March 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 173278 : March 07, 2007] F.F CRUZ & CO., INC. VERSUS PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK:
[G.R. No. 173278 : March 07, 2007]
F.F CRUZ & CO., INC. VERSUS PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated March 7, 2007.
G.R. No. 173278 - (F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC. versus PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK)
Petitioner F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. (FFCCI) assails the January 31, 2006 decision[1] and June 26, 2006 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 81349 affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 46, in Civil Case No. 97-84010.
Civil Case No. 97-84010 was an action for damages filed by FFCCI against Philippine National Bank (PNB). The suit arose from PNB's approval of two applications for manager's checks in March and April 1995, respectively. Both applications bore the signature of Felipe Cruz, FFCCI's president and authorized signatory for the combo account[2] maintained by FFCCI with PNB's Timog Avenue Branch. The amounts of the checks (P9,950,000 and P3,260,500.31 or a total of P13,210,500.31) were debited by PNB from this combo account.
The applications were made and presented to PNB while Cruz was out of the country. In July 1995, FFCCI questioned the deductions from its combo account and claimed that the applications were unauthorized and fraudulently made. It requested PNB to credit back and restore the value of the checks to FFCCI's combo account. PNB, however, refused asserting that it exercised due diligence in handling the FFCCI's account. PNB claimed that Aurea Caparas, FFCCI's accountant, even confirmed the regularity of the applications.[3]
The RTC found both FFCCI and PNB negligent: (1) PNB for not verifying with Cruz the genuineness of the applications considering the substantial amounts involved and (2) FFCCI in clothing Caparas with apparent authority to transact with PNB and for belatedly informing PNB of its discovery of the unauthorized applications. The RTC held PNB, as the one with the last clear chance to prevent the harm, liable for damages. PNB was ordered to pay FFCCI P13,210,500.31, the total amount deducted from FFCCI's combo account, plus legal interest.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that PNB was negligent for failing to verify the signature of Cruz in the applications and merely relying on Caparas' confirmation. It also upheld the finding that FFCCI was similarly negligent in handling its finances when it clothed Caparas with authority to transact with PNB and in failing to make a timely notice of the unauthorized deduction. On account of FFCCI's contributory negligence, the CA mitigated PNB's liability and made FFCCI bear 40% of the actual damages awarded by the trial court. The CA accordingly modified the RTC decision and held PNB liable for 60% of the actual damages awarded by the RTC to FFCCI. FFCCI's motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus, this petition.
The petition principally raises a factual issue. FFCCI prefaces its petition thus:
The Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court.[6] Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court and generally will not be reviewed on appeal.[7] While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule, none of the established exceptions finds application here.
Moreover, there is no reversible error in the CA decision that will warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Since FFCCI was guilty of contributory negligence, the CA correctly mitigated PNB's liability. The 60%-40% allocation by the CA was not arbitrary but made under the authority of Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA[8] and Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. CA.[9]
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 173278 - (F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC. versus PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK)
Petitioner F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. (FFCCI) assails the January 31, 2006 decision[1] and June 26, 2006 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 81349 affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 46, in Civil Case No. 97-84010.
Civil Case No. 97-84010 was an action for damages filed by FFCCI against Philippine National Bank (PNB). The suit arose from PNB's approval of two applications for manager's checks in March and April 1995, respectively. Both applications bore the signature of Felipe Cruz, FFCCI's president and authorized signatory for the combo account[2] maintained by FFCCI with PNB's Timog Avenue Branch. The amounts of the checks (P9,950,000 and P3,260,500.31 or a total of P13,210,500.31) were debited by PNB from this combo account.
The applications were made and presented to PNB while Cruz was out of the country. In July 1995, FFCCI questioned the deductions from its combo account and claimed that the applications were unauthorized and fraudulently made. It requested PNB to credit back and restore the value of the checks to FFCCI's combo account. PNB, however, refused asserting that it exercised due diligence in handling the FFCCI's account. PNB claimed that Aurea Caparas, FFCCI's accountant, even confirmed the regularity of the applications.[3]
The RTC found both FFCCI and PNB negligent: (1) PNB for not verifying with Cruz the genuineness of the applications considering the substantial amounts involved and (2) FFCCI in clothing Caparas with apparent authority to transact with PNB and for belatedly informing PNB of its discovery of the unauthorized applications. The RTC held PNB, as the one with the last clear chance to prevent the harm, liable for damages. PNB was ordered to pay FFCCI P13,210,500.31, the total amount deducted from FFCCI's combo account, plus legal interest.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that PNB was negligent for failing to verify the signature of Cruz in the applications and merely relying on Caparas' confirmation. It also upheld the finding that FFCCI was similarly negligent in handling its finances when it clothed Caparas with authority to transact with PNB and in failing to make a timely notice of the unauthorized deduction. On account of FFCCI's contributory negligence, the CA mitigated PNB's liability and made FFCCI bear 40% of the actual damages awarded by the trial court. The CA accordingly modified the RTC decision and held PNB liable for 60% of the actual damages awarded by the RTC to FFCCI. FFCCI's motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus, this petition.
The petition principally raises a factual issue. FFCCI prefaces its petition thus:
The instant Petition only assails the ruling of the [CA] insofar as it held FFCCI guilty of contributory negligence in: (a) clothing Aurea Caparas with apparent factotum authority to transact with PNB [and] (b) not timely examining its statement of account and informing PNB of the "discrepancies" therein within a reasonable time.[4]FFCCI primarily questions the finding that it was negligent. However, negligence is basically a question of fact.[5]
The Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court.[6] Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court and generally will not be reviewed on appeal.[7] While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule, none of the established exceptions finds application here.
Moreover, there is no reversible error in the CA decision that will warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Since FFCCI was guilty of contributory negligence, the CA correctly mitigated PNB's liability. The 60%-40% allocation by the CA was not arbitrary but made under the authority of Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA[8] and Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. CA.[9]
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (deceased) and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guarina III and Santiago Javier Ranada (retired) of the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals; rollo, pp. 51-59.
[2] Savings/current account No. 0219-830-146.
[3] Unfortunately, Caparas, who was also impleaded as a defendant, disappeared even before the case was filed in the RTC.
[4] Petition for Review on Certiorari, p. 2; Rollo, p. 10.
[5] Philippine National Bank v. Campos, G.R. No. 167270, 30 June 2006, 494 SCRA 370.
[6] Serina v. Caballero, G.R. No. 127382, 17 August 2004, 436 SCRA 593.
[7] Miranda v. Besa, G.R. No. 146513, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA 532.
[8] 336 Phil. 667(1997).
[9] 457 Phil. 688 (2003).
