GR L 74521; (November, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-74521 November 11, 1986
BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. FIRST CIVIL CASES DIVISION, INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and AIR CARGO AND TRAVEL CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Air Cargo and Travel Corporation (ACTC) maintained an account with petitioner Bank of America (BANKAMERICA). Toshiyuki Minami, ACTC’s president in Japan, also held a separate personal account with the same bank. On March 10, 1981, BANKAMERICA received a tested telex advice from Kyowa Bank of Japan, ordering it to pay US$23,595.00 “TO YOUR A/C NBR 24506-01-7 OF A. C. TRAVEL CORPORATION MR. TOSHIYUKO MINAMI.” Despite noting an ambiguity in the instruction, BANKAMERICA credited the amount to Account No. 24506-01-7, which was owned by Minami, who subsequently withdrew the funds. ACTC demanded restitution, claiming the funds were intended for its corporate account. Upon BANKAMERICA’s refusal, ACTC filed a suit for damages. The trial court held BANKAMERICA and Minami jointly and severally liable, a decision affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court, which found the bank grossly negligent in handling the ambiguous telex.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner BANKAMERICA was negligent and thus liable for damages for crediting the remittance to the account of Minami based on the ambiguous tested telex instruction.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision, absolving BANKAMERICA of liability. The legal logic centered on the nature of the tested telex as a contract containing a stipulation pour autrui (stipulation in favor of a third party) between Kyowa Bank and BANKAMERICA. The Court held that the ambiguity, whether patent or latent, was resolved in favor of identifying Minami as the intended beneficiary. The specific account number (24506-01-7) and Minami’s name were decisive identifiers that the bank could not disregard. The mention of “A.C. TRAVEL CORPORATION” was reasonably construed as further identification of Minami, not as a directive to credit the corporate account. Furthermore, ACTC was not a party to the contract between the two banks and could not question the identification made by the ordering bank, Kyowa. The Court also inferred that the original remitting party, Tokyo Tourist Corporation, did not protest the crediting to Minami, suggesting this was the intended action. Therefore, BANKAMERICA correctly followed the instructions based on the primary identifiers in the telex and incurred no negligence.