GR 141835; (February, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141835 . February 4, 2009.
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Citytrust Banking Corporation (Citytrust) maintained a demand deposit account with petitioner Central Bank of the Philippines. Citytrust furnished the Central Bank with the names and signatures of its authorized officers and roving tellers, including “Rounceval Flores,” who was issued a security identification card. On July 15, 1977, Flores presented two Citytrust checks, payable to Citytrust and signed by its authorized drawers, for payment at the Central Bank. After certification and verification of the drawers’ signatures, the Central Bank’s teller, Iluminada dela Cruz, processed the checks. Flores signed the cash transfer slip and checks with the notation “Received Payment,” but he signed as “Rosauro C. Cayabyab” instead of his own name, a fact Iluminada failed to notice. The Central Bank paid the total amount of ₱1,750,000 to Flores and debited Citytrust’s account. More than a year and nine months later, Citytrust demanded the restoration of the funds, alleging the checks were stolen and cancelled. The Central Bank refused. Citytrust filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Flores, who was convicted. Citytrust then filed a civil complaint for recovery of a sum of money against the Central Bank, alleging it erred in encashing the checks despite the lack of authority of “Rosauro C. Cayabyab.” The Regional Trial Court found both parties negligent and held them equally liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Central Bank was negligent in encashing the checks and should be held liable for the loss, and if so, what is the proper allocation of liability between the Central Bank and Citytrust.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification. The Central Bank was negligent. Its teller, Iluminada dela Cruz, failed to verify Flores’s signature on the flimsy excuse that he had previous transactions with the bank, neglecting to ensure the signature matched the specimen. Given the fiduciary nature of banking, which requires high standards of diligence, the Central Bank’s lack of due care contributed to the loss. However, Citytrust’s negligence was contributory, as it failed to timely examine its account, cancel the stolen checks, and notify the Central Bank of the loss/theft, which could have prevented or mitigated the loss. Applying Article 2179 of the Civil Code, the Court allocated the loss between the parties on a 60-40 ratio, with the Central Bank bearing 60% of the liability and Citytrust 40%. The Court also upheld that the Central Bank could be sued under its charter and that the civil action against it was separate from the criminal case against Flores.