G.R. No. 188363 ; February 27, 2013
Allied Banking Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, Respondent.

FACTS

On October 10, 2002, Allied Banking Corporation (Allied Bank) accepted for deposit at its Kawit Branch a check for ₱1,000,000.00, post-dated “Oct. 9, 2003,” drawn against the account of Marciano Silva, Jr. with Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). Allied Bank sent the check for clearing through the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC). BPI cleared the check, and Allied Bank credited the account of the depositor, who subsequently withdrew the funds and closed the account. A month later, Silva discovered the debit. BPI reimbursed Silva and, on March 21, 2003, attempted to return a photocopy of the check to Allied Bank with the reason “Postdated,” initiating a “ping-pong” exchange of the charge slip.
Allied Bank filed a complaint with the PCHC Arbitration Committee, arguing BPI should solely bear the loss for failing to return the check within the 24-hour reglementary period under Clearing House Rules. The Committee ruled in Allied Bank’s favor, applying the “last clear chance” doctrine. The PCHC Board and the Regional Trial Court affirmed with modifications. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Allied Bank contributorily negligent.

ISSUE

Whether Allied Bank, as the collecting bank, is guilty of contributory negligence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding Allied Bank guilty of contributory negligence. The legal logic is anchored on the respective duties of a collecting bank and a drawee bank. A collecting bank, by the nature of its business, is expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence. In accepting a post-dated check for deposit and immediate clearing, Allied Bank failed in this duty. Its act was the proximate cause that set the loss in motion, as it enabled the premature encashment.
While BPI was also negligent for clearing a post-dated check and failing to return it within the 24-hour period, this negligence was subsequent. The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply because it presupposes that the party charged had a fresh opportunity to avert the harm after the other party’s negligence had ceased. Here, Allied Bank’s negligence was not a remote, completed act; it was an active and proximate cause that continued to operate. The loss was directly attributable to its initial wrongful acceptance. Consequently, both banks were at fault. The Court applied Article 2179 of the Civil Code on contributory negligence, allocating the loss equally between them. The award of attorney’s fees was deleted for lack of basis.