G.R. No. 235511 & 235565, June 20, 2018
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Petitioner, vs. Junnel’s Marketing Corporation, Purificacion Delizo, and Bank of Commerce, Respondents. [G.R. No. 235565] Bank of Commerce, Petitioner, vs. Junnel’s Marketing Corporation, Purificacion Delizo, and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Respondents.

FACTS

Junnel’s Marketing Corporation (JMC) discovered that eleven crossed checks it issued to suppliers Jardine and Premiere, totaling P1,481,292.00, had been charged against its Metrobank account but were not covered by official receipts. An audit revealed these checks were deposited into a Bank of Commerce (Bankcom) account not owned by the named payees. JMC’s former accountant, Purificacion Delizo, executed a handwritten confession admitting she stole company checks and, with accomplices, deposited them. JMC filed a complaint for sum of money against Delizo, Bankcom, and Metrobank.
The Regional Trial Court held Bankcom and Metrobank solidarily liable to JMC, apportioning responsibility at two-thirds and one-third respectively, while absolving Delizo due to lack of direct evidence and a finding her confession was made under duress. Both banks appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision holding Bankcom and Metrobank solidarily liable to JMC for the value of the converted checks.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the CA decision. It affirmed the finding of solidary liability but applied the doctrine of comparative negligence to determine the extent of each bank’s liability, rejecting the RTC’s fixed 2/3-1/3 apportionment. The legal logic is grounded in the distinct duties owed by the collecting bank (Bankcom) and the drawee bank (Metrobank). Bankcom, as the collecting bank, was primarily negligent for accepting the crossed checks for deposit into an account not belonging to the named payees, violating the statutory purpose of crossing a check which is to ensure it is paid only to the payee’s bank. This breach directly facilitated the fraud.
Metrobank, as the drawee bank, was also negligent but to a lesser degree. Its duty was to pay the checks according to the drawer’s (JMC’s) order. By honoring checks presented for payment by a bank that was not the payee’s bank—a clear violation of the crossing—Metrobank failed to exercise the diligence required of a drawee. However, the proximate cause of the loss was Bankcom’s initial wrongful acceptance. Consequently, the Supreme Court adjudged Bankcom 80% liable and Metrobank 20% liable for the principal amount. The Court also modified the interest awarded, imposing legal interest of 6% per annum from judicial demand, as the claim arose from a tort of negligence, not a loan or forbearance of money.