G.R. No. 248821 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, VS. SPS. PEDRO CAGUIMBAL AND VIVIAN CAGUIMBAL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, the amounts corresponding the five (5) checks earlier deposited to the joint account of Vivian and Faith were debited. Meanwhile, the other check in the amount of P1,000,000.00 (Check No. 42399) was not returned by the bank. When Vivian and Faith inquired as to its status, they were informed by Grace that the check "might be delayed for a day". [10] In the meantime, Vivian sent a letter to Baganga Ply asking the latter to lift the SPO at least on the subject check. [11] On August 19, 2010, Faith went to PNB-Butuan Branch to update their passbook and saw that the amount of P1,000,000.00 was still intact and remained credited prompting respondents to assume that Baganga Ply had lifted the SPO on the subject check. [12] For the period of August 18, 2010 to August 31, 2010, Faith deposited and withdrew from the joint account and during the duration of which the amount of P1,000,000.00 remained intact in the balance of the joint account. [13] On September 1, 2010, after Faith withdrew P25,000.00 from the joint account, she was shocked to see that the remaining balance left in the account was only P10,518.61. When Faith inquired from the branch manager, she was informed that the amount of P1,000,000.00 was debited from the account in order to implement the SPO made in relation to the subject check. [14] The following day, September 2, 2010, PNB-Butuan Branch contacted Vivian and informed her about the SPO of the last check. When Vivian demanded for an explanation, she was eventually informed that it was only on August 27, 2010 that PNB learned that the subject check was only cleared through mistake after PNB received a complaint from Baganga Ply. However, Vivian refused to accept the explanation contending that the check was already cleared considering that the SPO came only 15 days after it was deposited when the clearing period was only 7 days. Meanwhile, Vivian was forced to borrow money from friends and associates to pay for her obligations which she was supposedly going to pay using the P1,000,000.00 from her account. [15] When PNB refused to return the P1,000,000.00 despite demands of Vivian, she filed the present complaint. [16] In its Answer, [17] PNB alleged, among others, that respondents have no cause of action against it because it merely implemented the SPO of its client. It further averred that the actual knowledge of respondents of the existence of the SPO makes them not holders in due course of the subject check negating their right to sue nor demand for the payment of the check under the Negotiable Instruments Law. PNB further claimed for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees by way of counterclaim. [18] The Ruling of the RTC In its Decision [19] dated April 27, 2017, the RTC dismissed the complaint. It ruled that respondents have no right over the amount of the check for their failure to show by concrete evidence that Baganga Ply lifted the SPO made on the subject check. Not being entitled to the amount of