4/16/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
and the subsequent withdrawals. Nor did he authorize anyone to perform these acts.
In its Answer, respondent bank alleged that there is no indication from its records of
the transfer of US$100,000.00 for petitioner's account from Hang Lung Bank Ltd.
through the Pacific Banking Corporation. However, after plaintiff-petitioner had adduced
his evidence, it filed a third-party complaint against Papercon and Tom Pek, "admitting
that plaintiff conclusively appeared to have deposited the sum of US$100,000.00 with
the bank and said foreign currency deposit was converted, adopting the prevailing rate
of interest at the time, to P730,000.00 and deposited to plaintiff's Current Account No.
12-2009 which he opened with Shaw Boulevard branch, after which plaintiff issued
Check No. 492327 to third-party defendant Papercon (Phils.), Inc. for the amount of
P700,000.00 and Check No. 492328 to third-party defendant Tom Pek for the amount
of P12,700.00."[6] Respondent bank thus contended that should it be made liable to
petitioner, said third-party defendants as payees and beneficiaries of the issued checks
should be held solidarily liable with it.
Tom Pek and Papercon did not deny receiving the checks worth P712,700.00 but argued
that unless proven otherwise, the said checks should be presumed to have been issued
in their favor for a sufficient and valuable consideration.
Based on the evidence and arguments before it, the trial court determined that the
withdrawals were not made by petitioner nor authorized by him, and held respondent
bank liable for the US$100,000.00 (and the interest thereon from date of filing of the
complaint), damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
It is not disputed that petitioner did not personally go to respondent bank to open the
account; it was Catalino Reyes, an employee of Tom Pek, who obtained the blank
application forms from the Shaw Boulevard branch and returned them bearing
petitioner's signature; and, the application forms were not completely filled out. The
trial court found the actuations of the bank's officers of allowing Reyes to take out the
forms, approving the scarcely-completed application form, validating petitioner's
signature thereon even when they have not met petitioner, and permitting the hefty
withdrawals made from the account to be in contravention with sound and wellrecognized banking procedures, and contrary to "its (the bank's) primordial duty of
safeguarding the interest of its depositors, because for having allowed the same, it
enabled an unscrupulous person to open an account for the plaintiff without the latter's
consent."[7]
The trial court also took against respondent bank its inability to present in evidence the
depositor's card showing petitioner's specimen signatures and the requisition slip for
the issuance of a checkbook, and disregarded the bank's contention that they could not
anymore be located. From this, the trial court concluded that petitioner did not submit
any card showing his specimen signature since he did not open the said current
account, and that the withdrawals made on the said account were unauthorized and in
fraud of petitioner.[8]
The trial court further concluded that the withdrawals from petitioner's account could
not have been made possible without the collusion of the officers and employees of
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50982
2/14