RCBC Vs Hitri

19.
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporate vs HiTri Development

Corporation
FACTS: Luz and Manuel Bakunawa are registered owners of 6 parcels of land.
Sometime in 1990, Teresita Millan offered to buy said lots for P 6, 724,085.71 with a
promise that she will take care of clearing whatever preliminary obstacles to effect
completion of sale. Millan failed to comply with the condition. Spouses Bakunawa
rescinded the sale and filed a complaint docketed asCivil Case No. Q-91-10719
against Millan to return the copies of Transfer of Certificate Titles and ordered to
receive the Managers check of P 1,019,514.29 for the down payment made by the
latter. Upon advice of theircounsel, the spouses retained the custody of the check
and are refrained from negotiating and cancelingit. Millan was informed that it was
available for her withdrawal. On January 31, 2003, during pendency of the above
mentioned case and without the knowledge of Hi tri, RCBC reported P 1,019,514.29credit existing in favour Rosmil to Bureau of Treasury as among its unclaimed
balances.On December 14, 2006, OSG filed in the RTC for escheat proceedings. On
April 30, 2008,Bakunawa and Millan settled amicably, the former agreed to pay
Rosmil and Millan P ,000,000.00 inclusive of the P 1,019,514.29. However when
Bakunawa inquired from RCBC the availability of P1,019,514.29 the amount was
already subject for escheat proceedings. On May 19, 2008, the RTC rendered a
decision pursuant to PD 679 declaring the amount as subject for escheat
proceedings and ordered the amount to be deposited in favor of the Republic.
Consequently, respondents filed an Omnibus Motion seeking partial reconsideration
contending that the said amount was subject to an ongoing dispute and that they
be include as party defendants allowed to intervene. Motion was denied. The Court
of Appeals reversed the decision of RTC and ruled that the banks failure to notify
respondents deprived them of an opportunity to intervene in the escheat
proceedings and to present evidence to substantiate their claim, in violation of their
right to due process. Furthermore, the CA pronounced that the Makati City RTC Clerk
of Court failed to issue individual notices directed to all persons claiming interest in
the unclaimed balances, as well as to require them to appear after publication and
show cause why the unclaimed balances should not be deposited with the Treasurer
of the Philippines. Thus, herein a petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the allocated funds may be escheated in favor of the Republic.
RULING:
Insofar as banks are concerned, service of processes is made by delivery of a copy
of the complaint and summons upon the president, cashier, or managing officer of
the defendant bank. On the other hand, as to depositors or other claimants of the
unclaimed balances, service is made by publication of a copy of the summons in a
newspaper of general circulation in the locality where the institution is situated.[9] A
notice about the forthcoming escheat proceedings must also be issued and
published, directing and requiring all persons who may claim any interest in the
unclaimed balances to appear before the court and show cause why the dormant
accounts should not be deposited with the Treasurer.
An ordinary check refers to a bill of exchange drawn by a depositor (drawer) on a
bank (drawee),[24] requesting the latter to pay a person named therein (payee) or
to the order of the payee or to the bearer, a named sum of money.[25] The issuance
of the check does not of itself operate as an assignment of any part of the funds in
the bank to the credit of the drawer.[26] Here, the bank becomes liable only after it
accepts or certifies the check.[27] After the check is accepted for payment, the
bank would then debit the amount to be paid to the holder of the check from the
account of the depositor-drawer.
There are checks of a special type called managers or cashiers checks. These are
bills of exchange drawn by the banks manager or cashier, in the name of the bank,
against the bank itself.[28] Typically, a managers or a cashiers check is procured
from the bank by allocating a particular amount of funds to be debited from the
depositors account or by directly paying or depositing to the bank the value of the
check to be drawn. Since the bank issues the check in its name, with itself as the
drawee, the check is deemed accepted in advance.[29] Ordinarily, the check
becomes the primary obligation of the issuing bank and constitutes its written
promise to pay upon demand.[30]
Nevertheless, the mere issuance of a managers check does not ipso facto work as
an automatic transfer of funds to the account of the payee. In case the procurer of
the managers or cashiers check retains custody of the instrument, does not tender
it to the intended payee, or fails to make an effective delivery, we find the following
provision on undelivered instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Law
applicable:
Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when presumed. Every contract on a
negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the
instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As between immediate
parties and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the
delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the
authority of the party making, drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as the case
may be; and, in such case, the delivery may be shown to have been
conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of
transferring the property in the instrument. But where the instrument is in the
hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to
him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed. And where
the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature
appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the
contrary is proved.
Since there was no delivery, presentment of the check to the bank for payment did
not occur. An order to debit the account of respondents was never made. As a
result, the assigned fund is deemed to remain part of the account of Hi-Tri, which
procured the Managers Check. The doctrine that the deposit represented by a
managers check automatically passes to the payee is inapplicable, because the
instrument although accepted in advance remains undelivered. Hence, respondents
should have been informed that the deposit had been left inactive for more than 10
years, and that it may be subjected to escheat proceedings if left unclaimed.

RCBC Vs Hitri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCBC Vs Hitri

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCBC Vs Hitri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19.

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporate vs HiTri Development

You might also like