Metropolitan
Bank & Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals
G.R.
No. 88866 February, 18, 1991
Cruz,
J.:
Facts:
Eduardo Gomez opened an account with
Golden Savings and deposited 38 treasury warrants. All warrants were subsequently
indorsed by Gloria Castillo as Cashier of Golden Savings and deposited to its
Savings account in Metrobank branch in Calapan, Mindoro. They were sent for
clearance. Meanwhile, Gomez is not allowed to withdraw from his account, later,
however, “exasperated” over Floria repeated inquiries and also as an
accommodation for a “valued” client Metrobank decided to allow Golden Savings
to withdraw from proceeds of the warrants. In turn, Golden Savings subsequently
allowed Gomez to make withdrawals from his own account. Metrobank informed
Golden Savings that 32 of the warrants had been dishonored by the Bureau of
Treasury 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previously withdrawn, to make up the deficit in its account.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.
Issue:
1. Whether or not Metrobank can demand
refund agaist Golden Savings with regard to the amount withdraws to make up
with the deficit as a result of the dishonored treasury warrants.
2. Whether or not treasury warrants are negotiable
instruments
Held:
No. Metrobank is 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. Without such
assurance, Golden Savings would not have allowed the withdrawals. Indeed, Golden
Savings might even have incurred liability for its refusal to return the money
that all appearances belonged to the depositor, who could therefore
withdraw it anytime and for any reason he saw fit.
It was, in fact, to secure the clearance
of the treasury warrants that Golden Savings deposited them to its account with
Metrobank. Golden Savings had no clearing facilities of its own. It relied on
Metrobank to determine the validity of the warrants through its own services.
The proceeds of the warrants were withheld from Gomez until Metrobank allowed
Golden Savings itself to withdraw them from its own deposit.
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 Sec. 66 of NIL. The simple reason that NIL is not applicable to
non negotiable instruments, treasury warrants.
No.
The treasury warrants are not negotiable instruments. Clearly stamped on their
face is the word: non negotiable.” Moreover, and this is equal significance, it
is indicated that they are payable from a particular fund, to wit, Fund 501. An
instrument to be negotiable instrument must contain an unconditional promise or
orders to pay a sum certain in money. As provided by Sec 3 of NIL an
unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional though coupled with: 1st,
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 2nd, a
statement of the transaction which give rise to the instrument. But an order to
promise to pay out of 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 conditional” and the warrants themselves
non-negotiable. There should be no question that the exception on Section 3 of
NIL is applicable in the case at bar.
Read full text here: Metrobank vs. CA
No comments:
Post a Comment