SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211661. June 6, 2018.]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ASIA UNITED BANK & UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK AND PHILIPPINE CLEARING HOUSE CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 June 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 211661 (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Philippine National Bank, Asia United Bank & United Coconut Planters Bank and Philippine Clearing House Corporation). — This resolves the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to assail the Decision 1 dated July 15, 2013 and Resolution 2 dated March 10, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 93344.
The Antecedents
The case involves nine checks that were supposedly drawn against National Transmission Corporation's (TRANSCO) Current Account No. 000322-1100-06 with LBP Iligan Branch, Iligan City. All checks were dated May 7, 2003, cleared by LBP through the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC) and for amounts totaling P18,484,477.44 debited by the drawee-bank from TRANSCO's account. 3 The checks were deposited with the following collecting banks, for the corresponding total amounts: (1) Philippine National Bank (PNB) Iligan Branch for P3,031,014.45; (2) Asia United Bank (AUB) Timog Branch for P9,484,854.11; (3) United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Tomas Morato Branch for P3,760,904.55; and (4) UCPB Mindanao Avenue Branch for P2,207,704.33. 4
More than a month from its receipt of the checks for clearing, 5 LBP returned the checks to PNB, AUB and UCPB (respondent banks) and sought payment of their amounts, as it alleged that they were spurious checks with forged endorsements and material alterations. LBP claimed to have been obliged to return, as it did return, the values of the checks to the account of TRANSCO. 6
Notwithstanding the supposed forged endorsements, respondent banks refused to accept the checks and to return their values to LBP, as they likewise referred to the spurious items and forged signatures in the checks. They also argued that the checks were returned by LBP beyond the allowed reglementary clearing period. 7
The foregoing prompted LBP to file with the Arbitration Committee (ARBICOM) of the PCHC a complaint against the respondent banks for a restitution of the value of the nine subject checks. The respondent banks, however, argued that LBP had no cause of action against them after the latter had paid the amounts through clearing. Given that the checks were spurious, LBP should have returned the checks to the respondent banks within the next clearing period, as provided under the Clearing House Rules and Regulations. 8
On March 6, 2008, the ARBICOM rendered its Decision 9 that sustained the defenses raised by the respondent banks. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the Complaint against all the [respondent banks].
No evidence having been submitted to support the counterclaims of the [respondent banks] for damages, the same are also hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 10
ARBICOM's dismissal of LBP's complaint was affirmed by the PCHC Board of Directors via Board Resolution No. 08-2008, 11 with fallo as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED THEREFORE, to AFFIRM the Decision of the [ARBICOM].
Accordingly, subject Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED. 12
Feeling aggrieved, LBP challenged Board Resolution No. 08-2008 in a petition for review filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
Ruling of the RTC
In its Decision 13 dated December 18, 2008, the RTC denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It explained that recourse from a ruling of the ARBICOM and/or the PCHC Board of Directors shall be on questions of law to the CA through a petition under Rule 43, or to the RTC through a motion to vacate the arbitral award. The RTC further considered the respect that should be accorded the factual findings of the PCHC, being the body that is clothed with technical competence and designated final arbiter over clearing house disputes. Thus, the decretal portion of the RTC's decision states:
Premises considered, for want of jurisdiction and for the other reasons aforecited by the [respondent banks], the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
[Respondent banks'] counterclaims for lack of basis are likewise DENIED. DETACa
SO ORDERED. 14
LBP appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On July 15, 2013, the CA rendered its Decision 15 that dismissed the appeal, with fallo as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated December 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 20, in Civil Case No. 08-119974 is hereby AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED. 16
LBP's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution 17 dated March 10, 2014.
The Present Petition
Dissatisfied, LBP filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. It insists that the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction over the petition for review that was filed to challenge the resolution of the PCHC Board of Directors.
The Court's Ruling
The Court denies the petition. The CA was correct when it ruled that the LBP pursued a wrong remedy from the PCHC's resolution when the bank filed a petition for review with the RTC. It properly referred to Section 12 of the Revised Arbitration Rules of the PCHC, as amended in 2007, which provided the proper mode for an appeal from the ruling of the PCHC Board of Directors, i.e., through a petition for review with the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The provision reads:
Section 12. The finding of facts of the decision or award rendered by the ARBICOM or by the Sole Arbitrator and/or by the PCHC Board of Directors as the case may be, shall be final and conclusive upon all parties in said arbitration dispute. The resolution or order of the Board of Directors affirming, modifying or reversing the decision or award of the ARBICOM or the Sole Arbitrator shall be appealable only on questions of law to the Honorable Court of Appeals, and the procedure to be followed by the parties in such appeal shall be governed by Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellant shall perfect the appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal to the Arbitration Secretariat and a petition with the Honorable Court of Appeals for the review of the decision of the ARBICOM or Sole Arbitrator and of the resolution or order of the Board of Directors affirming, modifying or reversing the arbitral award within a period of fifteen (15) days or such other period as provided in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, from and after its receipt of the decision. 18
While under PCHC's old rules of procedure, an appeal from a decision of the ARBICOM could be made before the RTC, such relief was already deleted in the aforequoted Section 12 of the new rules.
The Court likewise rejects LBP's argument that the RTC's appeal was akin to a motion to vacate arbitral award under Section 24 of the Arbitration Law. While LBP invoked in its RTC petition a supposed "manifest error" 19 committed by the PCHC Board of Directors, this ground is not among the sufficient grounds for vacating an arbitral award as allowed under Section 24 of the Arbitration Law, which reads:
Section 24. Grounds for vacating award. — In any one of the following cases, the court must make an order vacating the award upon the petition of any party to the controversy when such party proves affirmatively that in the arbitration proceedings:
(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; or
(b) That there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators or any of them; or
(c) That the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; that one or more of the arbitrators was disqualified to act as such under section nine hereof, and wilfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been materially prejudiced; or
(d) That the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not made.
From the foregoing, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the CA that affirmed the RTC's finding of lack of jurisdiction over LBP's appeal from the decision of the ARBICOM and Resolution of the PCHC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 15, 2013 and Resolution dated March 10, 2014 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93344 are AFFIRMED. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Marlene Gonzales-Sison concurring; rollo, pp. 20-30.
2.Id. at 32-32A.
3.Id. at 21.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 35.
6.Id. at 21-22.
7.Id. at 36.
8.Id. at 34.
9.Id. at 33-40.
10.Id. at 39-40.
11.Id. at 41-46.
12.Id. at 46.
13. Issued by Presiding Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali; id. at 47-55.
14.Id. at 55.
15.Id. at 20-30.
16.Id. at 30.
17.Id. at 32-32A.
18.Id. at 54.
19.Id. at 144.