Metropolitan and Trust V CA Digest

METROPOLITAN BANK v. CA, GR No.
88866, 1991-02-18
SEC. 3. When promise is unconditional. - An unqualified order or promise to pay is

unconditional within the meaning of this Act though coupled with -
(a) An indication of a particular fund out of which reimbursement is to be made or a
particular account to be debited with the amount; or
(b) A statement of the transaction which, gives rise to the instrument.
But an order or promise to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional.
The indication of Fund 501 as the source of the payment to be made on the treasury
warrants makes the order or promise to pay "not unconditional" and the warrants
themselves non-negotiable. Therefore, there should be no question that the exception on
Section 3 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is applicable in the case at bar.
FACTS
The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. is a commercial bank with branches throughout the
Philippines and even abroad. Golden Savings and Loan Association was, at the time these
events happened, operating, in Calapan, Mindoro, with the other private respondents as its
principal officers.
In January 1979, a certain Eduardo Gomez opened an account with Golden Savings and
deposited over a period of two months 38 treasury warrants with a total value of
P1,755,228.37. They were all drawn by the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority and
purportedly signed by its General Manager and countersigned by its Auditor. Six of these
were directly payable to Gomez while the others appeared to have been indorsed by their
respective payees, followed by Gomez as second indorser.
On various dates all these warrants were subsequently indorsed by Gloria Castillo as
Cashier of Golden Savings and deposited to its Savings Account No. 2498 in the
Metrobank branch in Calapan, Mindoro. They were then sent for clearing by the branch
office to the principal office of Metrobank, which forwarded them to the Bureau of Treasury
for special clearing.
More than two weeks after the deposits, Gloria Castillo went to the Calapan branch several
times to ask whether the warrants had been cleared. She was told to wait. Accordingly,
Gomez was meanwhile not allowed to withdraw from his account. Later, however,...
"exasperated" over Gloria's repeated inquiries and also as an accommodation for a
"valued client," the petitioner says it finally decided to allow Golden Savings to withdraw
from the proceeds of the warrants. The first withdrawal was made on July 9,... 1979, in the
amount of P508,000.00, the second on July 13, 1979, in the amount of P310,000.00, and
the third on July 16, 1979, in the amount of P150,000.00. The total withdrawal was
P968,000.00
In turn, Golden Savings subsequently allowed Gomez to make withdrawals from his own
account, eventually collecting the total amount of P1,167,500.00 from the proceeds of the
apparently cleared warrants.
On July 21, 1979, Metrobank informed Golden Savings that 32 of the warrants had been
dishonored by the Bureau of Treasury on July 19, 1979, and demanded the refund by
Golden Savings of the amount it had previously withdrawn, to make up the deficit in its
account.
The demand was rejected. Metrobank then sued Golden Savings in the Regional Trial
Court of Mindoro. After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of Golden Savings,... On
appeal to the respondent court, the decision was affirmed, prompting Metrobank to file this
petition for review
ISSUES
1. Whether the treasury warrants are negotiable instruments

2. Whether or not Metrobank can demand refund against Golden Savings
RULING
1. NO
Negotiable instruments must be “unconditional”
The treasury warrants in question are not negotiable instruments. Clearly stamped on their
face is the word "non-negotiable." Moreover, it is indicated that they are payable from a
particular fund, to wit, Fund 501
The following sections of the Negotiable Instruments Law, especially the underscored
parts, are pertinent:
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.
SEC. 3. When promise is unconditional. - An unqualified order or promise to pay is
unconditional within the meaning of this Act though coupled with -
(a) An indication of a particular fund out of which reimbursement is to be made or a
particular account to be debited with the amount; or
(b) A statement of the transaction which, gives rise to the instrument.
But an order or promise to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional.
The indication of Fund 501 as the source of the payment to be made on the treasury
warrants makes the order or promise to pay "not unconditional" and the warrants
themselves non-negotiable. Therefore, there should be no question that the exception on
Section 3 of the Negotiable Instruments Law is applicable in the case at bar.
Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law does not apply to this case
Metrobank cannot contend that by indorsing the warrants in general, Golden Savings
assumed that they were "genuine and in all respects what they purport to be," in
accordance with Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. The simple reason is
that this law is not applicable to the non-negotiable treasury warrants.
2. NO
Metrobank was negligent
Metrobank was indeed negligent in giving Golden Savings the impression that the treasury
warrants had been cleared and that, consequently, it was safe to allow Gomez to withdraw
the proceeds thereof from his account with it. Without such assurance, Golden Savings
would not have allowed the withdrawals.
It is undisputed that Golden savings intended to secure the clearance of the treasury
warrants when it deposited the warrants to its account in Metrobank. This is so as Golden
Savings had no clearing facilities of its own and it relied on Metrobank to determine the
validity of the warrants through its own... services.
Metrobank exhibited extraordinary carelessness. The amount involved was not trifling -
more than one and a half million pesos (and this was 1979). There was no reason why it
should not have waited until the treasury warrants had been cleared; it would... not have
lost a single centavo by waiting. Yet, despite the lack of such clearance... it allowed
Golden Savings to withdraw - not once,... not twice, but thrice - from the uncleared
treasury warrants in the total amount of P968,000.00.
The reason for such is that it was "exasperated" over the persistent inquiries of Gloria
Castillo about the clearance and it also wanted to "accommodate" a valued client. It
"presumed" that the warrants had been cleared simply because of "the lapse of one
week."For a bank with its long experience, this explanation is unbelievably naive.
The negligence of Metrobank has been sufficiently established.
To repeat for emphasis, it was the clearance given by it that assured Golden Savings it
was already safe to allow Gomez to withdraw the proceeds of the treasury warrants he had
deposited. Metrobank misled Golden Savings. There may have been no express
clearance, as Metrobank insists (although this is refuted by Golden Savings) but in any
case that clearance could be implied from its allowing Golden Savings to withdraw from its
account not only once or even... twice but three times. The total withdrawal was in excess
of its original balance before the treasury warrants were deposited, which only added to its
belief that the treasury warrants had indeed been cleared.
Jai Alai Corporation vs the present case
The indorsement was made by Gloria Castillo not for the purpose of guaranteeing the
genuineness of the warrants but merely to deposit them with Metrobank for clearing. It
was in fact Metrobank that made the... guarantee when it stamped on the back of the
warrants: "All prior indorsement and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed, Metropolitan
Bank & Trust Co., Calapan Branch."
The petitioner lays heavy stress on Jai Alai Corporation v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,
but we feel this case is inapplicable to the present controversy. That case involved checks
whereas this case involves treasury warrants. Golden Savings never represented that the
warrants were negotiable but signed them only for the purpose of depositing them for
clearance.
Also, the fact of forgery was proved in that case but not in the present. Finally, the Court
found the Jai Alai Corporation negligent in accepting the checks without question from one
Antonio Ramirez notwithstanding that the payee was the Inter-Island Gas Services, Inc.
and it did not appear that he was authorized to indorse it. No similar negligence can be
imputed to Golden Savings.

Metropolitan and Trust V CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metropolitan and Trust V CA Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Metropolitan and Trust V CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

METROPOLITAN BANK v. CA, GR No.

SEC. 3. When promise is unconditional. - An unqualified order or promise to pay is

1. Whether the treasury warrants are negotiable instruments

You might also like