of the special withdrawal slips, for to do so would have been a violation of the law on the secrecy of bank deposits. Hence, the instant petition, alleging the following assignment of error: 25. The CA grievously erred in holding that the [Luzon Development] Bank was free from any fault or negligence regarding the dishonor, or in failing to give fair and timely advice of the dishonor, of the two intermediate LDB Slips and in failing to award damages to Firestone pursuant to Article 2176 of the New Civil Code.[8] The issue for our consideration is whether or not respondent bank should be held liable for damages suffered by petitioner, due to its allegedly belated notice of non-payment of the subject withdrawal slips. The initial transaction in this case was between petitioner and Fojas-Arca, whereby the latter purchased tires from the former with special withdrawal slips drawn upon Fojas-Arcas special savings account with respondent bank. Petitioner in turn deposited these withdrawal slips with Citibank. The latter credited the same to petitioners current account, then presented the slips for payment to respondent bank. It was at this point that the bone of contention arose. On December 14, 1978, Citibank informed petitioner that special withdrawal slips Nos. 42127 and 42129 dated June 15, 1978 and August 15, 1978, respectively, were refused payment by respondent bank due to insufficiency of Fojas-Arcas funds on deposit. That information came about six months from the time Fojas-Arca purchased tires from petitioner using the subject withdrawal slips. Citibank then debited the amount of these withdrawal slips from petitioners account, causing the alleged pecuniary damage subject of petitioners cause of action. At the outset, we note that petitioner admits that the withdrawal slips in question were non-negotiable. [9] Hence, the rules governing the giving of immediate notice of dishonor of negotiable instruments do not apply in this case.[10] Petitioner itself concedes this point.[11] Thus, respondent bank was under no obligation to give immediate notice that it would not make payment on the subject withdrawal slips. Citibank should have known that withdrawal slips were not negotiable instruments. It could not expect these slips to be treated as checks by other entities. Payment or notice of dishonor from respondent bank could not be expected immediately, in contrast to the situation involving checks.

In the case at bar, it appears that Citibank, with the knowledge that respondent Luzon Development Bank, had honored and paid the previous withdrawal slips, automatically credited petitioners current account with the amount of the subject withdrawal slips, then merely waited for the same to be honored and paid by respondent bank. It presumed that the withdrawal slips were good. It bears stressing that Citibank could not have missed the non-negotiable nature of the withdrawal slips. The essence of negotiability which characterizes a negotiable paper as a credit instrument lies in its freedom to circulate freely as a substitute for money. [12] The withdrawal slips in question lacked this character. A bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions of pesos. [13] The fact that the other withdrawal slips were honored and paid by respondent bank was no license for Citibank to presume that subsequent slips would be honored and paid immediately. By doing so, it failed in its fiduciary duty to treat the accounts of its clients with the highest degree of care.[14] In the ordinary and usual course of banking operations, current account deposits are accepted by the bank on the basis of deposit slips prepared and signed by the depositor, or the latters agent or representative, who indicates therein the current account number to which the deposit is to be credited, the name of the depositor or current account holder, the date of the deposit, and the amount of the deposit either in cash or in check.[15] The withdrawal slips deposited with petitioners current account with Citibank were not checks, as petitioner admits. Citibank was not bound to accept the withdrawal slips as a valid mode of deposit. But having erroneously accepted them as such, Citibank and petitioner as account-holder must bear the risks attendant to the acceptance of these instruments. Petitioner and Citibank could not now shift the risk and hold private respondent liable for their admitted mistake. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 29546 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992

CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents. REGALADO, J.: This petition for review on certiorari impugns and seeks the reversal of the decision promulgated by respondent court on March 8, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No. 23615 1 affirming with modifications, the earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XLII, 2 which dismissed the complaint filed therein by herein petitioner against respondent bank. The undisputed background of this case, as found by the court a quo and adopted by respondent court, appears of record: 1. On various dates, defendant, a commercial banking institution, through its Sucat Branch issued 280 certificates of time deposit (CTDs) in favor of one Angel dela Cruz who deposited with herein defendant the aggregate amount of P1,120,000.00, as follows: (Joint Partial Stipulation of Facts and Statement of Issues, Original Records, p. 207; Defendant's Exhibits 1 to 280); CTD CTD Dates Serial Nos. Quantity Amount 22 Feb. 82 90101 to 90120 20 P80,000 26 Feb. 82 74602 to 74691 90 360,000 2 Mar. 82 74701 to 74740 40 160,000 4 Mar. 82 90127 to 90146 20 80,000 5 Mar. 82 74797 to 94800 4 16,000 5 Mar. 82 89965 to 89986 22 88,000 5 Mar. 82 70147 to 90150 4 16,000 8 Mar. 82 90001 to 90020 20 80,000 9 Mar. 82 90023 to 90050 28 112,000 9 Mar. 82 89991 to 90000 10 40,000 9 Mar. 82 90251 to 90272 22 88,000 Total 280 P1,120,000 ===== ======== 2. Angel dela Cruz delivered the said certificates of time (CTDs) to herein plaintiff in connection with his purchased of fuel products from the latter (Original Record, p. 208). 3. Sometime in March 1982, Angel dela Cruz informed Mr. Timoteo Tiangco, the Sucat Branch Manger, that he lost all the certificates of time deposit in dispute. Mr. Tiangco advised said depositor to execute and submit a notarized Affidavit of Loss, as required by defendant bank's procedure, if he desired replacement of said lost CTDs (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 48-50). 4. On March 18, 1982, Angel dela Cruz executed and delivered to defendant bank the required Affidavit of Loss (Defendant's Exhibit 281). On the basis of said affidavit of loss, 280 replacement CTDs were issued in favor of said depositor (Defendant's Exhibits 282-561). 5. On March 25, 1982, Angel dela Cruz negotiated and obtained a loan from defendant bank in the amount of Eight Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P875,000.00). On the same date, said depositor executed a notarized Deed of Assignment of Time Deposit (Exhibit 562) which stated, among others, that he (de la Cruz) surrenders to defendant bank "full control of the indicated time deposits from and after date" of the assignment and further authorizes said bank to pre-terminate, set-off and "apply the said time deposits to the payment of whatever amount or amounts may be due" on the loan upon its maturity (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 60-62). 6. Sometime in November, 1982, Mr. Aranas, Credit Manager of plaintiff Caltex (Phils.) Inc., went to the defendant bank's Sucat branch and presented for verification the CTDs declared lost by Angel dela Cruz alleging that the same were delivered to herein plaintiff "as security for purchases made with Caltex Philippines, Inc." by said depositor (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 54-68). 7. On November 26, 1982, defendant received a letter (Defendant's Exhibit 563) from herein plaintiff formally informing it of its possession of the CTDs in question and of its decision to pre-terminate the same.

8. On December 8, 1982, plaintiff was requested by herein defendant to furnish the former "a copy of the document evidencing the guarantee agreement with Mr. Angel dela Cruz" as well as "the details of Mr. Angel dela Cruz" obligation against which plaintiff proposed to apply the time deposits (Defendant's Exhibit 564). 9. No copy of the requested documents was furnished herein defendant. 10. Accordingly, defendant bank rejected the plaintiff's demand and claim for payment of the value of the CTDs in a letter dated February 7, 1983 (Defendant's Exhibit 566). 11. In April 1983, the loan of Angel dela Cruz with the defendant bank matured and fell due and on August 5, 1983, the latter set-off and applied the time deposits in question to the payment of the matured loan (TSN, February 9, 1987, pp. 130-131). 12. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff filed the instant complaint, praying that defendant bank be ordered to pay it the aggregate value of the certificates of time deposit of P1,120,000.00 plus accrued interest and compounded interest therein at 16% per annum, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. After trial, the court a quo rendered its decision dismissing the instant complaint. 3 On appeal, as earlier stated, respondent court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint, hence this petition wherein petitioner faults respondent court in ruling (1) that the subject certificates of deposit are non-negotiable despite being clearly negotiable instruments; (2) that petitioner did not become a holder in due course of the said certificates of deposit; and (3) in disregarding the pertinent provisions of the Code of Commerce relating to lost instruments payable to bearer. 4 The instant petition is bereft of merit. A sample text of the certificates of time deposit is reproduced below to provide a better understanding of the issues involved in this recourse. SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 6778 Ayala Ave., Makati No. 90101 Metro Manila, Philippines SUCAT OFFICEP 4,000.00 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT Rate 16% Date of Maturity FEB. 23, 1984 FEB 22, 1982, 19____ This is to Certify that B E A R E R has deposited in this Bank the sum of PESOS: FOUR THOUSAND ONLY, SECURITY BANK SUCAT OFFICE P4,000 & 00 CTS Pesos, Philippine Currency, repayable to said depositor 731 days. after date, upon presentation and surrender of this certificate, with interest at the rate of 16% per cent per annum. (Sgd. Illegible) (Sgd. Illegible) AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES 5 Respondent court ruled that the CTDs in question are non-negotiable instruments, nationalizing as follows: . . . While it may be true that the word "bearer" appears rather boldly in the CTDs issued, it is important to note that after the word "BEARER" stamped on the space provided supposedly for the name of the depositor, the words "has deposited" a certain amount follows. The document further provides that the amount deposited shall be "repayable to said depositor" on the period indicated. Therefore, the text of the instrument(s) themselves manifest with clarity that they are payable, not to whoever purports to be the "bearer" but only to the specified person indicated therein, the depositor. In effect, the appellee bank acknowledges its depositor Angel dela Cruz as the person who made the deposit

and further engages itself to pay said depositor the amount indicated thereon at the stipulated date. 6 We disagree with these findings and conclusions, and hereby hold that the CTDs in question are negotiable instruments. Section 1 Act No. 2031, otherwise known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, enumerates the requisites for an instrument to become negotiable, viz: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty. The CTDs in question undoubtedly meet the requirements of the law for negotiability. The parties' bone of contention is with regard to requisite (d) set forth above. It is noted that Mr. Timoteo P. Tiangco, Security Bank's Branch Manager way back in 1982, testified in open court that the depositor reffered to in the CTDs is no other than Mr. Angel de la Cruz. xxx xxx xxx Atty. Calida: q In other words Mr. Witness, you are saying that per books of the bank, the depositor referred (sic) in these certificates states that it was Angel dela Cruz? witness: a Yes, your Honor, and we have the record to show that Angel dela Cruz was the one who cause (sic) the amount. Atty. Calida: q And no other person or entity or company, Mr. Witness? witness: a None, your Honor. 7 xxx xxx xxx Atty. Calida: q Mr. Witness, who is the depositor identified in all of these certificates of time deposit insofar as the bank is concerned? witness: a Angel dela Cruz is the depositor. 8 xxx xxx xxx On this score, the accepted rule is that the negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is determined from the writing, that is, from the face of the instrument itself. 9 In the construction of a bill or note, the intention of the parties is to control, if it can be legally ascertained. 10 While the writing may be read in the light of surrounding circumstances in order to more perfectly understand the intent and meaning of the parties, yet as they have constituted the writing to be the only outward and visible expression of their meaning, no other words are to be added to it or substituted in its stead. The duty of the court in such case is to ascertain, not what the parties may have secretly intended as contradistinguished from what their words express, but what is the meaning of the words they have used. What the parties meant must be determined by what they said. 11 Contrary to what respondent court held, the CTDs are negotiable instruments. The documents provide that the amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor. And who, according to the document, is the depositor? It is the "bearer." The documents do not say that the depositor is Angel de la Cruz and that the amounts deposited are repayable specifically to him. Rather, the amounts are to be repayable to the bearer of the documents or, for that matter, whosoever may be the bearer at the time of presentment. If it was really the intention of respondent bank to pay the amount to Angel de la Cruz only, it could have with facility so expressed that fact in clear and categorical terms in the documents, instead of having the word "BEARER" stamped on the space provided for the name of the depositor in each CTD. On the wordings of the documents, therefore, the amounts deposited are repayable to whoever may be the bearer thereof. Thus, petitioner's aforesaid witness merely declared that Angel de la Cruz is the depositor "insofar as the bank is concerned," but obviously other parties not privy to the transaction between them would not be in a position to know that the

depositor is not the bearer stated in the CTDs. Hence, the situation would require any party dealing with the CTDs to go behind the plain import of what is written thereon to unravel the agreement of the parties thereto through facts aliunde. This need for resort to extrinsic evidence is what is sought to be avoided by the Negotiable Instruments Law and calls for the application of the elementary rule that the interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. 12 The next query is whether petitioner can rightfully recover on the CTDs. This time, the answer is in the negative. The records reveal that Angel de la Cruz, whom petitioner chose not to implead in this suit for reasons of its own, delivered the CTDs amounting to P1,120,000.00 to petitioner without informing respondent bank thereof at any time. Unfortunately for petitioner, although the CTDs are bearer instruments, a valid negotiation thereof for the true purpose and agreement between it and De la Cruz, as ultimately ascertained, requires both delivery and indorsement. For, although petitioner seeks to deflect this fact, the CTDs were in reality delivered to it as a security for De la Cruz' purchases of its fuel products. Any doubt as to whether the CTDs were delivered as payment for the fuel products or as a security has been dissipated and resolved in favor of the latter by petitioner's own authorized and responsible representative himself. In a letter dated November 26, 1982 addressed to respondent Security Bank, J.Q. Aranas, Jr., Caltex Credit Manager, wrote: ". . . These certificates of deposit were negotiated to us by Mr. Angel dela Cruz to guarantee his purchases of fuel products" (Emphasis ours.) 13 This admission is conclusive upon petitioner, its protestations notwithstanding. Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. 14 A party may not go back on his own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. 15 In the law of evidence, whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it. 16 If it were true that the CTDs were delivered as payment and not as security, petitioner's credit manager could have easily said so, instead of using the words "to guarantee" in the letter aforequoted. Besides, when respondent bank, as defendant in the court below, moved for a bill of particularity therein 17 praying, among others, that petitioner, as plaintiff, be required to aver with sufficient definiteness or particularity (a) the due date or dates of payment of the alleged indebtedness of Angel de la Cruz to plaintiff and (b) whether or not it issued a receipt showing that the CTDs were delivered to it by De la Cruz aspayment of the latter's alleged indebtedness to it, plaintiff corporation opposed the motion. 18 Had it produced the receipt prayed for, it could have proved, if such truly was the fact, that the CTDs were delivered as payment and not as security. Having opposed the motion, petitioner now labors under the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. 19 Under the foregoing circumstances, this disquisition in Intergrated Realty Corporation, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. 20 is apropos: . . . Adverting again to the Court's pronouncements in Lopez, supra, we quote therefrom: The character of the transaction between the parties is to be determined by their intention, regardless of what language was used or what the form of the transfer was. If it was intended to secure the payment of money, it must be construed as a pledge; but if there was some other intention, it is not a pledge. However, even though a transfer, if regarded by itself, appears to have been absolute, its object and character might still be qualified and explained by contemporaneous writing declaring it to have been a deposit of the property as collateral security. It has been said that a transfer of property by the debtor to a creditor, even if sufficient on its face to make an absolute conveyance, should be treated as a pledge if the debt continues in inexistence and is not discharged by the transfer, and that accordingly the use of the terms ordinarily importing conveyance of absolute ownership will not be given that effect in such a transaction if they are also commonly used in pledges and mortgages and therefore do not unqualifiedly indicate a transfer of absolute ownership, in the absence of clear and unambiguous language or other circumstances excluding an intent to pledge. Petitioner's insistence that the CTDs were negotiated to it begs the question. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, an instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof, 21 and a holder may

be the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. 22 In the present case, however, there was no negotiation in the sense of a transfer of the legal title to the CTDs in favor of petitioner in which situation, for obvious reasons, mere delivery of the bearer CTDs would have sufficed. Here, the delivery thereof only as security for the purchases of Angel de la Cruz (and we even disregard the fact that the amount involved was not disclosed) could at the most constitute petitioner only as a holder for value by reason of his lien. Accordingly, a negotiation for such purpose cannot be effected by mere delivery of the instrument since, necessarily, the terms thereof and the subsequent disposition of such security, in the event of non-payment of the principal obligation, must be contractually provided for. The pertinent law on this point is that where the holder has a lien on the instrument arising from contract, he is deemed a holder for value to the extent of his lien. 23 As such holder of collateral security, he would be a pledgee but the requirements therefor and the effects thereof, not being provided for by the Negotiable Instruments Law, shall be governed by the Civil Code provisions on pledge of incorporeal rights, 24 which inceptively provide: Art. 2095. Incorporeal rights, evidenced by negotiable instruments, . . . may also be pledged. The instrument proving the right pledged shall be delivered to the creditor, and if negotiable, must be indorsed. Art. 2096. A pledge shall not take effect against third persons if a description of the thing pledged and the date of the pledge do not appear in a public instrument. Aside from the fact that the CTDs were only delivered but not indorsed, the factual findings of respondent court quoted at the start of this opinion show that petitioner failed to produce any document evidencing any contract of pledge or guarantee agreement between it and Angel de la Cruz. 25 Consequently, the mere delivery of the CTDs did not legally vest in petitioner any right effective against and binding upon respondent bank. The requirement under Article 2096 aforementioned is not a mere rule of adjective law prescribing the mode whereby proof may be made of the date of a pledge contract, but a rule of substantive law prescribing a condition without which the execution of a pledge contract cannot affect third persons adversely. 26 On the other hand, the assignment of the CTDs made by Angel de la Cruz in favor of respondent bank was embodied in a public instrument. 27 With regard to this other mode of transfer, the Civil Code specifically declares: Art. 1625. An assignment of credit, right or action shall produce no effect as against third persons, unless it appears in a public instrument, or the instrument is recorded in the Registry of Property in case the assignment involves real property. Respondent bank duly complied with this statutory requirement. Contrarily, petitioner, whether as purchaser, assignee or lien holder of the CTDs, neither proved the amount of its credit or the extent of its lien nor the execution of any public instrument which could affect or bind private respondent. Necessarily, therefore, as between petitioner and respondent bank, the latter has definitely the better right over the CTDs in question. Finally, petitioner faults respondent court for refusing to delve into the question of whether or not private respondent observed the requirements of the law in the case of lost negotiable instruments and the issuance of replacement certificates therefor, on the ground that petitioner failed to raised that issue in the lower court. 28 On this matter, we uphold respondent court's finding that the aspect of alleged negligence of private respondent was not included in the stipulation of the parties and in the statement of issues submitted by them to the trial court. 29 The issues agreed upon by them for resolution in this case are: 1. Whether or not the CTDs as worded are negotiable instruments. 2. Whether or not defendant could legally apply the amount covered by the CTDs against the depositor's loan by virtue of the assignment (Annex "C"). 3. Whether or not there was legal compensation or set off involving the amount covered by the CTDs and the depositor's outstanding account with defendant, if any. 4. Whether or not plaintiff could compel defendant to preterminate the CTDs before the maturity date provided therein.

5. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to the proceeds of the CTDs. 6. Whether or not the parties can recover damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses from each other. As respondent court correctly observed, with appropriate citation of some doctrinal authorities, the foregoing enumeration does not include the issue of negligence on the part of respondent bank. An issue raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower court is barred by estoppel. 30 Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed by the parties and, consequently, issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 31 Pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a case are properly raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privileged or impeaching matters. The determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions on appeal. 32 To accept petitioner's suggestion that respondent bank's supposed negligence may be considered encompassed by the issues on its right to preterminate and receive the proceeds of the CTDs would be tantamount to saying that petitioner could raise on appeal any issue. We agree with private respondent that the broad ultimate issue of petitioner's entitlement to the proceeds of the questioned certificates can be premised on a multitude of other legal reasons and causes of action, of which respondent bank's supposed negligence is only one. Hence, petitioner's submission, if accepted, would render a pre-trial delimitation of issues a useless exercise. 33 Still, even assuming arguendo that said issue of negligence was raised in the court below, petitioner still cannot have the odds in its favor. A close scrutiny of the provisions of the Code of Commerce laying down the rules to be followed in case of lost instruments payable to bearer, which it invokes, will reveal that said provisions, even assuming their applicability to the CTDs in the case at bar, are merely permissive and not mandatory. The very first article cited by petitioner speaks for itself. Art 548. The dispossessed owner, no matter for what cause it may be, may apply to the judge or court of competent jurisdiction, asking that the principal, interest or dividends due or about to become due, be not paid a third person, as well as in order to prevent the ownership of the instrument that a duplicate be issued him. (Emphasis ours.) xxx xxx xxx The use of the word "may" in said provision shows that it is not mandatory but discretionary on the part of the "dispossessed owner" to apply to the judge or court of competent jurisdiction for the issuance of a duplicate of the lost instrument. Where the provision reads "may," this word shows that it is not mandatory but discretional. 34 The word "may" is usually permissive, not mandatory. 35 It is an auxiliary verb indicating liberty, opportunity, permission and possibility. 36 Moreover, as correctly analyzed by private respondent, 37 Articles 548 to 558 of the Code of Commerce, on which petitioner seeks to anchor respondent bank's supposed negligence, merely established, on the one hand, a right of recourse in favor of a dispossessed owner or holder of a bearer instrument so that he may obtain a duplicate of the same, and, on the other, an option in favor of the party liable thereon who, for some valid ground, may elect to refuse to issue a replacement of the instrument. Significantly, none of the provisions cited by petitioner categorically restricts or prohibits the issuance a duplicate or replacement instrument sans compliance with the procedure outlined therein, and none establishes a mandatory precedent requirement therefor. WHEREFORE, on the modified premises above set forth, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 93397 March 3, 1997 TRADERS ROYAL BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, FILRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION and CENTRAL BANK of the PHILIPPINES, respondents. TORRES, JR., J.: Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated January 29, 1990, 1 affirming the nullity of the transfer of Central Bank Certificate of Indebtedness (CBCI) No. D891, 2 with a face value of P500,000.00, from the Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (Philfinance) to the petitioner Trader's Royal Bank (TRB), under a Repurchase Agreement 3 dated February 4, 1981, and a Detached Assignment 4 dated April 27, 1981. Docketed as Civil Case No. 83-17966 in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, the action was originally filed as a Petition for Mandamus 5 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to compel the Central Bank of the Philippines to register the transfer of the subject CBCI to petitioner Traders Royal Bank (TRB). In the said petition, TRB stated that: 3. On November 27, 1979, Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation (Filriters) executed a "Detached Assignment" . . ., whereby Filriters, as registered owner, sold, transferred, assigned and delivered unto Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (Philfinance) all its rights and title to Central Bank Certificates of Indebtedness of PESOS: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000) and having an aggregate value of PESOS: THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P3,500,000.00); 4. The aforesaid Detached Assignment (Annex "A") contains an express authorization executed by the transferor intended to complete the assignment through the registration of the transfer in the name of PhilFinance, which authorization is specifically phrased as follows: '(Filriters) hereby irrevocably authorized the said issuer (Central Bank) to transfer the said bond/certificates on the books of its fiscal agent; 5. On February 4, 1981, petitioner entered into a Repurchase Agreement with PhilFinance . . ., whereby, for and in consideration of the sum of PESOS: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00), PhilFinance sold, transferred and delivered to petitioner CBCI 4-year, 8th series, Serial No. D891 with a face value of P500,000.00 . . ., which CBCI was among those previously acquired by PhilFinance from Filriters as averred in paragraph 3 of the Petition; 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid Repurchase Agreement (Annex "B"), Philfinance agreed to repurchase CBCI Serial No. D891 (Annex "C"), at the stipulated price of PESOS: FIVE HUNDRED NINETEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE & 11/100 (P519,361.11) on April 27, 1981; 7. PhilFinance failed to repurchase the CBCI on the agreed date of maturity, April 27, 1981, when the checks it issued in favor of petitioner were dishonored for insufficient funds; 8. Owing to the default of PhilFinance, it executed a Detached Assignment in favor of the Petitioner to enable the latter to have its title completed and registered in the books of the respondent. And by means of said Detachment, Philfinance transferred and assigned all, its rights and title in the said CBCI (Annex "C") to petitioner and, furthermore, it did thereby "irrevocably authorize the said issuer (respondent herein) to transfer the said bond/certificate on the books of its fiscal agent." . . . 9. Petitioner presented the CBCI (Annex "C"), together with the two (2) aforementioned Detached Assignments (Annexes "B" and "D"), to the Securities Servicing Department of the respondent, and requested the latter to effect the

transfer of the CBCI on its books and to issue a new certificate in the name of petitioner as absolute owner thereof; 10. Respondent failed and refused to register the transfer as requested, and continues to do so notwithstanding petitioner's valid and just title over the same and despite repeated demands in writing, the latest of which is hereto attached as Annex "E" and made an integral part hereof; 11. The express provisions governing the transfer of the CBCI were substantially complied with the petitioner's request for registration, to wit: "No transfer thereof shall be valid unless made at said office (where the Certificate has been registered) by the registered owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, and similarly noted hereon, and upon payment of a nominal transfer fee which may be required, a new Certificate shall be issued to the transferee of the registered holder thereof." and, without a doubt, the Detached Assignments presented to respondent were sufficient authorizations in writing executed by the registered owner, Filriters, and its transferee, PhilFinance, as required by the above-quoted provision; 12. Upon such compliance with the aforesaid requirements, the ministerial duties of registering a transfer of ownership over the CBCI and issuing a new certificate to the transferee devolves upon the respondent; Upon these assertions, TRB prayed for the registration by the Central Bank of the subject CBCI in its name. On December 4, 1984, the Regional Trial Court the case took cognizance of the defendant Central Bank of the Philippines' Motion for Admission of Amended Answer with Counter Claim for Interpleader 6 thereby calling to fore the respondent Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation (Filriters), the registered owner of the subject CBCI as respondent. For its part, Filriters interjected as Special Defenses the following: 11. Respondent is the registered owner of CBCI No. 891; 12. The CBCI constitutes part of the reserve investment against liabilities required of respondent as an insurance company under the Insurance Code; 13. Without any consideration or benefit whatsoever to Filriters, in violation of law and the trust fund doctrine and to the prejudice of policyholders and to all who have present or future claim against policies issued by Filriters, Alfredo Banaria, then Senior Vice-President-Treasury of Filriters, without any board resolution, knowledge or consent of the board of directors of Filriters, and without any clearance or authorization from the Insurance Commissioner, executed a detached assignment purportedly assigning CBCI No. 891 to Philfinance; xxx xxx xxx 14. Subsequently, Alberto Fabella, Senior Vice-President-Comptroller are Pilar Jacobe, Vice-President-Treasury of Filriters (both of whom were holding the same positions in Philfinance), without any consideration or benefit redounding to Filriters and to the grave prejudice of Filriters, its policy holders and all who have present or future claims against its policies, executed similar detached assignment forms transferring the CBCI to plaintiff; xxx xxx xxx 15. The detached assignment is patently void and inoperative because the assignment is without the knowledge and consent of directors of Filriters, and not duly authorized in writing by the Board, as requiring by Article V, Section 3 of CB Circular No. 769; 16. The assignment of the CBCI to Philfinance is a personal act of Alfredo Banaria and not the corporate act of Filriters and such null and void; a) The assignment was executed without consideration and for that reason, the assignment is void from the beginning (Article 1409, Civil Code); b) The assignment was executed without any knowledge and consent of the board of directors of Filriters;

c) The CBCI constitutes reserve investment of Filriters against liabilities, which is a requirement under the Insurance Code for its existence as an insurance company and the pursuit of its business operations. The assignment of the CBCI is illegal act in the sense of malum in se or malum prohibitum, for anyone to make, either as corporate or personal act; d) The transfer of dimunition of reserve investments of Filriters is expressly prohibited by law, is immoral and against public policy; e) The assignment of the CBCI has resulted in the capital impairment and in the solvency deficiency of Filriters (and has in fact helped in placing Filriters under conservatorship), an inevitable result known to the officer who executed assignment. 17. Plaintiff had acted in bad faith and with knowledge of the illegality and invalidity of the assignment. a) The CBCI No. 891 is not a negotiable instrument and as a certificate of indebtedness is not payable to bearer but is a registered in the name of Filriters; b) The provision on transfer of the CBCIs provides that the Central Bank shall treat the registered owner as the absolute owner and that the value of the registered certificates shall be payable only to the registered owner; a sufficient notice to plaintiff that the assignments do not give them the registered owner's right as absolute owner of the CBCI's; c) CB Circular 769, Series of 1980 (Rules and Regulations Governing CBCIs) provides that the registered certificates are payable only to the registered owner (Article II, Section 1). 18. Plaintiff knew full well that the assignment by Philfinance of CBCI No. 891 by Filriters is not a regular transaction made in the usual of ordinary course of business; a) The CBCI constitutes part of the reserve investments of Filriters against liabilities requires by the Insurance Code and its assignment or transfer is expressly prohibited by law. There was no attempt to get any clearance or authorization from the Insurance Commissioner; b) The assignment by Filriters of the CBCI is clearly not a transaction in the usual or regular course of its business; c) The CBCI involved substantial amount and its assignment clearly constitutes disposition of "all or substantially all" of the assets of Filriters, which requires the affirmative action of the stockholders (Section 40, Corporation [sic] Code. 7 In its Decision 8 dated April 29, 1988, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXIII found the assignment of CBCI No. D891 in favor of Philfinance, and the subsequent assignment of the same CBCI by Philfinance in favor of Traders Royal Bank null and void and of no force and effect. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the respondent Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation and against the plaintiff Traders Royal Bank: (a) Declaring the assignment of CBCI No. 891 in favor of PhilFinance, and the subsequent assignment of CBCI by PhilFinance in favor of the plaintiff Traders Royal Bank as null and void and of no force and effect; (b) Ordering the respondent Central Bank of the Philippines to disregard the said assignment and to pay the value of the proceeds of the CBCI No. D891 to the Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation; (c) Ordering the plaintiff Traders Royal Bank to pay respondent Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corp. The sum of P10,000 as attorney's fees; and (d) to pay the costs. SO ORDERED. 9 The petitioner assailed the decision of the trial court in the Court of Appeals 10, but their appeals likewise failed. The findings of the fact of the said court are hereby reproduced: The records reveal that defendant Filriters is the registered owner of CBCI No. D891. Under a deed of assignment dated November 27, 1971, Filriters transferred CBCI No. D891 to Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation

(Philfinance). Subsequently, Philfinance transferred CBCI No. D891, which was still registered in the name of Filriters, to appellant Traders Royal Bank (TRB). The transfer was made under a repurchase agreement dated February 4, 1981, granting Philfinance the right to repurchase the instrument on or before April 27, 1981. When Philfinance failed to buy back the note on maturity date, it executed a deed of assignment, dated April 27, 1981, conveying to appellant TRB all its right and the title to CBCI No. D891. Armed with the deed of assignment, TRB then sought the transfer and registration of CBCI No. D891 in its name before the Security and Servicing Department of the Central Bank (CB). Central Bank, however, refused to effect the transfer and registration in view of an adverse claim filed by defendant Filriters. Left with no other recourse, TRB filed a special civil action for mandamus against the Central Bank in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The suit, however, was subsequently treated by the lower court as a case of interpleader when CB prayed in its amended answer that Filriters be impleaded as a respondent and the court adjudge which of them is entitled to the ownership of CBCI No. D891. Failing to get a favorable judgment. TRB now comes to this Court on appeal. 11 In the appellate court, petitioner argued that the subject CBCI was a negotiable instrument, and having acquired the said certificate from Philfinance as a holder in due course, its possession of the same is thus free fro any defect of title of prior parties and from any defense available to prior parties among themselves, and it may thus, enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof against all parties liable thereon. 12 In ignoring said argument, the appellate court that the CBCI is not a negotiable instrument, since the instrument clearly stated that it was payable to Filriters, the registered owner, whose name was inscribed thereon, and that the certificate lacked the words of negotiability which serve as an expression of consent that the instrument may be transferred by negotiation. Obviously, the assignment of the certificate from Filriters to Philfinance was fictitious, having made without consideration, and did not conform to Central Bank Circular No. 769, series of 1980, better known as the "Rules and Regulations Governing Central Bank Certificates of Indebtedness", which provided that any "assignment of registered certificates shall not be valid unless made . . . by the registered owner thereof in person or by his representative duly authorized in writing." Petitioner's claimed interest has no basis, since it was derived from Philfinance whose interest was inexistent, having acquired the certificate through simulation. What happened was Philfinance merely borrowed CBCI No. D891 from Filriters, a sister corporation, to guarantee its financing operations. Said the Court: In the case at bar, Alfredo O. Banaria, who signed the deed of assignment purportedly for and on behalf of Filriters, did not have the necessary written authorization from the Board of Directors of Filriters to act for the latter. For lack of such authority, the assignment did not therefore bind Filriters and violated as the same time Central Bank Circular No. 769 which has the force and effect of a law, resulting in the nullity of the transfer (People v. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; 3M Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 165 SCRA 778). In sum, Philfinance acquired no title or rights under CBCI No. D891 which it could assign or transfer to Traders Royal Bank and which the latter can register with the Central Bank. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED, with costs against plaintiff-appellant. SO ORDERED. 13 Petitioner's present position rests solely on the argument that Philfinance owns 90% of Filriters equity and the two corporations have identical corporate officers, thus demanding the application of the doctrine or piercing the veil of corporate fiction, as to give validity to the transfer of the CBCI from registered owner to petitioner TRB. 14 This renders the payment by TRB to Philfinance

of CBCI, as actual payment to Filriters. Thus, there is no merit to the lower court's ruling that the transfer of the CBCI from Filriters to Philfinance was null and void for lack of consideration. Admittedly, the subject CBCI is not a negotiable instrument in the absence of words of negotiability within the meaning of the negotiable instruments law (Act 2031). The pertinent portions of the subject CBCI read: xxx xxx xxx The Central Bank of the Philippines (the Bank) for value received, hereby promises to pay bearer, of if this Certificate of indebtedness be registered, to FILRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, the registered owner hereof, the principal sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS. xxx xxx xxx Properly understood, a certificate of indebtedness pertains to certificates for the creation and maintenance of a permanent improvement revolving fund, is similar to a "bond," (82 Minn. 202). Being equivalent to a bond, it is properly understood as acknowledgment of an obligation to pay a fixed sum of money. It is usually used for the purpose of long term loans. The appellate court ruled that the subject CBCI is not a negotiable instrument, stating that: As worded, the instrument provides a promise "to pay Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, the registered owner hereof." Very clearly, the instrument is payable only to Filriters, the registered owner, whose name is inscribed thereon. It lacks the words of negotiability which should have served as an expression of consent that the instrument may be transferred by negotiation. 15 A reading of the subject CBCI indicates that the same is payable to FILRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, and to no one else, thus, discounting the petitioner's submission that the same is a negotiable instrument, and that it is a holder in due course of the certificate. The language of negotiability which characterize a negotiable paper as a credit instrument is its freedom to circulate as a substitute for money. Hence, freedom of negotiability is the touchtone relating to the protection of holders in due course, and the freedom of negotiability is the foundation for the protection which the law throws around a holder in due course (11 Am. Jur. 2d, 32). This freedom in negotiability is totally absent in a certificate indebtedness as it merely to pay a sum of money to a specified person or entity for a period of time. As held in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 16: The accepted rule is that the negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is determined from the writing, that is, from the face of the instrument itself. In the construction of a bill or note, the intention of the parties is to control, if it can be legally ascertained. While the writing may be read in the light of surrounding circumstance in order to more perfectly understand the intent and meaning of the parties, yet as they have constituted the writing to be the only outward and visible expression of their meaning, no other words are to be added to it or substituted in its stead. The duty of the court in such case is to ascertain, not what the parties may have secretly intended as contradistinguished from what their words express, but what is the meaning of the words they have used. What the parties meant must be determined by what they said. Thus, the transfer of the instrument from Philfinance to TRB was merely an assignment, and is not governed by the negotiable instruments law. The pertinent question then is, was the transfer of the CBCI from Filriters to Philfinance and subsequently from Philfinance to TRB, in accord with existing law, so as to entitle TRB to have the CBCI registered in its name with the Central Bank? The following are the appellate court's pronouncements on the matter: Clearly shown in the record is the fact that Philfinance's title over CBCI No. D891 is defective since it acquired the instrument from Filriters fictitiously. Although the deed of assignment stated that the transfer was for "value received", there was really no consideration involved. What happened was Philfinance merely borrowed CBCI No. D891 from Filriters, a sister corporation. Thus, for lack of any consideration, the assignment made is a complete nullity. What is more, We find that the transfer made by Filriters to Philfinance did not conform to Central Bank Circular No. 769, series of 1980, otherwise known as the "Rules and Regulations Governing Central Bank Certificates of

Indebtedness", under which the note was issued. Published in the Official Gazette on November 19, 1980, Section 3 thereof provides that any assignment of registered certificates shall not be valid unless made . . . by the registered owner thereof in person or by his representative duly authorized in writing. In the case at bar, Alfredo O. Banaria, who signed the deed of assignment purportedly for and on behalf of Filriters, did not have the necessary written authorization from the Board of Directors of Filriters to act for the latter. For lack of such authority, the assignment did not therefore bind Filriters and violated at the same time Central Bank Circular No. 769 which has the force and effect of a law, resulting in the nullity of the transfer (People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; 3M Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 165 SCRA 778). In sum, Philfinance acquired no title or rights under CBCI No. D891 which it could assign or transfer to Traders Royal Bank and which the latter can register with the Central Bank Petitioner now argues that the transfer of the subject CBCI to TRB must upheld, as the respondent Filriters and Philfinance, though separate corporate entities on paper, have used their corporate fiction to defraud TRB into purchasing the subject CBCI, which purchase now is refused registration by the Central Bank. Says the petitioner; Since Philfinance own about 90% of Filriters and the two companies have the same corporate officers, if the principle of piercing the veil of corporate entity were to be applied in this case, then TRB's payment to Philfinance for the CBCI purchased by it could just as well be considered a payment to Filriters, the registered owner of the CBCI as to bar the latter from claiming, as it has, that it never received any payment for that CBCI sold and that said CBCI was sold without its authority. xxx xxx xxx We respectfully submit that, considering that the Court of Appeals has held that the CBCI was merely borrowed by Philfinance from Filriters, a sister corporation, to guarantee its (Philfinance's) financing operations, if it were to be consistent therewith, on the issued raised by TRB that there was a piercing a veil of corporate entity, the Court of Appeals should have ruled that such veil of corporate entity was, in fact, pierced, and the payment by TRB to Philfinance should be construed as payment to Filriters. 17 We disagree with Petitioner. Petitioner cannot put up the excuse of piercing the veil of corporate entity, as this merely an equitable remedy, and may be awarded only in cases when the corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime or where a corporation is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person. 18 Peiercing the veil of corporate entity requires the court to see through the protective shroud which exempts its stockholders from liabilities that ordinarily, they could be subject to, or distinguished one corporation from a seemingly separate one, were it not for the existing corporate fiction. But to do this, the court must be sure that the corporate fiction was misused, to such an extent that injustice, fraud, or crime was committed upon another, disregarding, thus, his, her, or its rights. It is the protection of the interests of innocent third persons dealing with the corporate entity which the law aims to protect by this doctrine. The corporate separateness between Filriters and Philfinance remains, despite the petitioners insistence on the contrary. For one, other than the allegation that Filriters is 90% owned by Philfinance, and the identity of one shall be maintained as to the other, there is nothing else which could lead the court under circumstance to disregard their corporate personalities. Though it is true that when valid reasons exist, the legal fiction that a corporation is an entity with a juridical personality separate from its stockholders and from other corporations may be disregarded, 19 in the absence of such grounds, the general rule must upheld. The fact that Filfinance owns majority shares in Filriters is not by itself a ground to disregard the independent corporate status of Filriters. In Liddel & Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 20 the mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock

of a corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of separate corporate personalities. In the case at bar, there is sufficient showing that the petitioner was not defrauded at all when it acquired the subject certificate of indebtedness from Philfinance. On its face the subject certificates states that it is registered in the name of Filriters. This should have put the petitioner on notice, and prompted it to inquire from Filriters as to Philfinance's title over the same or its authority to assign the certificate. As it is, there is no showing to the effect that petitioner had any dealings whatsoever with Filriters, nor did it make inquiries as to the ownership of the certificate. The terms of the CBCI No. D891 contain a provision on its TRANSFER. Thus: TRANSFER. This Certificate shall pass by delivery unless it is registered in the owner's name at any office of the Bank or any agency duly authorized by the Bank, and such registration is noted hereon. After such registration no transfer thereof shall be valid unless made at said office (where the Certificates has been registered) by the registered owner hereof, in person, or by his attorney, duly authorized in writing and similarly noted hereon and upon payment of a nominal transfer fee which may be required, a new Certificate shall be issued to the transferee of the registered owner thereof. The bank or any agency duly authorized by the Bank may deem and treat the bearer of this Certificate, or if this Certificate is registered as herein authorized, the person in whose name the same is registered as the absolute owner of this Certificate, for the purpose of receiving payment hereof, or on account hereof, and for all other purpose whether or not this Certificate shall be overdue. This is notice to petitioner to secure from Filriters a written authorization for the transfer or to require Philfinance to submit such an authorization from Filriters. Petitioner knew that Philfinance is not registered owner of the CBCI No. D891. The fact that a non-owner was disposing of the registered CBCI owned by another entity was a good reason for petitioner to verify of inquire as to the title Philfinance to dispose to the CBCI. Moreover, CBCI No. D891 is governed by CB Circular No. 769, series of 1990 21, known as the Rules and Regulations Governing Central Bank Certificates of Indebtedness, Section 3, Article V of which provides that: Sec. 3. Assignment of Registered Certificates. Assignment of registered certificates shall not be valid unless made at the office where the same have been issued and registered or at the Securities Servicing Department, Central Bank of the Philippines, and by the registered owner thereof, in person or by his representative, duly authorized in writing. For this purpose, the transferee may be designated as the representative of the registered owner. Petitioner, being a commercial bank, cannot feign ignorance of Central Bank Circular 769, and its requirements. An entity which deals with corporate agents within circumstances showing that the agents are acting in excess of corporate authority, may not hold the corporation liable. 22 This is only fair, as everyone must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. 23 The transfer made by Filriters to Philfinance did not conform to the said. Central Bank Circular, which for all intents, is considered part of the law. As found by the courts a quo, Alfredo O. Banaria, who had signed the deed of assignment from Filriters to Philfinance, purportedly for and in favor of Filriters, did not have the necessary written authorization from the Board of Directors of Filriters to act for the latter. As it is, the sale from Filriters to Philfinance was fictitious, and therefore void and inexistent, as there was no consideration for the same. This is fatal to the petitioner's cause, for then, Philfinance had no title over the subject certificate to convey the Traders Royal Bank. Nemo potest nisi quod de jure potest no man can do anything except what he can do lawfully. Concededly, the subject CBCI was acquired by Filriters to form part of its legal and capital reserves, which are required by law 24 to be maintained at a mandated level. This was pointed out by Elias Garcia, Manager-in-Charge of respondent Filriters, in his testimony given before the court on May 30, 1986.

Q Do you know this Central Bank Certificate of Indebtedness, in short, CBCI No. D891 in the face value of P5000,000.00 subject of this case? A Yes, sir. Q Why do you know this? A Well, this was CBCI of the company sought to be examined by the Insurance Commission sometime in early 1981 and this CBCI No. 891 was among the CBCI's that were found to be missing. Q Let me take you back further before 1981. Did you have the knowledge of this CBCI No. 891 before 1981? A Yes, sir. This CBCI is an investment of Filriters required by the Insurance Commission as legal reserve of the company. Q Legal reserve for the purpose of what? A Well, you see, the Insurance companies are required to put up legal reserves under Section 213 of the Insurance Code equivalent to 40 percent of the premiums receipt and further, the Insurance Commission requires this reserve to be invested preferably in government securities or government binds. This is how this CBCI came to be purchased by the company. It cannot, therefore, be taken out of the said funds, without violating the requirements of the law. Thus, the anauthorized use or distribution of the same by a corporate officer of Filriters cannot bind the said corporation, not without the approval of its Board of Directors, and the maintenance of the required reserve fund. Consequently, the title of Filriters over the subject certificate of indebtedness must be upheld over the claimed interest of Traders Royal Bank. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED and the decision appealed from dated January 29, 1990 is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 93073 December 21, 1992 REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FERMIN CANLAS, respondents.

This is an appeal by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari from the decision * of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 07302, entitled "Republic Planters Bank.Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Pinch Manufacturing Corporation, et al., Defendants, and Fermin Canlas, Defendant-Appellant", which affirmed the decision ** in Civil Case No. 82-5448 except that it completely absolved Fermin Canlas from liability under the promissory notes and reduced the award for damages and attorney's fees. The RTC decision, rendered on June 20, 1985, is quoted hereunder: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Republic Planters Bank, ordering defendant Pinch Manufacturing Corporation (formerly Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.) and defendants Shozo Yamaguchi and Fermin Canlas to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff bank the following sums with interest thereon at 16% per annum from the dates indicated, to wit: Under the promissory note (Exhibit "A"), the sum of P300,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981 until fully paid; under promissory note (Exhibit "B"), the sum of P40,000.00 with interest from November 27, 1980; under the promissory note (Exhibit "C"), the sum of P166,466.00 which interest from January 29, 1981; under the promissory note (Exhibit "E"), the sum of P86,130.31 with interest from January 29, 1981; under the promissory note (Exhibit "G"), the sum of P12,703.70 with interest from November 27, 1980; under the promissory note (Exhibit "H"), the sum of P281,875.91 with interest from January 29, 1981; and under the promissory note (Exhibit "I"), the sum of P200,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981. Under the promissory note (Exhibit "D") defendants Pinch Manufacturing Corporation (formerly named Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.), and Shozo Yamaguchi are ordered to pay jointly and severally, the plaintiff bank the sum of P367,000.00 with interest of 16% per annum from January 29, 1980 until fully paid Under the promissory note (Exhibit "F") defendant corporation Pinch (formerly Worldwide) is ordered to pay the plaintiff bank the sum of P140,000.00 with interest at 16% per annum from November 27, 1980 until fully paid. Defendant Pinch (formely Worldwide) is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P231,120.81 with interest at 12% per annum from July 1, 1981, until fully paid and the sum of P331,870.97 with interest from March 28, 1981, until fully paid. All the defendants are also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00 as and for reasonable attorney's fee and the further sum equivalent to 3% per annum of the respective principal sums from the dates above stated as penalty charge until fully paid, plus one percent (1%) of the principal sums as service charge. With costs against the defendants. SO ORDERED. 1 From the above decision only defendant Fermin Canlas appealed to the then Intermediate Court (now the Court Appeals). His contention was that inasmuch as he signed the promissory notes in his capacity as officer of the defunct Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc, he should not be held personally liable for such authorized corporate acts that he performed. It is now the contention of the petitioner Republic Planters Bank that having unconditionally signed the nine (9) promissory notes with Shozo Yamaguchi, jointly and severally, defendant Fermin Canlas is solidarity liable with Shozo Yamaguchi on each of the nine notes. We find merit in this appeal. From the records, these facts are established: Defendant Shozo Yamaguchi and private respondent Fermin Canlas were President/Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer respectively, of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.. By virtue of Board Resolution No.1 dated August 1, 1979, defendant Shozo Yamaguchi and private respondent Fermin Canlas were authorized to apply for credit facilities with the petitioner Republic Planters Bank in the forms of export advances and letters of credit/trust receipts accommodations. Petitioner bank issued nine promissory notes, marked as Exhibits A to I inclusive, each of which were uniformly worded in the following manner:

___________, after date, for value received, I/we, jointly and severaIly promise to pay to the ORDER of the REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, at its office in Manila, Philippines, the sum of ___________ PESOS(....) Philippine Currency... On the right bottom margin of the promissory notes appeared the signatures of Shozo Yamaguchi and Fermin Canlas above their printed names with the phrase "and (in) his personal capacity" typewritten below. At the bottom of the promissory notes appeared: "Please credit proceeds of this note to: ________ Savings Account ______XX Current Account No. 1372-00257-6 of WORLDWIDE GARMENT MFG. CORP. These entries were separated from the text of the notes with a bold line which ran horizontally across the pages. In the promissory notes marked as Exhibits C, D and F, the name Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc. was apparently rubber stamped above the signatures of defendant and private respondent. On December 20, 1982, Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc. noted to change its corporate name to Pinch Manufacturing Corporation. On February 5, 1982, petitioner bank filed a complaint for the recovery of sums of money covered among others, by the nine promissory notes with interest thereon, plus attorney's fees and penalty charges. The complainant was originally brought against Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc. inter alia, but it was later amended to drop Worldwide Manufacturing, Inc. as defendant and substitute Pinch Manufacturing Corporation it its place. Defendants Pinch Manufacturing Corporation and Shozo Yamaguchi did not file an Amended Answer and failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference despite due notice. Only private respondent Fermin Canlas filed an Amended Answer wherein he, denied having issued the promissory notes in question since according to him, he was not an officer of Pinch Manufacturing Corporation, but instead of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc., and that when he issued said promissory notes in behalf of Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc., the same were in blank, the typewritten entries not appearing therein prior to the time he affixed his signature. In the mind of this Court, the only issue material to the resolution of this appeal is whether private respondent Fermin Canlas is solidarily liable with the other defendants, namely Pinch Manufacturing Corporation and Shozo Yamaguchi, on the nine promissory notes. We hold that private respondent Fermin Canlas is solidarily liable on each of the promissory notes bearing his signature for the following reasons: The promissory motes are negotiable instruments and must be governed by the Negotiable Instruments Law. 2 Under the Negotiable lnstruments Law, persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes are makers and are liable as such. 3 By signing the notes, the maker promises to pay to the order of the payee or any holder 4 according to the tenor thereof. 5 Based on the above provisions of law, there is no denying that private respondent Fermin Canlas is one of the co-makers of the promissory notes. As such, he cannot escape liability arising therefrom. Where an instrument containing the words "I promise to pay" is signed by two or more persons, they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable thereon. 6 An instrument which begins" with "I" ,We" , or "Either of us" promise to, pay, when signed by two or more persons, makes them solidarily liable. 7 The fact that the singular pronoun is used indicates that the promise is individual as to each other; meaning that each of the co-signers is deemed to have made an independent singular promise to pay the notes in full. In the case at bar, the solidary liability of private respondent Fermin Canlas is made clearer and certain, without reason for ambiguity, by the presence of the phrase "joint and several" as describing the unconditional promise to pay to the order of Republic Planters Bank. A joint and several note is one in which the makers bind themselves both jointly and individually to the payee so that all may be sued together for its enforcement, or the creditor may select one or more as the object of the suit. 8 A joint and several obligation in common law corresponds to a civil law solidary obligation; that is, one of several debtors bound in such wise that each is liable for the entire amount, and not merely for his proportionate share. 9 By making a joint and several promise to pay to the order of Republic Planters Bank, private respondent Fermin Canlas

assumed the solidary liability of a debtor and the payee may choose to enforce the notes against him alone or jointly with Yamaguchi and Pinch Manufacturing Corporation as solidary debtors. As to whether the interpolation of the phrase "and (in) his personal capacity" below the signatures of the makers in the notes will affect the liability of the makers, We do not find it necessary to resolve and decide, because it is immaterial and will not affect to the liability of private respondent Fermin Canlas as a joint and several debtor of the notes. With or without the presence of said phrase, private respondent Fermin Canlas is primarily liable as a co-maker of each of the notes and his liability is that of a solidary debtor. Finally, the respondent Court made a grave error in holding that an amendment in a corporation's Articles of Incorporation effecting a change of corporate name, in this case from Worldwide Garment manufacturing Inc to Pinch Manufacturing Corporation extinguished the personality of the original corporation. The corporation, upon such change in its name, is in no sense a new corporation, nor the successor of the original corporation. It is the same corporation with a different name, and its character is in no respect changed. 10 A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation, and whether effected by special act or under a general law, has no affect on the identity of the corporation, or on its property, rights, or liabilities. 11 The corporation continues, as before, responsible in its new name for all debts or other liabilities which it had previously contracted or incurred. 12 As a general rule, officers or directors under the old corporate name bear no personal liability for acts done or contracts entered into by officers of the corporation, if duly authorized. Inasmuch as such officers acted in their capacity as agent of the old corporation and the change of name meant only the continuation of the old juridical entity, the corporation bearing the same name is still bound by the acts of its agents if authorized by the Board. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, the liability of a person signing as an agent is specifically provided for as follows: Sec. 20. Liability of a person signing as agent and so forth. Where the instrument contains or a person adds to his signature words indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal , or in a representative capacity, he is not liable on the instrument if he was duly authorized; but the mere addition of words describing him as an agent, or as filling a representative character, without disclosing his principal, does not exempt him from personal liability. Where the agent signs his name but nowhere in the instrument has he disclosed the fact that he is acting in a representative capacity or the name of the third party for whom he might have acted as agent, the agent is personally liable to take holder of the instrument and cannot be permitted to prove that he was merely acting as agent of another and parol or extrinsic evidence is not admissible to avoid the agent's personal liability. 13 On the private respondent's contention that the promissory notes were delivered to him in blank for his signature, we rule otherwise. A careful examination of the notes in question shows that they are the stereotype printed form of promissory notes generally used by commercial banking institutions to be signed by their clients in obtaining loans. Such printed notes are incomplete because there are blank spaces to be filled up on material particulars such as payee's name, amount of the loan, rate of interest, date of issue and the maturity date. The terms and conditions of the loan are printed on the note for the borrower-debtor 's perusal. An incomplete instrument which has been delivered to the borrower for his signature is governed by Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides, in so far as relevant to this case, thus: Sec. 14. Blanks: when may be filled. Where the instrument is wanting in any material particular, the person in possesion thereof has a prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. ... In order, however, that any such instrument when completed may be enforced against any person who became a party thereto prior to its completion, it must be filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and within a reasonable time... Proof that the notes were signed in blank was only the self-serving testimony of private respondent Fermin Canlas, as determined by the trial court, so that the trial court ''doubts the defendant (Canlas) signed in blank the promissory notes". We chose to believe the bank's testimony that the notes were filled up before they were given to private respondent Fermin

Canlas and defendant Shozo Yamaguchi for their signatures as joint and several promissors. For signing the notes above their typewritten names, they bound themselves as unconditional makers. We take judicial notice of the customary procedure of commercial banks of requiring their clientele to sign promissory notes prepared by the banks in printed form with blank spaces already filled up as per agreed terms of the loan, leaving the borrowers-debtors to do nothing but read the terms and conditions therein printed and to sign as makers or co-makers. When the notes were given to private respondent Fermin Canlas for his signature, the notes were complete in the sense that the spaces for the material particular had been filled up by the bank as per agreement. The notes were not incomplete instruments; neither were they given to private respondent Fermin Canlas in blank as he claims. Thus, Section 14 of the NegotiabIe Instruments Law is not applicable. The ruling in case of Reformina vs. Tomol relied upon by the appellate court in reducing the interest rate on the promissory notes from 16% to 12% per annum does not squarely apply to the instant petition. In the abovecited case, the rate of 12% was applied to forebearances of money, goods or credit and court judgemets thereon, only in the absence of any stipulation between the parties. In the case at bar however , it was found by the trial court that the rate of interest is 9% per annum, which interest rate the plaintiff may at any time without notice, raise within the limits allowed law. And so, as of February 16, 1984 , the plaintiff had fixed the interest at 16% per annum. This Court has held that the rates under the Usury Law, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 116, are applicable only to interests by way of compensation for the use or forebearance of money. Article 2209 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, governs interests by way of damages. 15 This fine distinction was not taken into consideration by the appellate court, which instead made a general statement that the interest rate be at 12% per annum. Inasmuch as this Court had declared that increases in interest rates are not subject to any ceiling prescribed by the Usury Law, the appellate court erred in limiting the interest rates at 12% per annum. Central Bank Circular No. 905, Series of 1982 removed the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates. 16 In the 1ight of the foregoing analysis and under the plain language of the statute and jurisprudence on the matter, the decision of the respondent: Court of Appeals absolving private respondent Fermin Canlas is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgement is hereby rendered declaring private respondent Fermin Canlas jointly and severally liable on all the nine promissory notes with the following sums and at 16% interest per annum from the dates indicated, to wit: Under the promissory note marked as exhibit A, the sum of P300,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981 until fully paid; under promissory note marked as Exhibit B, the sum of P40,000.00 with interest from November 27, 1980: under the promissory note denominated as Exhibit C, the amount of P166,466.00 with interest from January 29, 1981; under the promissory note denominated as Exhibit D, the amount of P367,000.00 with interest from January 29, 1981 until fully paid; under the promissory note marked as Exhibit E, the amount of P86,130.31 with interest from January 29, 1981; under the promissory note marked as Exhibit F, the sum of P140,000.00 with interest from November 27, 1980 until fully paid; under the promissory note marked as Exhibit G, the amount of P12,703.70 with interest from November 27, 1980; the promissory note marked as Exhibit H, the sum of P281,875.91 with interest from January 29, 1981; and the promissory note marked as Exhibit I, the sum of P200,000.00 with interest on January 29, 1981. The liabilities of defendants Pinch Manufacturing Corporation (formerly Worldwide Garment Manufacturing, Inc.) and Shozo Yamaguchi, for not having appealed from the decision of the trial court, shall be adjudged in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Court a quo. With respect to attorney's fees, and penalty and service charges, the private respondent Fermin Canlas is hereby held jointly and solidarity liable with defendants for the amounts found, by the Court a quo. With costs against private respondent. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 89252 May 24, 1993 RAUL SESBREO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS BANK, respondents. Salva, Villanueva & Associates for Delta Motors Corporation. Reyes, Salazar & Associates for Pilipinas Bank. FELICIANO, J.: On 9 February 1981, petitioner Raul Sesbreo made a money market placement in the amount of P300,000.00 with the Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation ("Philfinance"), Cebu Branch; the placement, with a term of thirty-two (32) days, would mature on 13 March 1981, Philfinance, also on 9 February 1981, issued the following documents to petitioner: (a) the Certificate of Confirmation of Sale, "without recourse," No. 20496 of one (1) Delta Motors Corporation Promissory Note ("DMC PN") No. 2731 for a term of 32 days at 17.0% per annum; (b) the Certificate of securities Delivery Receipt No. 16587 indicating the sale of DMC PN No. 2731 to petitioner, with the notation that the said security was in custodianship of Pilipinas Bank, as per Denominated Custodian Receipt ("DCR") No. 10805 dated 9 February 1981; and (c) post-dated checks payable on 13 March 1981 (i.e., the maturity date of petitioner's investment), with petitioner as payee, Philfinance as drawer, and Insular Bank of Asia and America as drawee, in the total amount of P304,533.33. On 13 March 1981, petitioner sought to encash the postdated checks issued by Philfinance. However, the checks were dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. On 26 March 1981, Philfinance delivered to petitioner the DCR No. 10805 issued by private respondent Pilipinas Bank ("Pilipinas"). It reads as follows: PILIPINAS BANK Makati Stock Exchange Bldg., Ayala Avenue, Makati, Metro Manila DENOMINATED CUSTODIAN RECEIPT This confirms that as a duly Custodian Bank, and upon instruction of PHILIPPINE UNDERWRITES FINANCE CORPORATION, we have in our custody the following securities to you [sic] the extent herein indicated. SERIAL MAT. FACE ISSUED REGISTERED AMOUNT NUMBER DATE VALUE BY HOLDER PAYEE 2731 4-6-81 2,300,833.34 DMC PHIL. 307,933.33 UNDERWRITERS FINANCE CORP. We further certify that these securities may be inspected by you or your duly authorized representative at any time during regular banking hours. Upon your written instructions we shall undertake physical delivery of the above securities fully assigned to you should this Denominated Custodianship Receipt remain outstanding in your favor thirty (30) days after its maturity. On 2 April 1981, petitioner approached Ms. Elizabeth de Villa of private respondent Pilipinas, Makati Branch, and handed her a demand letter informing the bank that his placement with Philfinance in the amount reflected in the DCR No. 10805 had remained unpaid and outstanding, and that he in effect was asking for the physical delivery of the underlying promissory note. Petitioner then examined the original of the DMC PN No. 2731 and found: that the security had been issued on 10 April 1980; that it would mature on 6 April 1981; that it had a face value of P2,300,833.33, with the Philfinance as "payee" and private respondent Delta Motors Corporation ("Delta") as "maker;" and that on face of the promissory note was stamped "NON NEGOTIABLE." Pilipinas did not deliver the Note, nor any certificate of participation in respect thereof, to petitioner.

Petitioner later made similar demand letters, dated 3 July 1981 and 3 August 1981, 2 again asking private respondent Pilipinas for physical delivery of the original of DMC PN No. 2731. Pilipinas allegedly referred all of petitioner's demand letters to Philfinance for written instructions, as has been supposedly agreed upon in "Securities Custodianship Agreement" between Pilipinas and Philfinance. Philfinance did not provide the appropriate instructions; Pilipinas never released DMC PN No. 2731, nor any other instrument in respect thereof, to petitioner. Petitioner also made a written demand on 14 July 1981 3 upon private respondent Delta for the partial satisfaction of DMC PN No. 2731, explaining that Philfinance, as payee thereof, had assigned to him said Note to the extent of P307,933.33. Delta, however, denied any liability to petitioner on the promissory note, and explained in turn that it had previously agreed with Philfinance to offset its DMC PN No. 2731 (along with DMC PN No. 2730) against Philfinance PN No. 143-A issued in favor of Delta. In the meantime, Philfinance, on 18 June 1981, was placed under the joint management of the Securities and exchange commission ("SEC") and the Central Bank. Pilipinas delivered to the SEC DMC PN No. 2731, which to date apparently remains in the custody of the SEC. 4 As petitioner had failed to collect his investment and interest thereon, he filed on 28 September 1982 an action for damages with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Cebu City, Branch 21, against private respondents Delta and Pilipinas. 5 The trial court, in a decision dated 5 August 1987, dismissed the complaint and counterclaims for lack of merit and for lack of cause of action, with costs against petitioner. Petitioner appealed to respondent Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 15195. In a Decision dated 21 March 1989, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and held: 6 Be that as it may, from the evidence on record, if there is anyone that appears liable for the travails of plaintiff-appellant, it is Philfinance. As correctly observed by the trial court: This act of Philfinance in accepting the investment of plaintiff and charging it against DMC PN No. 2731 when its entire face value was already obligated or earmarked for set-off or compensation is difficult to comprehend and may have been motivated with bad faith. Philfinance, therefore, is solely and legally obligated to return the investment of plaintiff, together with its earnings, and to answer all the damages plaintiff has suffered incident thereto. Unfortunately for plaintiff, Philfinance was not impleaded as one of the defendants in this case at bar; hence, this Court is without jurisdiction to pronounce judgement against it. (p. 11, Decision) WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in toto. Cost against plaintiff-appellant. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the above Decision, without success. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari. After consideration of the allegations contained and issues raised in the pleadings, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda. 7 Petitioner reiterates the assignment of errors he directed at the trial court decision, and contends that respondent court of Appeals gravely erred: (i) in concluding that he cannot recover from private respondent Delta his assigned portion of DMC PN No. 2731; (ii) in failing to hold private respondent Pilipinas solidarily liable on the DMC PN No. 2731 in view of the provisions stipulated in DCR No. 10805 issued in favor r of petitioner, and (iii) in refusing to pierce the veil of corporate entity between Philfinance, and private respondents Delta and Pilipinas, considering that the three (3) entities belong to the "Silverio Group of Companies" under the leadership of Mr. Ricardo Silverio, Sr. 8 There are at least two (2) sets of relationships which we need to address: firstly, the relationship of petitioner vis-a-vis Delta; secondly, the relationship of petitioner in respect of Pilipinas. Actually, of course, there is a third relationship that is of critical importance: the relationship of petitioner and Philfinance. However, since Philfinance has not been impleaded in this case, neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction over the person of Philfinance. It is,

consequently, not necessary for present purposes to deal with this third relationship, except to the extent it necessarily impinges upon or intersects the first and second relationships. I. We consider first the relationship between petitioner and Delta. The Court of appeals in effect held that petitioner acquired no rights vis-a-vis Delta in respect of the Delta promissory note (DMC PN No. 2731) which Philfinance sold "without recourse" to petitioner, to the extent of P304,533.33. The Court of Appeals said on this point: Nor could plaintiff-appellant have acquired any right over DMC PN No. 2731 as the same is "non-negotiable" as stamped on its face (Exhibit "6"), negotiation being defined as the transfer of an instrument from one person to another so as to constitute the transferee the holder of the instrument (Sec. 30, Negotiable Instruments Law). A person not a holder cannot sue on the instrument in his own name and cannot demand or receive payment (Section 51, id.) 9 Petitioner admits that DMC PN No. 2731 was non-negotiable but contends that the Note had been validly transferred, in part to him by assignment and that as a result of such transfer, Delta as debtor-maker of the Note, was obligated to pay petitioner the portion of that Note assigned to him by the payee Philfinance. Delta, however, disputes petitioner's contention and argues: (1) that DMC PN No. 2731 was not intended to be negotiated or otherwise transferred by Philfinance as manifested by the word "non-negotiable" stamp across the face of the Note 10 and because maker Delta and payee Philfinance intended that this Note would be offset against the outstanding obligation of Philfinance represented by Philfinance PN No. 143-A issued to Delta as payee; (2) that the assignment of DMC PN No. 2731 by Philfinance was without Delta's consent, if not against its instructions; and (3) assuming (arguendo only) that the partial assignment in favor of petitioner was valid, petitioner took the Note subject to the defenses available to Delta, in particular, the offsetting of DMC PN No. 2731 against Philfinance PN No. 143A. 11 We consider Delta's arguments seriatim. Firstly, it is important to bear in mind that the negotiation of a negotiable instrument must be distinguished from the assignmentor transfer of an instrument whether that be negotiable or nonnegotiable. Only an instrument qualifying as a negotiable instrument under the relevant statute may be negotiated either by indorsement thereof coupled with delivery, or by delivery alone where the negotiable instrument is in bearer form. A negotiable instrument may, however, instead of being negotiated, also beassigned or transferred. The legal consequences of negotiation as distinguished from assignment of a negotiable instrument are, of course, different. A nonnegotiable instrument may, obviously, not be negotiated; but it may be assigned or transferred, absent an express prohibition against assignment or transfer written in the face of the instrument: The words "not negotiable," stamped on the face of the bill of lading, did not destroy its assignability, but the sole effect was to exempt the bill from the statutory provisions relative thereto, and a bill, though not negotiable, may be transferred by assignment; the assignee taking subject to the equities between the original parties. 12 (Emphasis added) DMC PN No. 2731, while marked "non-negotiable," was not at the same time stamped "nontransferable" or "non-assignable." It contained no stipulation which prohibited Philfinance from assigning or transferring, in whole or in part, that Note. Delta adduced the "Letter of Agreement" which it had entered into with Philfinance and which should be quoted in full: April 10, 1980 Philippine Underwriters Finance Corp. Benavidez St., Makati, Metro Manila. Attention: Mr. Alfredo O. Banaria SVP-Treasurer

GENTLEMEN: This refers to our outstanding placement of P4,601,666.67 as evidenced by your Promissory Note No. 143-A, dated April 10, 1980, to mature on April 6, 1981. As agreed upon, we enclose our non-negotiable Promissory Note No. 2730 and 2731 for P2,000,000.00 each, dated April 10, 1980, to be offsetted [sic] against your PN No. 143-A upon co-terminal maturity. Please deliver the proceeds of our PNs to our representative, Mr. Eric Castillo. Very Truly Yours, (Sgd.) Florencio B. Biagan Senior Vice President 13 We find nothing in his "Letter of Agreement" which can be reasonably construed as a prohibition upon Philfinance assigning or transferring all or part of DMC PN No. 2731, before the maturity thereof. It is scarcely necessary to add that, even had this "Letter of Agreement" set forth an explicit prohibition of transfer upon Philfinance, such a prohibition cannot be invoked against an assignee or transferee of the Note who parted with valuable consideration in good faith and without notice of such prohibition. It is not disputed that petitioner was such an assignee or transferee. Our conclusion on this point is reinforced by the fact that what Philfinance and Delta were doing by their exchange of their promissory notes was this: Delta invested, by making a money market placement with Philfinance, approximately P4,600,000.00 on 10 April 1980; but promptly, on the same day, borrowed back the bulk of that placement, i.e., P4,000,000.00, by issuing its two (2) promissory notes: DMC PN No. 2730 and DMC PN No. 2731, both also dated 10 April 1980. Thus, Philfinance was left with not P4,600,000.00 but only P600,000.00 in cash and the two (2) Delta promissory notes. Apropos Delta's complaint that the partial assignment by Philfinance of DMC PN No. 2731 had been effected without the consent of Delta, we note that such consent was not necessary for the validity and enforceability of the assignment in favor of petitioner. 14 Delta's argument that Philfinance's sale or assignment of part of its rights to DMC PN No. 2731 constituted conventional subrogation, which required its (Delta's) consent, is quite mistaken. Conventional subrogation, which in the first place is never lightly inferred, 15 must be clearly established by the unequivocal terms of the substituting obligation or by the evident incompatibility of the new and old obligations on every point. 16 Nothing of the sort is present in the instant case. It is in fact difficult to be impressed with Delta's complaint, since it released its DMC PN No. 2731 to Philfinance, an entity engaged in the business of buying and selling debt instruments and other securities, and more generally, in money market transactions. In Perez v. Court of Appeals, 17 the Court, speaking through Mme. Justice Herrera, made the following important statement: There is another aspect to this case. What is involved here is a money market transaction. As defined by Lawrence Smith "the money market is a market dealing in standardized short-term credit instruments (involving large amounts) where lenders and borrowers do not deal directly with each other but through a middle manor a dealer in the open market." It involves "commercial papers" which are instruments "evidencing indebtness of any person or entity. . ., which are issued, endorsed, sold or transferred or in any manner conveyed to another person or entity, with or without recourse". The fundamental function of the money market device in its operation is to match and bring together in a most impersonal manner both the "fund users" and the "fund suppliers." The money market is an "impersonal market", free from personal considerations. "The market mechanism is intended to provide quick mobility of money and securities." The impersonal character of the money market device overlooks the individuals or entities concerned. The issuer of a commercial paper in the money market necessarily knows in advance that it would be expenditiously transacted and transferred to any investor/lender without need of notice to said issuer. In practice, no notification is given to the borrower or issuer of commercial paper of the sale or transfer to the investor. xxx xxx xxx

There is need to individuate a money market transaction, a relatively novel institution in the Philippine commercial scene. It has been intended to facilitate the flow and acquisition of capital on an impersonal basis. And as specifically required by Presidential Decree No. 678, the investing public must be given adequate and effective protection in availing of the credit of a borrower in the commercial paper market. 18 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied) We turn to Delta's arguments concerning alleged compensation or offsetting between DMC PN No. 2731 and Philfinance PN No. 143-A. It is important to note that at the time Philfinance sold part of its rights under DMC PN No. 2731 to petitioner on 9 February 1981, no compensation had as yet taken place and indeed none could have taken place. The essential requirements of compensation are listed in the Civil Code as follows: Art. 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary: (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) That both debts consists in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts are due; (4) That they be liquidated and demandable; (5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. (Emphasis supplied) On 9 February 1981, neither DMC PN No. 2731 nor Philfinance PN No. 143-A was due. This was explicitly recognized by Delta in its 10 April 1980 "Letter of Agreement" with Philfinance, where Delta acknowledged that the relevant promissory notes were "to be offsetted (sic) against [Philfinance] PN No. 143-A upon co-terminal maturity." As noted, the assignment to petitioner was made on 9 February 1981 or from forty-nine (49) days before the "co-terminal maturity" date, that is to say, before any compensation had taken place. Further, the assignment to petitioner would have prevented compensation had taken place between Philfinance and Delta, to the extent of P304,533.33, because upon execution of the assignment in favor of petitioner, Philfinance and Delta would have ceased to be creditors and debtors of each other in their own right to the extent of the amount assigned by Philfinance to petitioner. Thus, we conclude that the assignment effected by Philfinance in favor of petitioner was a valid one and that petitioner accordingly became owner of DMC PN No. 2731 to the extent of the portion thereof assigned to him. The record shows, however, that petitioner notified Delta of the fact of the assignment to him only on 14 July 1981, 19 that is, after the maturity not only of the money market placement made by petitioner but also of both DMC PN No. 2731 and Philfinance PN No. 143-A. In other words, petitioner notified Delta of his rights as assignee after compensation had taken place by operation of law because the offsetting instruments had both reached maturity. It is a firmly settled doctrine that the rights of an assignee are not any greater that the rights of the assignor, since the assignee is merely substituted in the place of the assignor 20 and that the assignee acquires his rights subject to the equities i.e., the defenses which the debtor could have set up against the original assignor before notice of the assignment was given to the debtor. Article 1285 of the Civil Code provides that: Art. 1285. The debtor who has consented to the assignment of rights made by a creditor in favor of a third person, cannot set up against the assignee the compensation which would pertain to him against the assignor, unless the assignor was notified by the debtor at the time he gave his consent, that he reserved his right to the compensation. If the creditor communicated the cession to him but the debtor did not consent thereto, the latter may set up the compensation of debts previous to the cession, but not of subsequent ones. If the assignment is made without the knowledge of the debtor, he may set up the compensation of all credits prior to the same and also later ones until he had knowledge of the assignment. (Emphasis supplied)

Article 1626 of the same code states that: "the debtor who, before having knowledge of the assignment, pays his creditor shall be released from the obligation." In Sison v. Yap-Tico, 21 the Court explained that: [n]o man is bound to remain a debtor; he may pay to him with whom he contacted to pay; and if he pay before notice that his debt has been assigned, the law holds him exonerated, for the reason that it is the duty of the person who has acquired a title by transfer to demand payment of the debt, to give his debt or notice. 22 At the time that Delta was first put to notice of the assignment in petitioner's favor on 14 July 1981, DMC PN No. 2731 had already been discharged by compensation. Since the assignor Philfinance could not have then compelled payment anew by Delta of DMC PN No. 2731, petitioner, as assignee of Philfinance, is similarly disabled from collecting from Delta the portion of the Note assigned to him. It bears some emphasis that petitioner could have notified Delta of the assignment or sale was effected on 9 February 1981. He could have notified Delta as soon as his money market placement matured on 13 March 1981 without payment thereof being made by Philfinance; at that time, compensation had yet to set in and discharge DMC PN No. 2731. Again petitioner could have notified Delta on 26 March 1981 when petitioner received from Philfinance the Denominated Custodianship Receipt ("DCR") No. 10805 issued by private respondent Pilipinas in favor of petitioner. Petitioner could, in fine, have notified Delta at any time before the maturity date of DMC PN No. 2731. Because petitioner failed to do so, and because the record is bare of any indication that Philfinance had itself notified Delta of the assignment to petitioner, the Court is compelled to uphold the defense of compensation raised by private respondent Delta. Of course, Philfinance remains liable to petitioner under the terms of the assignment made by Philfinance to petitioner. II. We turn now to the relationship between petitioner and private respondent Pilipinas. Petitioner contends that Pilipinas became solidarily liable with Philfinance and Delta when Pilipinas issued DCR No. 10805 with the following words: Upon your written instruction, we [Pilipinas] shall undertake physical delivery of the above securities fully assigned to you . 23 The Court is not persuaded. We find nothing in the DCR that establishes an obligation on the part of Pilipinas to pay petitioner the amount of P307,933.33 nor any assumption of liability in solidum with Philfinance and Delta under DMC PN No. 2731. We read the DCR as a confirmation on the part of Pilipinas that: (1) it has in its custody, as duly constituted custodian bank, DMC PN No. 2731 of a certain face value, to mature on 6 April 1981 and payable to the order of Philfinance; (2) Pilipinas was, from and after said date of the assignment by Philfinance to petitioner (9 February 1981), holding that Note on behalf and for the benefit of petitioner, at least to the extent it had been assigned to petitioner by payee Philfinance; 24 (3) petitioner may inspect the Note either "personally or by authorized representative", at any time during regular bank hours; and (4) upon written instructions of petitioner, Pilipinas would physically deliver the DMC PN No. 2731 (or a participation therein to the extent of P307,933.33) "should this Denominated Custodianship receipt remain outstanding in [petitioner's] favor thirty (30) days after its maturity." Thus, we find nothing written in printers ink on the DCR which could reasonably be read as converting Pilipinas into an obligor under the terms of DMC PN No. 2731 assigned to petitioner, either upon maturity thereof or any other time. We note that both in his complaint and in his testimony before the trial court, petitioner referred merely to the obligation of private respondent Pilipinas to effect the physical delivery to him of DMC PN No. 2731. 25 Accordingly, petitioner's theory that Pilipinas had assumed a solidary obligation to pay the amount represented by a portion of the Note assigned to him by Philfinance, appears to be a new theory constructed only after the trial court had ruled against him. The solidary liability that petitioner seeks to impute

Pilipinas cannot, however, be lightly inferred. Under article 1207 of the Civil Code, "there is a solidary liability only when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity," The record here exhibits no express assumption of solidary liability vis-a-vispetitioner, on the part of Pilipinas. Petitioner has not pointed to us to any law which imposed such liability upon Pilipinas nor has petitioner argued that the very nature of the custodianship assumed by private respondent Pilipinas necessarily implies solidary liability under the securities, custody of which was taken by Pilipinas. Accordingly, we are unable to hold Pilipinas solidarily liable with Philfinance and private respondent Delta under DMC PN No. 2731. We do not, however, mean to suggest that Pilipinas has no responsibility and liability in respect of petitioner under the terms of the DCR. To the contrary, we find, after prolonged analysis and deliberation, that private respondent Pilipinas had breached its undertaking under the DCR to petitioner Sesbreo. We believe and so hold that a contract of deposit was constituted by the act of Philfinance in designating Pilipinas as custodian or depositary bank. The depositor was initially Philfinance; the obligation of the depository was owed, however, to petitioner Sesbreo as beneficiary of the custodianship or depository agreement. We do not consider that this is a simple case of a stipulation pour autri. The custodianship or depositary agreement was established as an integral part of the money market transaction entered into by petitioner with Philfinance. Petitioner bought a portion of DMC PN No. 2731; Philfinance as assignor-vendor deposited that Note with Pilipinas in order that the thing sold would be placed outside the control of the vendor. Indeed, the constituting of the depositary or custodianship agreement was equivalent to constructive delivery of the Note (to the extent it had been sold or assigned to petitioner) to petitioner. It will be seen that custodianship agreements are designed to facilitate transactions in the money market by providing a basis for confidence on the part of the investors or placers that the instruments bought by them are effectively taken out of the pocket, as it were, of the vendors and placed safely beyond their reach, that those instruments will be there available to the placers of funds should they have need of them. The depositary in a contract of deposit is obliged to return the security or the thing deposited upon demand of the depositor (or, in the presented case, of the beneficiary) of the contract, even though a term for such return may have been established in the said contract. 26 Accordingly, any stipulation in the contract of deposit or custodianship that runs counter to the fundamental purpose of that agreement or which was not brought to the notice of and accepted by the placer-beneficiary, cannot be enforced as against such beneficiary-placer. We believe that the position taken above is supported by considerations of public policy. If there is any party that needs the equalizing protection of the law in money market transactions, it is the members of the general public whom place their savings in such market for the purpose of generating interest revenues. 27 The custodian bank, if it is not related either in terms of equity ownership or management control to the borrower of the funds, or the commercial paper dealer, is normally a preferred or traditional banker of such borrower or dealer (here, Philfinance). The custodian bank would have every incentive to protect the interest of its client the borrower or dealer as against the placer of funds. The providers of such funds must be safeguarded from the impact of stipulations privately made between the borrowers or dealers and the custodian banks, and disclosed to fund-providers only after trouble has erupted. In the case at bar, the custodian-depositary bank Pilipinas refused to deliver the security deposited with it when petitioner first demanded physical delivery thereof on 2 April 1981. We must again note, in this connection, that on 2 April 1981, DMC PN No. 2731 had not yet matured and therefore, compensation or offsetting against Philfinance PN No. 143-A had not yet taken place. Instead of complying with the demand of the petitioner, Pilipinas purported to require and await the instructions of Philfinance, in obvious contravention of its undertaking under the DCR to effect physical delivery of the Note upon receipt of "written instructions" from petitioner Sesbreo. The ostensible term written into the DCR (i.e., "should this [DCR] remain outstanding in your favor thirty [30] days after its maturity") was not a defense against petitioner's demand for physical surrender of the Note on at least three grounds: firstly, such term was never brought to the attention of petitioner Sesbreo at the time the money market placement with Philfinance was made; secondly, such term runs counter to the very purpose of the custodianship or depositary agreement as an integral part of a money market transaction; and thirdly, it is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 1988 of the Civil Code noted above. Indeed, in principle, petitioner

became entitled to demand physical delivery of the Note held by Pilipinas as soon as petitioner's money market placement matured on 13 March 1981 without payment from Philfinance. We conclude, therefore, that private respondent Pilipinas must respond to petitioner for damages sustained by arising out of its breach of duty. By failing to deliver the Note to the petitioner as depositor-beneficiary of the thing deposited, Pilipinas effectively and unlawfully deprived petitioner of the Note deposited with it. Whether or not Pilipinas itself benefitted from such conversion or unlawful deprivation inflicted upon petitioner, is of no moment for present purposes. Prima facie, the damages suffered by petitioner consisted of P304,533.33, the portion of the DMC PN No. 2731 assigned to petitioner but lost by him by reason of discharge of the Note by compensation, plus legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum containing from 14 March 1981. The conclusion we have reached is, of course, without prejudice to such right of reimbursement as Pilipinas may have vis-a-visPhilfinance. III. The third principal contention of petitioner that Philfinance and private respondents Delta and Pilipinas should be treated as one corporate entity need not detain us for long. In the first place, as already noted, jurisdiction over the person of Philfinance was never acquired either by the trial court nor by the respondent Court of Appeals. Petitioner similarly did not seek to implead Philfinance in the Petition before us. Secondly, it is not disputed that Philfinance and private respondents Delta and Pilipinas have been organized as separate corporate entities. Petitioner asks us to pierce their separate corporate entities, but has been able only to cite the presence of a common Director Mr. Ricardo Silverio, Sr., sitting on the Board of Directors of all three (3) companies. Petitioner has neither alleged nor proved that one or another of the three (3) concededly related companies used the other two (2) as mere alter egosor that the corporate affairs of the other two (2) were administered and managed for the benefit of one. There is simply not enough evidence of record to justify disregarding the separate corporate personalities of delta and Pilipinas and to hold them liable for any assumed or undetermined liability of Philfinance to petitioner. 28 WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.G.R. CV No. 15195 dated 21 march 1989 and 17 July 1989, respectively, are hereby MODIFIED and SET ASIDE, to the extent that such Decision and Resolution had dismissed petitioner's complaint against Pilipinas Bank. Private respondent Pilipinas bank is hereby ORDERED to indemnify petitioner for damages in the amount of P304,533.33, plus legal interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum counted from 2 April 1981. As so modified, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.