Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > May 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27328 May 30, 1983 - ISIDRO M. ONGSIP v. PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO.

207 Phil. 396:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-27328. May 30, 1983.]

ISIDRO M. ONGSIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO., Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. COMMERCIAL LAW; NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT; CHECKS; CREDITING OF POSTDATED CHECKS TO A CURRENT ACCOUNT; AN IRREGULAR BANKING PRACTICE. — Although the bank admitted that the crediting of postdated checks to a current account is an irregular practice, it tolerated the irregularity because Ongsip was a valued client. The bank stressed that after the debiting on June 2, 1955 of the sum of P225,484.95, this very same amount was re-credited or redeposited in that same month of June, 1955 to Ongsip’s account, as shown in Exhibit 38 and as testify by the bank’s assistant auditor, Genaro Yupangco (p. 20, Appellant’s Brief). On the other hand, Ongsip counters that the evidence on the alleged redeposit or re-crediting, effected also in June, 1955, is self-serving and is not credible in the absence of the supposed postdated checks. Ongsip asserts that the redepositing should have been effected not by means of redeposit slips but by means of credit memoranda. Moreover, when Ongsip’s counsel in his letters dated October 19 and November 4, 1960 complained about the debiting in question, the bank did not inform him that there was a subsequent redeposit or re-crediting of the amount. The preponderance of the evidence sustains Ongsip’s contention that the debiting was improper and that the alleged redeposit was not true.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MARGINAL DEPOSITS; LETTERS OF CREDITS; ACCOUNTABILITY THEREON; CASE AT BAR. — The bank’s second contention is that the trial court erred in holding that Ongsip was not liable for the marginal deposits on six letters of credit which were clandestinely purchased by him. The Supreme Court finds the hank’s contention to be correct, as shown in Exhibits 51 to 51-E, which prove Ongsip’s assumption of the marginal deposits involved in the six letters of credit. He is liable for that amount.

3. CIVIL-LAW; PRESCRIPTION; EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS UPON A WRITTEN CONTRACT. — As to prescription, which is the only affirmative defense invoked in the bank’s answer, that defense is not tenable. The applicable provision is that found in Article 1144 of the Civil Code which provides that actions upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. The instant action, which was preceded by written extrajudicial demands, was filed on January 31, 1961, or after December 27, 1960, when the current account of Ongsip was closed. It had not yet prescribed. (See Art. 1153, Civil Code; Marella v. Agoncillo, 44 Phil. 844)


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This case is about the deduction from a depositor’s current account of postdated checks and deposits on marginal credit allegedly secured by the depositor.

The Prudential Bank & Trust Co. appealed from the decision of Judge Francisco Arca dated July 23, 1966, ordering the bank to pay Isidro M. Ongsip the sum of P225,484.95 with legal interest from June 2, 1955 until fully paid, the sum of P19,416.37 with legal interest from July 14, 1955 until fully paid and P5,000 as attorney’s fees. (Appeal before R.A. No. 5440.)

Ongsip had a current account with the Prudential Bank during the period from 1952 to 1960 (Exh. A to A-304). The bank debited against Ongsip’s current account (a) on June 2, 1955 postdated checks amounting to P25,484.95 and (b) on July 14, 1955 the sum of P19,416.37 representing marginal depositors on six letters of credit opened with the bank, not by Ongsip but by third persons. (Exh. A-95 and B; Exh. A-104-A to A-104-F; Exh C to C-6; Exh. D to H.)chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Ongsip made formal demands upon the bank for the restitution of the debited amounts but the bank did not honor the demands (Exh. J-1 to J-4). Ongsip then complained to the Central Bank against the acts of the Prudential Bank but the Central Bank disclaimed jurisdiction. It opined that the matter was contractual between Ongsip and the bank (Exh. J).

On the other hand, Florencio Arcenal, the bank’s witness, testified that no specific authority from Ongsip was necessary for the debiting against his current account of the sum of P225,484.95 because that amount was covered by postdated checks deposited by Ongsip. As to the sum of P19,416.37, Ongsip had acted as surety for third persons whose marginal deposits on their letters of credit were required by the bank. Arcenal testified that Ongsip had authorized such debiting.

According to the bank, it was especially arranged with Ongsip that the latter would deposit postdated and immature checks, and the bank would debit them against his current account, and when the checks matured, credit them to his current account: credit, then debit, then credit again!

The trial court did not believe that such a special arrangement existed. It was an irregular banking practice. The trial court could not sanction such an irregularity. It opined that a postdated check is not a check at all. The bank did not produce in evidence the postdated checks except four checks in small amounts (Exh. 6-a to 6-d). Ongsip claims that the four checks were not part of the sum of P225,484.95.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

With respect to the sum of P19,416.37, the trial court found that there was no oral authorization to have the sum debited against Ongsip’s current account.

The bank contends that the trial court erred in holding that Ongsip was damaged by debiting P225,484.95 against his account because it did not consider the re-crediting entries and other evidence surrounding the transaction.

Although the bank admitted that the crediting of postdated checks to a current account is an irregular practice, it tolerated the irregularity because Ongsip was a valued client. The bank stressed that after the debiting on June 2, 1955 of the sum of P225,484.95, this very same amount was re-credited or redeposited in that same month of June, 1955 to Ongsip’s account, as shown in Exhibit 58 and as testified by the bank’s assistant auditor, Genaro Yupangco (p. 20, Appellant’s Brief).

The re-crediting was brought to the trial court’s attention in the bank’s motion for reconsideration but it did not change its decision.

On the other hand, Ongsip counters that the evidence on the alleged redeposit or re-crediting, effected also in June, 1955, is self-serving and is not credible in the absence of the supposed postdated checks. Ongsip asserts that the redepositing should have been effected not by means of redeposit slips but by means of credit memoranda.

Moreover, when Ongsip’s counsel in his letters dated October 19 and November 4, 1960 complained about the debiting in question, the bank did not inform him that there was a subsequent redeposit or re-crediting of the amount.

The preponderance of the evidence sustains Ongsip’s contention that the debiting was improper and that the alleged redeposit was not true.

The bank’s second contention is that the trial court erred in holding that Ongsip was not liable for the marginal deposits on six letters of credit which were clandestinely purchased by him.

Ongsip insists that, as admitted by Arcenal, there was no document of purchase and, at any rate, the purchase would have been illegal.

We find the bank’s contention to be correct, as shown in Exhibits 51 to 51-E, which prove Ongsip’s assumption of the marginal deposits involved in the six letters of credit. He is liable for that amount.

The other contentions of the bank refer to estoppel, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, prescription and laches. As to prescription, which is the only affirmative defense invoked in the bank’s answer, that defense is not tenable. The applicable provision is that found in article 1144 of the Civil Code which provides that actions upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The instant action, which was preceded by written extrajudicial demands, was filed on January 31, 1961, or after December 27, 1960, when the current account of Ongsip was closed. It had not yet prescribed. (See art. 1153, Civil Code; Marella v. Agoncillo, 44 Phil. 844.)

The question of estoppel and falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus are not of crucial importance as to affect the outcome of the case.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s judgment is affirmed with the modification that Ongsip’s claim for P19,416.37 is dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-58113 May 2, 1983 - ADELINA B. GABATAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    207 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-30612 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ALISON

    207 Phil. 8

  • G.R. No. L-32074 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO S. MAGNAYON

    207 Phil. 22

  • G.R. No. L-34249 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN D. BARROS

    207 Phil. 32

  • G.R. No. L-35099 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL DIMATULAC

    207 Phil. 43

  • G.R. No. L-37080 May 3, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SALCEDO

    207 Phil. 49

  • G.R. No. L-57625 May 3, 1983 - AVELINO PULIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    207 Phil. 58

  • A.C. No. 1216 May 10, 1983 - MARCELINA C. MANIKAD v. NARCISO V. CRUZ, JR.

    207 Phil. 69

  • G.R. No. L-51282 May 10, 1983 - FELIX V. TENORIO v. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    207 Phil. 72

  • A.M. No. P-2316 May 16, 1983 - ALEJANDRO C. SILAPAN v. BERNARDO ALCALA

    207 Phil. 76

  • G.R. No. L-25084 May 16, 1983 - ELENITA V. UNSON v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 89

  • G.R. No. L-28046 May 16, 1983 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INDEPENDENT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION

    207 Phil. 98

  • G.R. No. L-28809 May 16, 1983 - JULIO LLAMADO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    207 Phil. 102

  • G.R. Nos. L-31327-29 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NONCETO GRAVINO

    207 Phil. 107

  • G.R. No. L-32265 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. RAMOS

    207 Phil. 122

  • G.R. No. L-33606 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO L. DE LA ROSA

    207 Phil. 129

  • G.R. No. L-35648 May 16, 1983 - PERSHING TAN QUETO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 186

  • G.R. No. L-38139 May 16, 1983 - TEODORO DOMANICO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 195

  • G.R. No. L-46397 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO DELA CRUZ

    207 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-51797 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VERDAD

    207 Phil. 204

  • G.R. No. L-52772 May 16, 1983 - ESCAÑO HERMANOS INCORPORADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-53973 May 16, 1983 - ANANIAS S. LAZAGA v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    207 Phil. 224

  • G.R. No. L-57636 May 16, 1983 - REYNALDO TIANGCO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

    207 Phil. 235

  • G.R. No. L-58286 May 16, 1983 - AGAPITO B. DUCUSIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 248

  • G.R. No. L-58469 May 16, 1983 - MAKATI LEASING and FINANCE CORP. v. WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC.

    207 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-59318 May 16, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO G. RAMOS

    207 Phil. 269

  • A.C. No. 1341 May 17, 1983 - ANTONIA MARANAN v. MAGNO T. BUESER

    207 Phil. 278

  • A.M. No. P-1714 May 17, 1983 - LUCIA PEDRASTA v. ELIAS MARFIL

    207 Phil. 280

  • G.R. No. L-35595 May 17, 1983 - LEONARDO AMPER v. PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH III, CFI-MISAMIS ORIENTA

  • G.R. No. L-29141 May 19, 1983 - MANUEL L. LIMSICO v. JOSE G. BAUTISTA

    207 Phil. 290

  • G.R. No. L-35664 May 19, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO L. DE LA CRUZ

    207 Phil. 324

  • G.R. No. L-44302 May 20, 1983 - MARVEL BUILDING CORPORATION v. BLAS F. OPLE

    207 Phil. 351

  • G.R. No. L-34051 May 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TONY MONTES

    207 Phil. 354

  • G.R. No. L-35491 May 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMERITO MENDEZ

    207 Phil. 359

  • G.R. No. L-53460 May 27, 1983 - PROVINCIAL CHAPTER of LAGUNA, NACIONALISTA PARTY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    207 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-57093 May 27, 1983 - MONTE DE PIEDAD AND SAVINGS BANK v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

    207 Phil. 387

  • A.C. No. 2112 May 30, 1983 - REMEDIOS MUNAR v. ERNESTO B. FLORES

    207 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-27328 May 30, 1983 - ISIDRO M. ONGSIP v. PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO.

    207 Phil. 396

  • G.R. No. L-30685 May 30, 1983 - NG GAN ZEE v. ASIAN CRUSADER LIFE ASSURANCE CORP.

    207 Phil. 401

  • G.R. No. L-30837 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FULGENCIO ORNOPIA

    207 Phil. 408

  • G.R. No. L-31763 May 30, 1983 - RAMON SIA REYES v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    207 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-33131 May 30, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DAVID P. AVILA

    207 Phil. 419

  • G.R. No. L-33320 May 30, 1983 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    207 Phil. 425

  • G.R. No. L-33422 May 30, 1983 - ROSENDO BALUCANAG v. ALBERTO J. FRANCISCO

    207 Phil. 433

  • G.R. No. L-34199 May 30, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA

    207 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-41992 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LODRIGO IJURCADAS

    207 Phil. 449

  • G.R. No. L-43905 May 30, 1983 - SERAFIA G. TOLENTINO v. EDGARDO L. PARAS

    207 Phil. 458

  • G.R. No. L-45071 May 30, 1983 - MIGUEL SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 463

  • G.R. No. L-45674 May 30, 1983 - EMILIANO A. FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 471

  • G.R. No. L-48131 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERONCIO MENDEZ

    207 Phil. 483

  • G.R. No. L-51002 May 30, 1983 - SPECIAL EVENTS & CENTRAL SHIPPING OFFICE WORKERS UNION v. SAN MIGUEL CORP.

    207 Phil. 487

  • G.R. No. L-52358 May 30, 1983 - INHELDER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 507

  • G.R. No. L-55831 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT MEDRANO, ET AL.

    207 Phil. 516

  • G.R. No. L-57555 May 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERESA JALANDONI

    207 Phil. 517

  • G.R. No. L-58004 May 30, 1983 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    207 Phil. 529

  • G.R. No. L-58407 May 30, 1983 - FLORENTINA LUNA GONZALES v. MARCELINO N. SAYO

    207 Phil. 537

  • G.R. No. L-58482 May 30, 1983 - MOTOROLA PHILIPPINES, INC. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA

    207 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-59724 May 30, 1983 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    207 Phil. 544

  • G.R. No. L-61586 May 30, 1983 - ISIDRO MILLARE v. LEOPOLDO B. GIRONELLA

    207 Phil. 548

  • G.R. No. L-62878 May 30, 1983 - MARGOT B. DE LOS REYES v. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG

    207 Phil. 556

  • G.R. No. L-64023 May 30, 1983 - PEDRO TURINGAN v. BONIFACIO CACDAC

    207 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-54718 May 31, 1983 - CRISOLOGO P. VILLANUEVA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    207 Phil. 560