Allied Banking Corporation v. Lim Sio Wan
G.R. No. 133179
March 27, 2008
ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner
versus
LIM SIO WAN, METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO., Respondents
Facts:
On November 14, 1983, Lim Sio Wan deposited a money market placement worth Php1,152,597.35 to Allied Bank for a term of 31 days to mature on December 15, 1983. On December 5, 1983, a person claiming to be Lim Sio Wan called up Cristina So, an officer of Allied Bank, and instructed her to preterminate the money market placement and to issue a manager’s check representing the proceeds from the placement and to give the check to one Deborah Dee Santos, who would pick up the check.
Santos arrived at the bank and signed the application form for a manager’s check to be issued. The check was cross-checked for Payees Account Only and given to Santos. Then the check was deposited to the account of Filipinas Cement Corporation (FCC) at Metrobank, with the forged signature of Lim Sio Wan.
Earlier, on September 21, 1983, FCC had deposited a money market placement forPhp2 million to Producers Bank. Santos was the money market trader assigned to handle FCC’s account. The placement matured on October 25, 1983, and was rolled over until December 5, 1983. The Allied check was deposited with Metrobank in the account of FCC as Producers Bank’s payment of its obligation to FCC.
Metrobank stamped a guaranty on the check in compliance with the requirements of the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC) Rules and Regulations. The guaranty read: All prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed. The check was then sent to Allied Bank through the PCHC. Upon the presentment of the check, Allied funded it even without checking the authenticity of Lim Sio Wan’s purported indorsement. So the amount of the check was credited to the account of FCC.
On December 14, 1983, Lim Sio Wan went to Allied Bank to withdraw the money market placement. When she was informed that the placement has been terminated upon her instructions, she took action. She filed a complaint with the RTC against Allied to recover the proceeds of the money market placement.
Allied filed a third party complaint against Metrobank and Santos. In turn, Metrobank filed a fourth party complaint against FCC. Then FCC filed a fifth party complaint against Producers Bank.
Six months after the funding of the check, Allied informed Metrobank that the signature in the check was forged. Thus, Metrobank withheld the amount but later on agreed to release it to FCC after the latter executed an undertaking, promising to indemnify Metrobank in case it was made to reimburse the amount.
Lim Sio Wan then filed an amended complaint, adding Metrobank as party-defendant along with Allied. The RTC rendered the following decision:
1. Ordering defendant Allied Banking Corporation to pay plaintiff the amount of P1,158,648.49 plus 12% interest per annum from March 16, 1984 until fully paid;
2. Ordering defendant Allied Bank to pay plaintiff the amount of P100,000.00 by way of moral damages;
3. Ordering defendant Allied Bank to pay plaintiff the amount of P173,792.20 by way of attorney’s fees; and,
4. Ordering defendant Allied Bank to pay the costs of suit.
Defendant Allied Banks cross-claim against defendant Metrobank is DISMISSED.
Likewise defendant Metrobanks third-party complaint as against Filipinas Cement Corporation is
DISMISSED.
Filipinas Cement Corporations fourth-party complaint against Producers Bank is also
DISMISSED.
Upon appeal, the CA promulgated the following decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED. Judgment is rendered ordering and sentencing defendant-appellant Allied Banking Corporation to pay sixty (60%) percent and defendant-appellee Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company forty (40%) of the amount of P1,158,648.49 plus 12% interest per annum from March 16, 1984 until fully paid. The moral damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit adjudged shall likewise be paid by defendant-appellant Allied Banking Corporation and defendant-appellee Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company in the same proportion of 60-40. Except as thus modified, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.
Allied alleged that there was unjust enrichment on the part of Producers Bank.
Issue:
Was Allied Bank correct in saying that Producers Bank was unjustly enriched?
Ruling:
Yes. Under Article 22 of the Civil Code, there is unjust enrichment when the following concur:
1. A person is unjustly benefited
2. Such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another
In the instant case, Lim Sio Wans money market placement in Allied Bank was preterminated and withdrawn without her consent. Moreover, the proceeds of the placement were deposited in Producers Banks account in Metrobank without any justification. It cannot be validly claimed that FCC, and not Producers Bank, should be considered as having been unjustly enriched. It must be remembered that FCCs money market placement with Producers Bank was already due and demandable; thus, Producers Banks payment thereof was justified.
Clearly, Producers Bank must be held liable to Allied and Metrobank for the amount of the check plus 12% interest per annum, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit which Allied and Metrobank are adjudged to pay Lim Sio Wan based on a proportion of 60:40.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that the CA’s ruling be upheld with modification. Producers Bank was ordered to pay Allied and Metrobank the amounts.
It's a Ping Thing 