GR 192413; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 192413 ; June 13, 2012
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa, Respondents.
FACTS
The Republic filed an escheat case under Act No. 3936 against unclaimed bank balances, including a sum of ₱1,019,514.29 held by RCBC. This amount corresponded to an RCBC manager’s check issued in 1991 by Hi-Tri Development Corporation, payable to Rosmil Realty c/o Teresita Millan, as a down payment for a land sale. The sale was rescinded, and Millan refused to accept the refund. Hi-Tri and the Bakunawas retained the physical check and, in a related civil case, prayed that Millan be ordered to receive it. In 2003, without Hi-Tri’s knowledge, RCBC reported the credit as an unclaimed balance. The escheat proceedings commenced in 2006. In 2008, Hi-Tri settled with Millan for ₱3,000,000, inclusive of the check amount, but discovered the funds were subject to escheat.
ISSUE
Whether the amount backing the unclaimed manager’s check is subject to escheat in favor of the Republic.
RULING
No, the amount is not subject to escheat. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s escheat order. The legal logic rests on the nature of a manager’s check and the requirements for escheat. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a manager’s check is a bank’s own check drawn upon itself. Upon its issuance, the amount is immediately set aside from the drawer-depositor’s account and is held in trust for the payee, who becomes the bank’s creditor. The funds are no longer considered a deposit belonging to the purchaser of the check (Hi-Tri) but a credit in favor of the payee (Rosmil/Millan).
For escheat under Act No. 3936 to apply, the credit must be both unpaid and unclaimed for a statutory period. Here, the payee’s claim was not extinguished; it was actively asserted. The pending civil case wherein Hi-Tri prayed for Millan to be compelled to receive the check constituted a clear claim by the payee, negating the “unclaimed” element essential for escheat. The bank’s unilateral act of reporting the credit as unclaimed, while the payee’s right to it was being litigated, was improper. Therefore, the credit never legally became an “unclaimed balance” subject to escheat. The Court ordered RCBC to return the amount to Hi-Tri, which had already settled its obligation to the payee.