CHINATRUST (PHILS.

)
COMMERCIAL BANK vs.
PHILIP TURNER
G.R. No. 191458. July 3, 2017.
Second Division
AssociMte Justice MMrvic
M.V.F. Leonen.
Petition for Review on
CertiorMri
 
FMcts:
British nMtionMl Turner
initiMted viM ChinMtrust-AyMlM
BrMnch the telegrMphic
trMnsfer to the Mccount of
“MIN TRAVEL/ESMAT AZMY,
CitibMnk, Heliopolis BrMnch” in
CMiro, Egypt. The Mmount wMs
pMrtiMl pMyment to turnerʼs
trMvel Mgent for his Mnd his
wifeʼs 11-dMy tour in Egypt
which wMs MlreMdy debited
from his dollMr sMvings
Mccount with ChinMtrust.
ChinMtrust received CitibMnk-
CMiroʼs telex-notice Mbout the
lMtterʼs inMbility to credit
funds it received becMuse the
beneficiMryʼs nMme given by
Turner did not mMtch the
Mccount nMme on file of
CtibMnk-CMiro. According to
Turner, he wMs Mble to contMct
EsmMt Azmy, who
Mcknowledged receipt of the
trMnsferred funds. However,
they hMd to cMncel their trip
Mnd requested ChinMtrust to
refund his money. ChinMtrust
Mdvised Turner thMt since the
Mmount were MlreMdy remitted
to his beneficiMryʼs Mccount,
theycould no longer be
withdrMwn or retrieved
without CitibMnk-CMiroʼs
consent. Turner wMs then
Mdvised to seek the refund
directly from his trMvel
Mgency.
Turner insisted on
withdrMwing the funds from
ChinMtrust considering the
minimMl bMnking fees he
would incur opposed to the
trMvel Mgencyʼs forfeiture of
fifty percent (50%) of the
Mmount he pMid Ms penMlty for
the cMncellMtion of the
booking. Hence, ChinMtrust
required Turner to secure, Mt
leMst, his trMvel Mgency's
written certificMtion denying
receipt of the funds so thMt it
could Mct on his request but
Turner fMiled to submit the
sMme.
 
Issue/s:
Whether or not ChinMtrust
wMs negligent in the
performMnce of its obligMtion
under the telegrMphic trMnsfer
Mgreement
 
Held:
No, ChinMtrust legMlly
complied with its contrMctuMl
obligMtion to remit Turnerʼs
telegrMphic fund to the
lMtterʼs beneficiMry Mccount
with CitibMnk-CMiro. Turner
could no longer rescind the
telegrMphic trMnsfer
Mgreement.
Petitioner wMs not remiss in
the performMnce of its
contrMctuMl obligMtion to remit
the funds. It wMs estMblished
thMt the funds were credited
to the Mccount of Min TrMvel
on September 15, 2004, or
two (2) dMys from
respondent's MpplicMtion.
Petitioner cMnnot likewise be
fMulted for the discrepMncy
notice sent by CitibMnk-CMiro,
Mssuming there wMs M mistMke
in its sending. It merely
relMyed its contents to
respondent. CitibMnk-CMiro is
not Mn Mgent of petitioner but
M beneficiMry bMnk
designMted by respondent,
upon the instruction of the
beneficiMry, Min TrMvel.