GR 155033; (December, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155033 ; December 19, 2007
ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS, ROSITA A.I. CUSI, PATRICIA A.I. SANDEJAS and BENJAMIN A.I. ESPIRITU, Petitioners, vs. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO, JR. and EVELYN IGNACIO, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Arturo Ignacio, Jr., residing in the U.S., leased a condominium for petitioner Benjamin Espiritu. Intending to renew the lease, Arturo issued a check payable to the lessor, Dr. Manuel Borja, but left the date and amount blank, instructing that it be given to Benjamin. Petitioner Alice Sandejas, believing Arturo had defrauded her sister Rosita in a separate money market transaction, obtained the check. Alice filled it with the date “March 17, 1995” and the amount “Three Million Pesos.” She then enlisted her driver, Kudera, to impersonate Dr. Borja. Alice and Rosita, with Kudera, went to Security Bank and Trust Company (SBTC), introduced Kudera as Borja, and used the check to open a joint savings account. SBTC accepted the check without requiring Kudera’s identification or endorsement, stamped it “endorsement/lack of endorsement guaranteed,” and successfully cleared it. Petitioners subsequently withdrew the entire amount.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners Alice Sandejas and Rosita Cusi, together with SBTC, are liable to respondents for the value of the fraudulently negotiated check.
RULING
Yes, petitioners are solidarily liable with SBTC. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s modified decision. The legal logic centers on the nature of the instrument and the bank’s negligence. The check was incomplete when issued, but under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a person in possession of such an instrument has prima facie authority to complete it. However, this authority must be exercised strictly within the limits given by the drawer. Here, petitioners grossly exceeded the authority granted by Arturo, who intended the check solely for lease renewal. Their act of filling it with a massive, unauthorized sum and orchestrating an impersonation to deposit it constituted fraud and forgery, making them liable for the resulting loss.
The Court upheld the finding of solidary liability with SBTC due to the bank’s concurrent and contributory negligence. By allowing the account opening and deposit without verifying the impostor’s identity and by guaranteeing a missing endorsement, SBTC failed to observe the diligence required of banks. This negligence facilitated the fraud. Consequently, both the fraudulent actors (petitioners Alice and Rosita) and the negligent bank are jointly and severally liable to reimburse the drawer for the unlawfully taken funds. The award of damages was deemed proper due to the willful and fraudulent nature of petitioners’ acts.