-
7/25/2019 1st set
1/27
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 93397 March 3, 1997
TRADERS ROYAL BANK, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, FILRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCECORPORATION a! CENTRAL BANK o" #h$ P%ILIPPINES,
respondents.
TORRES, &R.,J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorariis the Decision of
the respondent Court of Appeals dated anuar! "#, $##%,1a&r'in(
the nullit! of the transfer of Central )an* Certi+cate of
Indetedness -C)CI No. D/#$,'with a face value of P0%%,%%%.%%,
fro' the Philippine 1nderwriters 2inance Corporation -Phil+nance
to the petitioner 3rader4s Ro!al )an* -3R), under a Repurchase
A(ree'ent3dated 2eruar! 5, $#/$, and a Detached Assi(n'ent (
dated April "6, $#/$.
Doc*eted as Civil Case No. /78$6#99 in the Re(ional 3rial Court of
:anila, )ranch 7", the action was ori(inall! +led as a Petition for
Mandamus)under Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, to co'pel the
Central )an* of the Philippines to re(ister the transfer of the
su;ect C)CI to petitioner 3raders Ro!al )an* -3R).
In the said petition, 3R) stated thates ?)? and ?D?, to the Securities
Servicin( Depart'ent of the respondent, and
reuested the latter to eect the transfer of the C)CIon its oo*s and to issue a new certi+cate in the
na'e of petitioner as asolute owner thereofB
$%. Respondent failed and refused to re(ister the
transfer as reuested, and continues to do so
notwithstandin( petitioner4s valid and ;ust title over
the sa'e and despite repeated de'ands in writin(,
the latest of which is hereto attached as Anne> ?E?
and 'ade an inte(ral part hereofB
$$. 3he e>press provisions (overnin( the transfer of
the C)CI were sustantiall! co'plied with the
petitioner4s reuest for re(istration, to witecuted ! the re(istered
owner, 2ilriters, and its transferee, Phil2inance, as
reuired ! the aove8uoted provisionB
$". 1pon such co'pliance with the aforesaid
reuire'ents, the 'inisterial duties of re(isterin( a
transfer of ownership over the C)CI and issuin( a
new certi+cate to the transferee devolves upon the
respondentB
1pon these assertions, 3R) pra!ed for the re(istration ! the
Central )an* of the su;ect C)CI in its na'e.
On Dece'er 5, $#/5, the Re(ional 3rial Court the case too*
co(niance of the defendant Central )an* of the Philippines4 :otion
for Ad'ission of A'ended Answer with Counter Clai' for
Interpleader*there! callin( to fore the respondent 2ilriters
=uarant! Assurance Corporation -2ilriters, the re(istered owner of
the su;ect C)CI as respondent.
2or its part, 2ilriters inter;ected as Special Defenses the followin(> >>> >>>
3he Central )an* of the Philippines -the )an* for
value received, here! pro'ises to pa! earer, of if
this Certi+cate of indetedness e re(istered, to
2IRI3ERS =1ARAN3G ASS1RANCE CORPORA3ION,
the re(istered owner hereof, the principal su' of
2IVE @1NDRED 3@O1SAND PESOS.
>>> >>> >>>
-
7/25/2019 1st set
6/27
Properl! understood, a certi+cate of indetedness pertains to
certi+cates for the creation and 'aintenance of a per'anent
i'prove'ent revolvin( fund, is si'ilar to a ?ond,? -/" :inn. "%".
)ein( euivalent to a ond, it is properl! understood as
ac*nowled('ent of an oli(ation to pa! a +>ed su' of 'one!. It is
usuall! used for the purpose of lon( ter' loans.
3he appellate court ruled that the su;ect C)CI is not a ne(otialeinstru'ent, statin( thatpression of consent that the instru'ent 'a! e
transferred ! ne(otiation.1)
A readin( of the su;ect C)CI indicates that the sa'e is pa!ale to
2IRI3ERS =1ARAN3G ASS1RANCE CORPORA3ION, and to no one
else, thus, discountin( the petitioner4s su'ission that the sa'e is
a ne(otiale instru'ent, and that it is a holder in due course of the
certi+cate.
3he lan(ua(e of ne(otiailit! which characterie a ne(otiale paper
as a credit instru'ent is its freedo' to circulate as a sustitute for
'one!. @ence, freedo' of ne(otiailit! is the touchtone relatin( to
the protection of holders in due course, and the freedo' ofne(otiailit! is the foundation for the protection which the law
throws around a holder in due course -$$ A'. ur. "d, 7". 3his
freedo' in ne(otiailit! is totall! asent in a certi+cate
indetedness as it 'erel! to pa! a su' of 'one! to a speci+ed
person or entit! for a period of ti'e.
As held in Caltex (Philippines), Inc.v. Court of Appeals, 1*press, ut what is the 'eanin( of the
words the! have used. Jhat the parties 'eant 'ust
e deter'ined ! what the! said.
3hus, the transfer of the instru'ent fro' Phil+nance to 3R) was
'erel! an assi(n'ent, and is not (overned ! the ne(otiale
instru'ents law. 3he pertinent uestion then is, was the transfer of
the C)CI fro' 2ilriters to Phil+nance and suseuentl! fro'
Phil+nance to 3R), in accord with e>istin( law, so as to entitle 3R)
to have the C)CI re(istered in its na'e with the Central )an*
3he followin( are the appellate court4s pronounce'ents on the
'atter>> >>> >>>
Je respectfull! su'it that, considerin( that the
Court of Appeals has held that the C)CI was 'erel!orrowed ! Phil+nance fro' 2ilriters, a sister
corporation, to (uarantee its -Phil+nance4s +nancin(
operations, if it were to e consistent therewith, on
the issued raised ! 3R) that there was a piercin( a
veil of corporate entit!, the Court of Appeals should
have ruled that such veil of corporate entit! was, in
fact, pierced, and the pa!'ent ! 3R) to Phil+nance
should e construed as pa!'ent to 2ilriters. 17
Je disa(ree with Petitioner.
Petitioner cannot put up the e>cuse of piercin( the veil of corporate
entit!, as this 'erel! an euitale re'ed!, and 'a! e awarded
onl! in cases when the corporate +ction is used to defeat pulic
convenience, ;ustif! wron(, protect fraud or defend cri'e or where
a corporation is a 'ere alter e(o or usiness conduit of a person. 1+
Peiercin( the veil of corporate entit! reuires the court to see
throu(h the protective shroud which e>e'pts its stoc*holders fro'
liailities that ordinaril!, the! could e su;ect to, or distin(uished
one corporation fro' a see'in(l! separate one, were it not for thee>istin( corporate +ction. )ut to do this, the court 'ust e sure
that the corporate +ction was 'isused, to such an e>tent that
in;ustice, fraud, or cri'e was co''itted upon another,
disre(ardin(, thus, his, her, or its ri(hts. It is the protection of the
interests of innocent third persons dealin( with the corporate entit!
which the law ai's to protect ! this doctrine.
3he corporate separateness etween 2ilriters and Phil+nance
re'ains, despite the petitioners insistence on the contrar!. 2or one,
other than the alle(ation that 2ilriters is #% owned ! Phil+nance,and the identit! of one shall e 'aintained as to the other, there is
-
7/25/2019 1st set
8/27
nothin( else which could lead the court under circu'stance to
disre(ard their corporate personalities.
3hou(h it is true that when valid reasons e>ist, the le(al +ction that
a corporation is an entit! with a ;uridical personalit! separate fro'
its stoc*holders and fro' other corporations 'a! e disre(arded, 19
in the asence of such (rounds, the (eneral rule 'ust upheld. 3he
fact that 2il+nance owns 'a;orit! shares in 2ilriters is not ! itself a(round to disre(ard the independent corporate status of 2ilriters. In
Liddel Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal !evenue, 'the 'ere
ownership ! a sin(le stoc*holder or ! another corporation of all
or nearl! all of the capital stoc* of a corporation is not of itself a
su&cient reason for disre(ardin( the +ction of separate corporate
personalities.
In the case at ar, there is su&cient showin( that the petitioner
was not defrauded at all when it acuired the su;ect certi+cate of
indetedness fro' Phil+nance.
On its face the su;ect certi+cates states that it is re(istered in the
na'e of 2ilriters. 3his should have put the petitioner on notice, and
pro'pted it to inuire fro' 2ilriters as to Phil+nance4s title over the
sa'e or its authorit! to assi(n the certi+cate. As it is, there is no
showin( to the eect that petitioner had an! dealin(s whatsoever
with 2ilriters, nor did it 'a*e inuiries as to the ownership of the
certi+cate.
3he ter's of the C)CI No. D/#$ contain a provision on its
3RANS2ER. 3hus
3housand Pesos -P9,%%%.%% as attorne!4s fees for which P0,%%%.%%
had een ac*nowled(ed received ! the plainti under
Consolidated )an* and 3rust Corporation Chec* No. $98$70%""
a'ountin( to P0,%%%.%% leavin( a alance of One 3housand Pesos
-P$,%%%.%%B
-7 3hat the entire a'ount of P05,0%%.%% plus interest, plus the
alance of P$,%%%.%% for attorne!4s fees will e paid ! defendant
to the plainti within +ve 'onths fro' toda!, ul! $#, $#65B and
-5 2ailure one the part of the defendant to co'pl! with an! of the
aove8conditions, a writ of e>ecution 'a! e issued ! this Court
for the satisfaction of the oli(ation. '
2or failure of the petitioner to co'pl! with his ;ud('ent oli(ation,
the respondent ud(e, upon 'otion of the private respondent,
issued an order for the issuance of a writ of e>ecution on Dece'er
"$, $#65. Accordin(l!, writ of e>ecution was issued for the a'ount
of P97,$7%.%% pursuant to which, the %x&'cioSheri levied upon
the followin( personal properties of the petitioner, to witpress stipulation to that eect, the
creditor cannot e co'pelled partiall! to receive the presentations
in which the oli(ation consists. Neither 'a! the detor e
reuired to 'a*e partial pa!'ent.
@owever, when the det is in part liuidated and in partunliuidated, the creditor 'a! de'and and the detor 'a! eect
the pa!'ent of the for'er without waitin( for the liuidation of the
latter.
It is to e e'phasied in this connection that the chec* deposited
! the petitioner in the a'ount of P0%,%%%.%% is not an ordinar!
chec* ut a Cashier4s Chec* of the Euitale )an*in( Corporation,
a an* of (ood standin( and reputation. As testi+ed to ! the %x&
'cioSheri with who' it has een deposited, it is a certi+ed
crossed chec*. 9It is a well8*nown and accepted practice in the
usiness sector that a Cashier4s Chec* is dee'ed as cash.
:oreover, since the said chec* had een certi+ed ! the drawee
an*, ! the certi+cation, the funds represented ! the chec* are
transferred fro' the credit of the 'a*er to that of the pa!ee or
holder, and for all intents and purposes, the latter eco'es the
depositor of the drawee an*, with ri(hts and duties of one in such
situation. 1Jhere a chec* is certi+ed ! the an* on which it is
drawn, the certi+cation is euivalent to acceptance.11Said
certi+cation ?i'plies that the chec* is drawn upon su&cient funds
in the hands of the drawee, that the! have een set apart for its
satisfaction, and that the! shall e so applied whenever the chec*
is presented for pa!'ent. It is an understandin( that the chec* is
(ood then, and shall continue (ood, and this a(ree'ent is as
indin( on the an* as its notes in circulation, a certi+cate of
deposit pa!ale to the order of the depositor, or an! other
oli(ation it can assu'e. 3he o;ect of certif!in( a chec*, as
re(ards oth parties, is to enable the holder to use it as mone.? 1'
Jhen the holder procures the chec* to e certi+ed, ?the chec*
operates as an assi(n'ent of a part of the funds to the creditors.?13@ence, the e>ception to the rule enunciated under Section 97 of
the Central )an* Act to the eect ?that a chec* which has een
cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall e
euivalent to a deliver! to the creditor in cash in an a'ount eual
to the a'ount credited to his account? shall appl! in this case.
Considerin( that the whole a'ount deposited ! the petitioner
consistin( of Cashier4s Chec* of P0%,%%%.%% and P$7,$7%.%% in cash
covers the ;ud('ent oli(ation of P97,%%%.%% as 'entioned in the
writ of e>ecution, then, Je see no valid reason for the private
respondent to have refused acceptance of the pa!'ent of the
oli(ation in his favor. 3he auction sale, therefore, was uncalled for.2urther'ore, it appears that on anuar! $6, $#60, the Cashier4s
Chec* was even withdrawn ! the petitioner and replaced with
cash in the correspondin( a'ount of P0%,%%%.%% on anuar! "6,
$#60 pursuant to an a(ree'ent entered into ! the parties at the
instance of the respondent ud(e. @owever, the private respondent
still refused to receive the sa'e. Oviousl!, the private respondent
is 'ore interested in the levied properties than in the 'ere
satisfaction of the ;ud('ent oli(ation. 3hus, petitioner4s 'otion
for the issuance of a certi+cate of satisfaction of ;ud('ent is clearl!
'eritorious and the respondent ud(e (ravel! aused his discretionin not (rantin( the sa'e under the circu'stances.
In view of the conclusion reached in this instance, Je +nd no 'ore
need to discuss the (round relied in the petition.
It is also contended ! the private respondent that Appeal and not
a special civil action for certiorari is the proper re'ed! in this case,
and that since the period to appeal fro' the decision of the
respondent ud(e has alread! e>pired, then, the present petition
has een +led out of ti'e. 3he contention is untenale. 3he
decision of the respondent ud(e in Civil Case No. "0% -$99 haslon( eco'e +nal and e>ecutor! and so, the sa'e is not ein(
-
7/25/2019 1st set
13/27
uestioned herein. 3he su;ect of the petition at ar as havin( een
issued in (rave ause of discretion is the order dated Au(ust "/,
$#60 of the respondent ud(e which was 'erel! issued in e>ecution
of the said decision. 3hus, even (rantin( that appeal is open to the
petitioner, the sa'e is not an adeuate and speed! re'ed! for the
respondent ud(e had alread! issued a writ of e>ecution. 1(
J@ERE2ORE, in view of all the fore(oin(, ;ud('ent is here!
renderedecution on the (round that the ;ud('ent det had
alread! een paid. On "# anuar! $##$, the 'otion was denied !
the trial court on the (round that pa!'ent in cashier4s chec* is not
pa!'ent in le(al tender and that pa!'ent was 'ade ! a third
part! other than the defendant. A 'otion for reconsideration was
denied on / 2eruar! $##$. 3hereafter, the spouses 3ia;ia +led a
petition for certiorari, prohiition and in;unction in the Court of
Appeals. 3he appellate court dis'issed the petition on "5 April
$##$ holdin( that pa!'ent ! cashier4s chec* is not pa!'ent in
le(al tender as reuired ! Repulic Act No. 0"#. 3he 'otion for
reconsideration was denied on "6 :a! $##$.
In this petition for review, the 3ia;ia spouses raise the followin(
issueschan(e or other 'ercantile docu'ents shall produce the eect of
pa!'ent onl! when the! have een cashed, or when throu(h the
fault of the creditor the! have een i'paired.
In the 'eanti'e, the action derived fro' the ori(inal oli(ation
shall e held in ae!ance.B
. Section $ of Repulic Act No. 0"#, as a'ended, which providestent of P7%6,#77.77. Delta, however, denied
an! liailit! to petitioner on the pro'issor! note, and e>plained in
turn that it had previousl! a(reed with Phil+nance to oset its D:C
PN No. "67$ -alon( with D:C PN No. "67% a(ainst Phil+nance PN
No. $578A issued in favor of Delta.
In the 'eanti'e, Phil+nance, on $/ une $#/$, was placed under
the ;oint 'ana(e'ent of the Securities and e>chan(e co''ission
-?SEC? and the Central )an*. Pilipinas delivered to the SEC D:C PNNo. "67$, which to date apparentl! re'ains in the custod! of the
SEC.(
As petitioner had failed to collect his invest'ent and interest
thereon, he +led on "/ Septe'er $#/" an action for da'a(es with
the Re(ional 3rial Court -?R3C? of Ceu Cit!, )ranch "$, a(ainst
private respondents Delta and Pilipinas.)3he trial court, in a
decision dated 0 Au(ust $#/6, dis'issed the co'plaint and
counterclai's for lac* of 'erit and for lac* of cause of action, with
costs a(ainst petitioner.
Petitioner appealed to respondent Court of Appeals in C.A.8=.R. CV
No. $0$#0. In a Decision dated "$ :arch $#/#, the Court of Appeals
denied the appeal and held
-
7/25/2019 1st set
19/27
Nor could plainti8appellant have acuired an! ri(ht over D:C PN
No. "67$ as the sa'e is ?non8ne(otiale? as sta'ped on its face
-E>hiit ?9?, ne(otiation ein( de+ned as the transfer of an
instru'ent fro' one person to another so as to constitute the
transferee the holder of the instru'ent -Sec. 7%, Ne(otiale
Instru'ents aw. A person not a holder cannot sue on the
instru'ent in his own na'e and cannot de'and or receive
pa!'ent -Section 0$, id.9
Petitioner ad'its that D:C PN No. "67$ was non8ne(otiale ut
contends that the Note had een validl! transferred, in part to hi'
! assi(n'ent and that as a result of such transfer, Delta as
detor8'a*er of the Note, was oli(ated to pa! petitioner the
portion of that Note assi(ned to hi' ! the pa!ee Phil+nance.
Delta, however, disputes petitioner4s contention and ar(uespress prohiition a(ainst assi(n'ent or transfer written in the
face of the instru'ent?@>, no
compensation had as et ta7en place and indeed none could have
ta7en place-3he essential reuire'ents of co'pensation are listed
in the Civil Code as followstent of the a'ount assi(ned ! Phil+nance to petitioner.
3hus, we conclude that the assi(n'ent eected ! Phil+nance in
favor of petitioner was a valid one and that petitioner accordin(l!
eca'e owner of D:C PN No. "67$ to the e>tent of the portion
thereof assi(ned to hi'.
3he record shows, however, that petitioner noti+ed Delta of the fact
of the assi(n'ent to hi' onl! on $5 ul! $#/$, 19that is, after the
'aturit! not onl! of the 'one! 'ar*et place'ent 'ade !
petitioner ut also of oth D:C PN No. "67$ and Phil+nance PN No.$578A. In other words,petitioner noti*ed 2elta of his rights as
assignee after compensation had ta7en place b operation of law
because the o5setting instruments had both reached maturit. It is
a +r'l! settled doctrine that the ri(hts of an assi(nee are not an!
(reater that the ri(hts of the assi(nor, since the assi(nee is 'erel!
sustituted in the place of the assi(nor 'and that the assi(nee
acuires his ri(hts su;ect to the euities i.e., the defenses
which the detor could have set up a(ainst the ori(inal assi(nor
efore notice of the assi(n'ent was (iven to the detor. Article
$"/0 of the Civil Code provides thatplained thatonerated, for the
reason that it is the dut! of the person who has acuired a title !
transfer to de'and pa!'ent of the det, to (ive his det or notice.
''
At the ti'e that Delta was +rst put to notice of the assi(n'ent in
petitioner4s favor on $5 ul! $#/$, D:C PN No. "67$ had alread!een dischar(ed ! co'pensation. Since the assi(nor Phil+nance
could not have then co'pelled pa!'ent anew ! Delta of D:C PN
No. "67$, petitioner, as assi(nee of Phil+nance, is si'ilarl! disaled
fro' collectin( fro' Delta the portion of the Note assi(ned to hi'.
It ears so'e e'phasis that petitioner could have noti+ed Delta of
the assi(n'ent or sale was eected on # 2eruar! $#/$. @e could
have noti+ed Delta as soon as his 'one! 'ar*et place'ent
'atured on $7 :arch $#/$ without pa!'ent thereof ein( 'ade
! Phil+nanceB at that ti'e, co'pensation had !et to set in and
dischar(e D:C PN No. "67$. A(ain petitioner could have noti+ed
Delta on "9 :arch $#/$ when petitioner received fro' Phil+nance
the Deno'inated Custodianship Receipt -?DCR? No. $%/%0 issued
! private respondent Pilipinas in favor of petitioner. Petitioner
could, in +ne, have noti+ed Delta at an! ti'e efore the 'aturit!
date of D:C PN No. "67$. )ecause petitioner failed to do so, and
ecause the record is are of an! indication that Phil+nance had
itself noti+ed Delta of the assi(n'ent to petitioner, the Court is
co'pelled to uphold the defense of co'pensation raised ! private
respondent Delta. Of course, Phil+nance re'ains liale to petitioner
under the ter's of the assi(n'ent 'ade ! Phil+nance topetitioner.
II.
Je turn now to the relationship etween petitioner and private
respondent Pilipinas. Petitioner contends that Pilipinas eca'e
solidaril! liale with Phil+nance and Delta when Pilipinas issued
DCR No. $%/%0 with the followin( words percent -9per
annum containin( fro' $5 :arch $#/$.
3he conclusion we have reached is, of course, without pre;udice to
such ri(ht of rei'urse'ent as Pilipinas 'a! have vis&a&vis
Phil+nance.
III.
3he third principal contention of petitioner that Phil+nance and
private respondents Delta and Pilipinas should e treated as one
corporate entit! need not detain us for lon(.
In the +rst place, as alread! noted, ;urisdiction over the person of
Phil+nance was never acuired either ! the trial court nor ! the
respondent Court of Appeals. Petitioner si'ilarl! did not see* to
i'plead Phil+nance in the Petition efore us.
Secondl!, it is not disputed that Phil+nance and private
respondents Delta and Pilipinas have een or(anied as separate
corporate entities. Petitioner as*s us to pierce their separate
corporate entities, ut has een ale onl! to cite the presence of a
co''on Director :r. Ricardo Silverio, Sr., sittin( on the )oard of
Directors of all three -7 co'panies. Petitioner has neither alle(ed
nor proved that one or another of the three -7 concededl! related
co'panies used the other two -" as 'ere alter egosor that the
corporate aairs of the other two -" were ad'inistered and'ana(ed for the ene+t of one. 3here is si'pl! not enou(h
evidence of record to ;ustif! disre(ardin( the separate corporate
personalities of delta and Pilipinas and to hold the' liale for an!
assu'ed or undeter'ined liailit! of Phil+nance to petitioner. '+
J@ERE2ORE, for all the fore(oin(, the Decision and Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in C.A.8=.R. CV No. $0$#0 dated "$ 'arch
$#/# and $6 ul! $#/#, respectivel!, are here! :ODI2IED and SE3
ASIDE, to the e>tent that such Decision and Resolution had
dis'issed petitioner4s co'plaint a(ainst Pilipinas )an*. Privaterespondent Pilipinas an* is here! ORDERED to inde'nif!
petitioner for da'a(es in the a'ount of P7%5,077.77, plus le(al
interest thereon at the rate of si> percent -9per annum counted
fro' " April $#/$. As so 'odi+ed, the Decision and Resolution of
the Court of Appeals are here! A22IR:ED. No pronounce'ent as
to costs.
SO ORDERED.
-
7/25/2019 1st set
25/27
EN )ANC
G.R. No. L-''() &$ 3, 1971
P%ILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., plainti8appellant, vs.MAURICIO A. SORIANO, ET AL., defendant8appellees.
Marcial %sposo for plainti5&appellant-
'ce of the olicitor 3eneral Arturo A- Alafri4, Assistant olicitor
3eneral Antonio 3- Ibarra and Attorne Concepcion +orri$os&
Agapinan for defendants&appellees-
DI=ON,J.:
An appeal fro' a decision of the Court of 2irst Instance of :anila
dis'issin( the co'plaint +led ! the Philippine Education Co., Inc.
a(ainst :auricio A. Soriano, Enrico Palo'ar and Rafael Contreras.
On April $/, $#0/ Enriue :ontinola sou(ht to purchase fro' the
:anila Post O&ce ten -$% 'one! orders of P"%%.%% each pa!ale
to E.P. :ontinola withaddress at ucena, Mueon. After the postal
teller had 'ade out 'one! ordersnu'ered $"59/0, $"59/68
$"59#0, :ontinola oered to pa! for the' with a private chec*s
were not (enerall! accepted in pa!'ent of 'one! orders, the teller
advised hi' to see the Chief of the :one! Order Division, utinstead of doin( so, :ontinola 'ana(ed to leave uildin( with his
own chec* and the ten-$% 'one! orders without the *nowled(e of
the teller.
On the sa'e date, April $/, $#0/, upon discover! of the
disappearance of the unpaid 'one! orders, an ur(ent 'essa(e was
sent to all post'asters, and the followin( da! notice was li*ewise
served upon all an*s, instructin( the' not to pa! an!one of the
'one! orders aforesaid if presented for pa!'ent. 3he )an* of
A'erica received a cop! of said notice three da!s later.
On April "7, $#0/ one of the aove8'entioned 'one! orders
nu'ered $"59// was received ! appellant as part of its sales
receipts. 3he followin( da! it deposited the sa'e with the )an* of
A'erica, and one da! thereafter the latter cleared it with the
)ureau of Posts and received fro' the latter its face value of
P"%%.%%.
On Septe'er "6, $#9$, appellee :auricio A. Soriano, Chief of the
:one! Order Division of the :anila Post O&ce, actin( for and inehalf of his co8appellee, Post'aster Enrico Palo'ar, noti+ed the
)an* of A'erica that 'one! order No. $"59// attached to his
letter had een found to have een irre(ularl! issued and that, in
view thereof, the a'ount it represented had een deducted fro'
the an*4s clearin( account. 2or its part, on Au(ust " of the sa'e
!ear, the )an* of A'erica deited appellant4s account with the
sa'e a'ount and (ave it advice thereof ! 'eans of a deit
'e'o.
On Octoer $", $#9$ appellant reuested the Post'aster =eneral
to reconsider the action ta*en ! his o&ce deductin( the su' of
P"%%.%% fro' the clearin( account of the )an* of A'erica, ut his
reuest was denied. So was appellant4s suseuent reuest that
the 'atter e referred to the Secretar! of ustice for advice.
3hereafter, appellant elevated the 'atter to the Secretar! of Pulic
Jor*s and Co''unications, ut the latter sustained the actions
ta*en ! the postal o&cers.
In connection with the events set forth aove, :ontinola was
char(ed with theft in the Court of 2irst Instance of :anila -Cri'inal
Case No. 57/99 ut after trial he was acuitted on the (round ofreasonale dout.
On anuar! /, $#9" appellant +led an action a(ainst appellees in
the :unicipal Court of :anila pra!in( for ;ud('ent as followsistin( etween
the postal o&cers, on the one hand, and the )an* of A'erica, on
the other, appellant has no ri(ht to assail the ter's and conditions
-
7/25/2019 1st set
27/27
thereof on the (round that the letter settin( forth the ter's and
conditions aforesaid is void ecause it was not issued ! a
Depart'ent @ead in accordance with Sec. 6# -) of the Revised
Ad'inistrative Code. In realit!, however, said le(al provision does
not appl! to the letter in uestion ecause it does not provide for a
depart'ent re(ulation ut 'erel! sets down certain conditions
upon the privile(e (ranted to the )an* of A'rica to accept and pa!
postal 'one! orders presented for pa!'ent at the :anila Post
O&ce. Such ein( the case, it is clear that the Director of Posts had
a'ple authorit! to issue it pursuant to Sec. $$#% of the Revised
Ad'inistrative Code.
In view of the fore(oin(, Je do not +nd it necessar! to resolve the
issues raised in the third and fourth assi(n'ents of error.
J@ERE2ORE, the appealed decision ein( in accordance with law,
the sa'e is here! a&r'ed with costs.
