In cases involving the unauthorized payment of checks, the Supreme Court clarifies the liabilities between a drawee bank (the bank on which the check is drawn) and a collecting bank (the bank that initially accepts the check for deposit). The Court emphasizes that while the drawee bank is primarily liable to the drawer (the check issuer) for unauthorized payments, it can, in turn, seek reimbursement from the collecting bank. This decision reinforces the importance of due diligence by banks in ensuring that funds are paid to the correct parties, protecting both businesses and individuals from financial loss due to fraudulent activities.

Whose Negligence Pays? Unraveling Bank Liabilities in Check Fraud

This case revolves around a financial anomaly discovered by Junnel’s Marketing Corporation (JMC), a company engaged in selling wines and liquors. JMC found discrepancies involving eleven checks issued to suppliers, Jardine Wines and Spirits and Premiere Wines. These checks had been charged against JMC’s account but were not covered by official receipts from the suppliers. Examination of the checks revealed they were deposited with Bank of Commerce (Bankcom) under an account not belonging to either supplier. JMC filed a complaint against Bankcom, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank, the drawee bank), and a former accountant suspected of involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The central legal question is determining which bank bears the responsibility for the unauthorized encashment of these checks.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled that both Bankcom and Metrobank were liable to JMC, assigning a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio of responsibility, respectively, while absolving the former accountant, Delizo. The RTC’s decision was based on the finding of negligence on the part of both banks, stating Bankcom failed to verify the legitimacy of the account where the checks were deposited, and Metrobank failed to scrutinize the checks properly before honoring them. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, but modified the interest rates and deleted the award of attorney’s fees. Dissatisfied, both Metrobank and Bankcom appealed, each seeking absolution from liability, leading to the Supreme Court’s review.

The Supreme Court (SC) ultimately denied the appeals of both Metrobank and Bankcom, but modified the manner in which they were held liable. Citing the landmark case of Bank of America v. Associated Citizens Bank, the Court emphasized the principle of sequential liability in cases of unauthorized payment of checks. This principle dictates that the drawee bank (Metrobank) is primarily liable to the drawer (JMC) for the amount of the checks, but the drawee bank, in turn, can seek reimbursement from the collecting bank (Bankcom).

The rationale behind this rule lies in the distinct duties of each bank. The drawee bank has a contractual obligation to its customer, the drawer, to ensure that payments are made only to the designated payee or their order. As the Supreme Court explained in BDO Unibank v. Lao:

The liability of the drawee bank is based on its contract with the drawer and its duty to charge to the latter’s accounts only those payables authorized by him. A drawee bank is under strict liability to pay the check only to the payee or to the payee’s order. When the drawee bank pays a person other than the payee named in the check, it does not comply with the terms of the check and violates its duty to charge the drawer’s account only for properly payable items.

Metrobank breached its obligation to JMC by paying the value of the checks to Bankcom for the benefit of an account that did not belong to the designated payees. Therefore, Metrobank is liable to return the amount of the checks to JMC.

However, Metrobank is not without recourse. The collecting bank, Bankcom, assumes certain warranties when presenting a check for payment, as highlighted in the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court stated:

On the other hand, the liability of the collecting bank is anchored on its guarantees as the last endorser of the check. Under Section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, an endorser warrants “that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; that he has good title to it; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and that the instrument is at the time of his endorsement valid and subsisting.”

By presenting the checks to Metrobank, Bankcom guaranteed that the checks had been deposited with it to an account with good title. This guarantee was false because the checks were deposited into an account not belonging to the payees. Therefore, Bankcom is liable to reimburse Metrobank for the value of the checks.

The significance of the collecting bank’s role in verifying endorsements and account legitimacy cannot be overstated. It serves as the first line of defense against fraudulent schemes involving checks. The banking industry relies on the warranties provided by collecting banks to ensure the integrity of financial transactions.

The Court clarified that the doctrine of comparative negligence, which apportions liability based on the degree of negligence of each party, does not apply in this case. The factual circumstances differ significantly from cases like Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals and Allied Banking Corporation v. Lio Sim Wan, where the drawee bank was also negligent in issuing the checks. In this case, Metrobank’s liability stemmed solely from its unauthorized payment, not from any negligence in the check’s issuance. The Court therefore applied the rule on sequential recovery, placing the initial burden on Metrobank, which then has recourse against Bankcom.

Regarding interests, the Supreme Court imposed a legal interest of 6% per annum on Metrobank’s principal liability to JMC from January 28, 2002 (the date JMC filed its complaint with the RTC) until full satisfaction. Similarly, Bankcom’s principal liability to Metrobank is subject to a legal interest of 6% per annum from March 5, 2003 (the date Metrobank filed its answer with a cross-claim against Bankcom) until full satisfaction. These interest rates reflect the legal framework for monetary obligations and compensation for damages.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining which bank, the drawee (Metrobank) or the collecting bank (Bankcom), should bear the loss from unauthorized payments of checks deposited into an incorrect account. The court resolved this by applying the principle of sequential liability.
What is a drawee bank?	A drawee bank is the bank on which a check is drawn, meaning it’s the bank that holds the funds and is instructed to make payment to the payee. In this case, Metrobank was the drawee bank.
What is a collecting bank?	A collecting bank is the bank that initially accepts a check for deposit from a customer. It then presents the check to the drawee bank for payment. Bankcom acted as the collecting bank.
What is the principle of sequential liability?	Sequential liability dictates that the drawee bank is primarily liable to the drawer for unauthorized check payments, but can seek reimbursement from the collecting bank. This is based on the drawee’s duty to only pay checks as authorized and the collecting bank’s guarantee of valid endorsements.
Why was Metrobank initially liable to JMC?	Metrobank was liable because it breached its contractual duty to JMC by paying the check proceeds to an account not belonging to the intended payees (Jardine and Premiere). This constitutes an unauthorized payment.
Why was Bankcom ultimately liable to Metrobank?	Bankcom was liable because it presented the checks to Metrobank, guaranteeing that they were deposited into an account with good title. Since the account was not that of the payees, Bankcom breached this warranty.
Does the doctrine of comparative negligence apply in this case?	No, the doctrine of comparative negligence was deemed inapplicable. The court found that Metrobank’s liability stemmed solely from the unauthorized payment, not from any contributory negligence in issuing the checks.
What is the significance of a collecting bank’s endorsement?	A collecting bank’s endorsement acts as a guarantee to the drawee bank that all prior endorsements are genuine and valid. This allows the drawee bank to rely on the collecting bank’s verification processes.
What interest rates apply in this case?	The Supreme Court imposed a legal interest of 6% per annum on Metrobank’s liability to JMC from January 28, 2002, and on Bankcom’s liability to Metrobank from March 5, 2003, until full satisfaction of the respective obligations.

In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of due diligence and adherence to established banking practices in handling check payments. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the responsibilities of drawee and collecting banks, providing a framework for resolving disputes arising from unauthorized check encashments. This ruling protects the interests of both drawers and payees by ensuring that banks are held accountable for their respective roles in facilitating secure and legitimate financial transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Junnel’s Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 235565, June 20, 2018