vs. SPOUSES CHEAH CHEE CHONG and OFELIA 19- PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. CAMACHO CHEAH
1. On November 4, 1992, Ofelia Cheah and her friend Adelina Guarin were having a conversation in the latters office when Adelinas Adelinas friend, !ili"ina #ua$on, #ua$on, a""roached her to as% if she could have !ili"inas chec% cleared and encashed for a service fee of 2.&'. 2. #he chec% was (an% of America Chec% No. 19) drawn b* Att*. Att*. +osales against (an% of America California, -A, with a face amount of /)),))).)), "a*able to cash. /. (ecause Adelina does not have a dollar account, she as%ed Ofelia if she could accommodate !ili"inas re0uest re0uest since she has a oint dollar savings account with her husband Cheah Chee Chong with N( (uendia (ranch. 4. Ofelia agreed. #he* met with the 3oans e"artment who referred them to N( ivision Chief Garin. Garin discussed with them the "rocess of clearing the chec% and the* were told that it normall* ta%es 1& da*s. Assured that the de"osit and subse0uent clearance of the chec% is a normal transaction, Ofelia de"osited !ili"inas !ili"inas chec%. &. N( then sent it for clearing through its corres"ondent ban%, hiladel"hia National (an%. & da*s later, N( received a credit advice from hiladel"hia that the "roceeds of the subect chec% had been tem"oraril* credited to N(s account as of November 5, 1992. 5. On November 15, 1992, Garin called u" Ofelia to inform her that the chec% had alread* been cleared. #he following da* da *, N( (uendia, after deducting the ban% charges, credited 299,246./7 to the account of the s"ouses Cheah. 7. Acting on Adelinas instruction instruction to withdraw the credited amount. !ili"ina received all the "roceeds. 6. 8n the meantime, the Cable ivision of N( ead Office received on November 15, 1992 a -:8!# message from hiladel"hia, informing N( of the return of the chec% for insufficient funds. owever, the N( ead Office could not ascertain to which branch;office it should forward the same for "ro"er action. 9. After a few da*s, N( ead Office ascertained that the -:8!# message was intended for N( (uendia (ranch. 1). 8nformed about the bounced chec% and u"on demand b* N( (uendia to return the mone* withdrawn, Ofelia immediatel* contacted !ili"ina to get the mone* bac%. (ut the latter told her that all the mone* had alread* been given to several "eo"le who as%ed for the chec%s encashment. Criminal charges were then filed against these sus"ect beneficiaries. 11. -ubse0uentl*, -ubse0uentl*, N( sent a demand letter to s"ouses Cheah for the return of the amount of the chec%, fro$e their "eso and dollar dollar de"osits, and filed a com"laint com"laint against them for -um of
12. #he +#C ruled in N(s favor. 8t held that s"ouses Cheah were guilt* of contributor* negligence. :hile the CA recogni$ed the s"ouses Cheah as victims of a scam who nevertheless have to suffer the conse0uences of Ofelias lac% of care and "rudence in immediatel* trusting a stranger, the a""ellate court did not hold N( scot=free. 8t declared both "arties e0uall* negligent and should suffer and shoulder the loss. ISSUE: Whether PNB sh!"d #e he"d "$a#"e% HEL&>
N(s act of releasing the "roceeds of the chec% "rior to the la"se of the 1&=da* clearing "eriod was the "ro?imate cause of the loss. Ofelia de"osited the subect chec% on November 4, 1992. ence, the 1&th ban%ing da* from the date of said de"osit should fall on November 2&, 1992. owever, what ha""ened was that N( (uendia, u"on calling u" Ofelia that the chec% had been cleared, allowed the "roceeds thereof to be withdrawn on November 17 and 16, 1992, a wee% before the la"se of the standard 1&=da* clearing "eriod. #his Court alread* held that the "a*ment of the amounts of chec%s without "reviousl* clearing them with the drawee ban% es"eciall* so where the drawee ban% is a foreign ban% and the amounts involved were large is contrar* to normal or ordinar* ban%ing "ractice. Also, in Associated (an% v. #an, wherein the ban% allowed the withdrawal of the value of a chec% "rior to its clearing, we said that @bBefore the chec% shall have been cleared for de"osit, the collecting ban% can onl* assume at its own ris% ? ? ? that the chec% would be cleared and "aid out.@ #he dela* in the recei"t b* N( (uendia of the -:8!# message notif*ing it of the dishonor is of no moment, because had N( (uendia waited for the e?"iration of the clearing "eriod and had never released during that time the "roceeds of the chec%, it would have alread* been dul* notified of its dishonor. Clearl*, N(s disregard of its "reventive and "rotective measure against the "ossibilit* of being victimi$ed b* bad chec%s had brought u"on itself the inur* of losing a significant amount of mone*. 8t bears stressing that @the diligence re0uired of ban%s is more than that of a +oman "ater familias or a good father of a famil*. #he highest degree of diligence is e?"ected.@ N( miserabl* failed to do its dut* of e?ercising e?traordinar* diligence and reasonable business "rudence. #he disregard of its own ban%ing "olic* amounts to gross negligence, which the law defines as @negligence characteri$ed b* the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is dut* to act, not inadvertentl* but wilfull* and intentionall* with a conscious indifference to conse0uences in so far as other "ersons ma* be affected.@ :ith regard to collection or encashment of chec%s, suffice it to sa* that the law im"oses on the collecting ban% the dut* to scrutini$e diligentl* the chec%s de"osited with it for the "ur"ose of determining their genuineness and regularit*. @#he collecting ban%, being "rimaril* engaged in ban%ing, holds itself out to the "ublic as the e?"ert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a high standard of conduct.@ A ban% is e?"ected to be an e?"ert in ban%ing "rocedures and it has the necessar* means to ascertain whether a chec%, local or foreign, is sufficientl* funded. 8ncidentall*, N( obliges the s"ouses Cheah to return the withdrawn mone* under the "rinci"le of solutio indebiti. 8n the case at bench, N( cannot recover the "roceeds of the chec% under the "rinci"le it invo%es. 1st, the gross negligence of N(, can never be e0uated with a mere mista%e of fact, which must be
something e?cusable and which re0uires the e?ercise of "rudence. No recover* is due if the mista%e done is one of gross negligence. #he s"ouses Cheah are guilt* of contributor* negligence and are bound to share the loss with the ban%. @Contributor* negligence is conduct on the "art of the inured "art*, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is re0uired to conform for his own "rotection.@ #he fact that the chec% was cleared after onl* eight ban%ing da*s from the time it was de"osited or contrar* to what Garin told her that clearing ta%es 1& da*s should have alread* "ut Ofelia on guard. -he should have first verified the regularit* of such hast* clearance considering that if something goes wrong with the transaction, it is she and her husband who would be "ut at ris% and not the accommodated "art*. #hus, we are one with the CA in ruling that Ofelias "rior consultation with N( officers is not enough to totall* absolve her of an* liabilit* 8n an* case, the com"laint against the s"ouses Cheah could not be dismissed. As N(s client, Ofelia was the one who dealt with N( and negotiated the chec% such that its value was credited in her and her husbands account. (eing the ones in "rivit* with N(, the s"ouses Cheah are therefore the "ersons who should return to N( the mone* released to them. All told, the Court concurs with the findings of the CA that N( and the s"ouses Cheah are e0uall* negligent and should therefore e0uall* suffer the loss. #he two must both bear the conse0uences of their mista%es. :D+D!O+D, "remises considered, the etitions for +eview on Certiorari in G.+. No. 17)65& and in G.+. No. 17)692 are both DN8D. #he assailed August 22, 2))& ecision and ecember 21, 2))& +esolution of the Court of A""eals in CA=G.+. CE No. 5/946 are hereb* A!!8+
