United Coconut Planters Bank v. Zapanta Realty and Development Corp.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 235893. June 6, 2018.]

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK [UCPB], petitioner, vs.ZAPANTA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT JAIME V. ZAPANTA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 6, 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 235893 — United Coconut Planters Bank [UCPB] v. Zapanta Realty and Development Corporation, represented by its President Jaime V. Zapanta. AcICHD

This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly resolves to DENY the same for: (1) raising factual issues; and (2) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing petitioner's appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 107846.

The instant petition seeks to have this Court review the evidence presented before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) concerning the alteration of thirty-nine (39) forged checks and the trial court's consideration of respondent Zapanta Realty and Development Corporation's witness. Time and again, this Court has explained that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The factual findings of the CA bind this Court. 1 This rule holds true here especially since the RTC and the CA were unanimous in their factual findings and conclusions.

Petitioner assails the CA's finding that "[petitioner] was amiss in its obligation to detect the alterations [(i.e.,] the insertion of the words 'or cash'[)] in the said 19 checks." 2 Petitioner insists that "[a] perusal of the checks involved shows that the names of the supposed 'specified payees' were written in such a way as to leave enough space for the words 'or cash' to be written on the space provided for. There are also no erasures in the names of the payees that are visible to the naked eye and the names of the supposed 'specified payees' were typed very similar[ly] to the words 'or cash.' The sizes of the letters in the names of the supposed 'specified payees' are also the same as in the words 'or cash.'" 3

In Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 4 this Court ruled that "a material alteration is one which changes the items which are required to be stated under Section 1 of the Negotiable Instrument[s] Law." 5 Corollary, Section 1 (d) of the Negotiable Instruments Law states that "[a]n instrument. . . must conform to the following requirements x x x (d) [that it m]ust be payable to order or to bearer." It cannot be both payable to the order of a specified payee and payable to bearer (i.e., the checks being payable "to the order of cash"). 6 This prohibition is clearly stated in Section 128 of the said law where bills of exchanges, such as the checks subject of this case, may not be addressed "to two or more drawees in the alternative." caITAC

Therefore, the checks payable to "Juan R. Zapanta or cash," "Isabel V. Zapanta or cash," "Rodolfo V. Zapanta or cash," "Jaime R. Zapanta or cash," "Edna Z. Manlapaz or cash," and "Zeta Realty Corp. or cash" should have alerted petitioner for being highly irregular. Its failure to detect such irregularities led to the improper debiting of respondent's bank account, which petitioner was properly liable for.

Neither can petitioner find solace in this Court's pronouncement in Ilusorio v. Court of Appeals. 7 Unlike in Ilusorio where the petitioner therein was found to have negligently "accorded his secretary unusual degree of trust and unrestricted access to his credit cards, passbooks, check books, bank statements, including custody and possession of cancelled checks and reconciliation of accounts," 8 respondent herein cannot be said to have been equally negligent. On the contrary, respondent furnished petitioner with Board Resolutions containing specific instructions regarding the requirement of two authorized signatories. 9 Thus, petitioner's failure to comply with its contractual obligation to ensure that checks were signed by two authorized signatories was a result of its own doing.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated August 24, 2017 and Resolution dated November 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107846.

SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Jardeleza, J., no part, Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated March 21, 2018; Tijam, J., on official leave; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 169 (2016), citing Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).

2.Rollo, p. 33.

3.Id. at 9.

4. 326 Phil. 504 (1996).

5.Id. at 511.

6. See Sec. 9 (d) of the Negotiable Instruments Law which states:

   Sec. 9. When payable to bearer. — The instrument is payable to bearer:

xxx xxx xxx

   (d) When the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of any person; x x x

7. 441 SCRA 335 (2002).

8.Id. at 344.

9. See rollo, p. 31.