Jurisprudence: G.R. No. L-23241 March 14, 1925

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23241             March 14, 1925

HENRY FLEISCHER, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BOTICA NOLASCO CO., INC., defendant-appellant.

Antonio Gonzalez for appellant.
Emilio M. Javier for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:

    This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Oriental Negros on the 14th day of August, 1923, against the board of directors of the Botica Nolasco, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine Islands. The plaintiff prayed that said board of directors be ordered to register in the books of the corporation five shares of its stock in the name of Henry Fleischer, the plaintiff, and to pay him the sum of P500 for damages sustained by him resulting from the refusal of said body to register the shares of stock in question. The defendant filed a demurrer on the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint did not constitute sufficient cause of action, and that the action was not brought against the proper party, which was the Botica Nolasco, Inc. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff was granted five days to amend his complaint.

    On November 15, 1923, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Botica Nolasco, Inc., alleging that he became the owner of five shares of stock of said corporation, by purchase from their original owner, one Manuel Gonzalez; that the said shares were fully paid; and that the defendant refused to register said shares in his name in the books of the corporation in spite of repeated demands to that effect made by him upon said corporation, which refusal caused him damages amounting to P500. Plaintiff prayed for a judgment ordering the Botica Nolasco, Inc. to register in his name in the books of the corporation the five shares of stock recorded in said books in the name of Manuel Gonzalez, and to indemnify him in the sum of P500 as damages, and to pay the costs. The defendant again filed a demurrer on the ground that the amended complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that said amended complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible, uncertain, which demurrer was overruled by the court.

    The defendant answered the amended complaint denying generally and specifically each and every one of the material allegations thereof, and, as a special defense, alleged that the defendant, pursuant to article 12 of its by-laws, had preferential right to buy from the plaintiff said shares at the par value of P100 a share, plus P90 as dividends corresponding to the year 1922, and that said offer was refused by the plaintiff. The defendant prayed for a judgment absolving it from all liability under the complaint and directing the plaintiff to deliver to the defendant the five shares of stock in question, and to pay damages in the sum of P500, and the costs.

    Upon the issue presented by the pleadings above stated, the cause was brought on for trial, at the conclusion of which, and on August 21, 1924, the Honorable N. Capistrano, judge, held that, in his opinion, article 12 of the by-laws of the corporation which gives it preferential right to buy its shares from retiring stockholders, is in conflict with Act No. 1459 (Corporation Law), especially with section 35 thereof; and rendered a judgment ordering the defendant corporation, through its board of directors, to register in the books of said corporation the said five shares of stock in the name of the plaintiff, Henry Fleischer, as the shareholder or owner thereof, instead of the original owner, Manuel Gonzalez, with costs against the defendant.

    The defendant appealed from said judgment, and now makes several assignment of error, all of which, in substance, raise the question whether or not article 12 of the by-laws of the corporation is in conflict with the provisions of the Corporation Law (Act No. 1459).

    There is no controversy as to the facts of the present case. They are simple and may be stated as follows:

    That Manuel Gonzalez was the original owner of the five shares of stock in question, Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Botica Nolasco, Inc.; that on March 11, 1923, he assigned and delivered said five shares to the plaintiff, Henry Fleischer, by accomplishing the form of endorsement provided on the back thereof, together with other credits, in consideration of a large sum of money owed by Gonzalez to Fleischer (Exhibits A, B, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4); that on March 13, 1923, Dr. Eduardo Miciano, who was the secretary-treasurer of said corporation, offered to buy from Henry Fleischer, on behalf of the corporation, said shares of stock, at their par value of P100 a share, for P500; that by virtue of article 12 of the by-laws of Botica Nolasco, Inc., said corporation had the preferential right to buy from Manuel Gonzalez said shares (Exhibit 2); that the plaintiff refused to sell them to the defendant; that the plaintiff requested Doctor Miciano to register said shares in his name; that Doctor Miciano refused to do so, saying that it would be in contravention of the by-laws of the corporation.

    It also appears from the record that on the 13th day of March, 1923, two days after the assignment of the shares to the plaintiff, Manuel Gonzales made a written statement to the Botica Nolasco, Inc., requesting that the five shares of stock sold by him to Henry Fleischer be noted transferred to Fleischer's name. He also acknowledged in said written statement the preferential right of the corporation to buy said five shares (Exhibit 3). On June 14, 1923, Gonzalez wrote a letter to the Botica Nolasco, withdrawing and cancelling his written statement of March 13, 1923 (Exhibit C), to which letter the Botica Nolasco on June 15, 1923, replied, declaring that his written statement was in conformity with the by-laws of the corporation; that his letter of June 14th was of no effect, and that the shares in question had been registered in the name of the Botica Nolasco, Inc., (Exhibit X).

    As indicated above, the important question raised in this appeal is whether or not article 12 of the by-laws of the Botica Nolasco, Inc., is in conflict with the provisions of the Corporation Law (Act No. 1459). Appellant invoked said article as its ground for denying the request of the plaintiff that the shares in question be registered in his (plaintiff's) name, and for claiming that it (Botica Nolasco, Inc.) had the preferential right to buy said shares from Gonzalez. Appellant now contends that article 12 of the said by-laws is in conformity with the provisions of Act No. 1459. Said article is as follows:

    ART. 12. Las acciones de la Corporacion pueden ser transferidas a otra persona, pero para que estas transferencias tengan validez legal, deben constar en los registros de la Corporacion con el debido endoso del accionista a cuyo nombre se ha expedido la accion o acciones que se transfieran, o un documento de transferencia. Entendiendose que, ningun accionista transferira accion alguna a otra persona sin participar antes por escrito al Secretario-Tesorero. En igualdad de condiciones, la sociedad tendra el derecho de adquirir para si la accion o acciones que se traten de transferir. (Exhibit 2.)

    The above-quoted article constitutes a by-law or regulation adopted by the Botica Nolasco, Inc., governing the transfer of shares of stock of said corporation. The latter part of said article creates in favor of the Botica Nolasco, Inc., a preferential right to buy, under the same conditions, the share or shares of stock of a retiring shareholder. Has said corporation any power, under the Corporation Law (Act. No. 1459), to adopt such by-law?

    The particular provisions of the Corporation Law referring to transfer of shares of stock are as follows:

    SEC. 13. Every corporation has the power:

    x x x           x x x           x x x

    (7) To make by-laws, not inconsistent with any existing law, for the fixing or changing of the number of its officers and directors within the limits prescribed by law, and for the transferring of its stock, the administration of its corporate affairs, etc.

    x x x           x x x           x x x

    SEC. 35. The capital stock of stock corporations shall de divided into shares for which certificates signed by the president or the vice-president, countersigned by the secretary or clerk and sealed with the seal of the corporation, shall be issued in accordance with the by-laws. Shares of stock so issued are personal property and may be transferred by delivery of the certificate indorsed by the owner or his attorney in fact or other person legally authorized to make the transfer. No transfer, however, shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is entered and noted upon the books of the corporation so as to show the names of the parties to the transaction, that date of the transfer, the number of the certificate, and the number of shares transferred.

    No share of stock against which the corporation holds any unpaid claim shall be transferable on the books of the corporation.

    Section 13, paragraph 7, above-quoted, empowers a corporation to make by-laws, not inconsistent with any existing law, for the transferring of its stock. It follows from said provision, that a by-law adopted by a corporation relating to transfer of stock should be in harmony with the law on the subject of transfer of stock. The law on this subject is found in section 35 of Act No. 1459 above quoted. Said section specifically provides that the shares of stock "are personal property and may be transferred by delivery of the certificate indorsed by the owner, etc." Said section 35 defines the nature, character and transferability of shares of stock. Under said section they are personal property and may be transferred as therein provided. Said section contemplates no restriction as to whom they may be transferred or sold. It does not suggest that any discrimination may be created by the corporation in favor or against a certain purchaser. The holder of shares, as owner of personal property, is at liberty, under said section, to dispose of them in favor of whomsoever he pleases, without any other limitation in this respect, than the general provisions of law. Therefore, a stock corporation in adopting a by-law governing transfer of shares of stock should take into consideration the specific provisions of section 35 of Act No. 1459, and said by-law should be made to harmonize with said provisions. It should not be inconsistent therewith.

    The by-law now in question was adopted under the power conferred upon the corporation by section 13, paragraph 7, above quoted; but in adopting said by-law the corporation has transcended the limits fixed by law in the same section, and has not taken into consideration the provisions of section 35 of Act No. 1459.

    As a general rule, the by-laws of a corporation are valid if they are reasonable and calculated to carry into effect the objects of the corporation, and are not contradictory to the general policy of the laws of the land. (Supreme Commandery of the Knights of the Golden Rule vs. Ainsworth, 71 Ala., 436; 46 Am. Rep., 332.)

    On the other hand, it is equally well settled that by-laws of a corporation must be reasonable and for a corporate purpose, and always within the charter limits. They must always be strictly subordinate to the constitution and the general laws of the land. They must not infringe the policy of the state, nor be hostile to public welfare. (46 Am. Rep., 332.) They must not disturb vested rights or impair the obligation of a contract, take away or abridge the substantial rights of stockholder or member, affect rights of property or create obligations unknown to the law. (People's Home Savings Bank vs. Superior Court, 104 Cal., 649; 43 Am. St. Rep., 147; Ireland vs. Globe Milling Co., 79 Am. St. Rep., 769.)

    The validity of the by-law of a corporation is purely a question of law. (South Florida Railroad Co. vs. Rhodes, 25 Fla., 40.)

    The power to enact by-laws restraining the sale and transfer of stock must be found in the governing statute or the charter. Restrictions upon the traffic in stock must have their source in legislative enactment, as the corporation itself cannot create such impediments. By-law are intended merely for the protection of the corporation, and prescribe regulation and not restriction; they are always subject to the charter of the corporation. The corporation, in the absence of such a power, cannot ordinarily inquire into or pass upon the legality of the transaction by which its stock passes from one person to another, nor can it question the consideration upon which a sale is based. A by-law cannot take away or abridge the substantial rights of stockholder. Under a statute authorizing by- laws for the transfer of stock, a corporation can do no more than prescribe a general mode of transfer on the corporate books and cannot justify an unreasonable restriction upon the right of sale. (4 Thompson on Corporations, sec. 4137, p. 674.

    The right of unrestrained transfer of shares inheres in the very nature of a corporation, and courts will carefully scrutinize any attempt to impose restrictions or limitations upon the right of stockholders to sell and assign their stock. The right to impose any restraint in this respect must be conferred upon the corporation either by the governing statute or by the articles of the corporation. It cannot be done by a by-law without statutory or charter authority. (4 Thompson on Corporations, sec. 4334, pp. 818, 819.)

    The jus disponendi, being an incident of the ownership of property, the general rule (subject to exceptions hereafter pointed out and discussed) is that every owner of corporate shares has the same uncontrollable right to alien them which attaches to the ownership of any other species of property. A shareholder is under no obligation to refrain from selling his shares at the sacrifice of his personal interest, in order to secure the welfare of the corporation, or to enable another shareholder to make gains and profits. (10 Cyc., p. 577.)

    It follows from the foregoing that a corporation has no power to prevent or to restrain transfers of its shares, unless such power is expressly conferred in its charter or governing statute. This conclusion follows from the further consideration that by-laws or other regulations restraining such transfers, unless derived from authority expressly granted by the legislature, would be regarded as impositions in restraint of trade. (10 Cyc., p. 578.)

    The foregoing authorities go farther than the stand we are taking on this question. They hold that the power of a corporation to enact by-laws restraining the sale and transfer of shares, should not only be in harmony with the law or charter of the corporation, but such power should be expressly granted in said law or charter.

    The only restraint imposed by the Corporation Law upon transfer of shares is found in section 35 of Act No. 1459, quoted above, as follows: "No transfer, however, shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is entered and noted upon the books of the corporation so as to show the names of the parties to the transaction, the date of the transfer, the number of the certificate, and the number of shares transferred." This restriction is necessary in order that the officers of the corporation may know who are the stockholders, which is essential in conducting elections of officers, in calling meeting of stockholders, and for other purposes. but any restriction of the nature of that imposed in the by-law now in question, is ultra vires, violative of the property rights of shareholders, and in restraint of trade.

    And moreover, the by-laws now in question cannot have any effect on the appellee. He had no knowledge of such by-law when the shares were assigned to him. He obtained them in good faith and for a valuable consideration. He was not a privy to the contract created by said by-law between the shareholder Manuel Gonzalez and the Botica Nolasco, Inc. Said by-law cannot operate to defeat his rights as a purchaser.

    An unauthorized by-law forbidding a shareholder to sell his shares without first offering them to the corporation for a period of thirty days is not binding upon an assignee of the stock as a personal contract, although his assignor knew of the by-law and took part in its adoption. (10 Cyc., 579; Ireland vs. Globe Milling Co., 21 R.I., 9.)

    When no restriction is placed by public law on the transfer of corporate stock, a purchaser is not affected by any contractual restriction of which he had no notice. (Brinkerhoff-Farris Trust and Savings Co. vs. Home Lumber Co., 118 Mo., 447.)

    The assignment of shares of stock in a corporation by one who has assented to an unauthorized by-law has only the effect of a contract by, and enforceable against, the assignor; the assignee is not bound by such by-law by virtue of the assignment alone. (Ireland vs. Globe Milling Co., 21 R.I., 9.)

    A by-law of a corporation which provides that transfers of stock shall not be valid unless approved by the board of directors, while it may be enforced as a reasonable regulation for the protection of the corporation against worthless stockholders, cannot be made available to defeat the rights of third persons. (Farmers' and Merchants' Bank of Lineville vs. Wasson, 48 Iowa, 336.)

    Counsel for defendant incidentally argues in his brief, that the plaintiff does not have any right of action against the defendant corporation, but against the president and secretary thereof, inasmuch as the signing and registration of shares is incumbent upon said officers pursuant to section 35 of the Corporation Law. This contention cannot be sustained now. The question should have been raised in the lower court. It is too late to raise it now in this appeal. Besides, as stated above, the corporation was made defendant in this action upon the demurrer of the attorney of the original defendant in the lower court, who contended that the Botica Nolasco, Inc., should be made the party defendant in this action. Accordingly, upon order of the court, the complaint was amended and the said corporation was made the party defendant.

    Whenever a corporation refuses to transfer and register stock in cases like the present, mandamus will lie to compel the officers of the corporation to transfer said stock upon the books of the corporation. (26 Cyc. 347; Hager vs. Bryan, 19 Phil., 138.)

    In view of all the foregoing, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the decision of the lower court is in accordance with law and should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

    Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Jurisprudence: G.R. No. L-6801

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6801             March 14, 1912

JULIANA BAGTAS, plaintiffs-appellee,

vs.

ISIDRO PAGUIO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Salas and Kalaw for appellants.

Jose Santiago for appellee.

TRENT, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Bataan, admitting to probate a document which was offered as the last will and testament of Pioquinto Paguio y Pizarro. The will purports to have been executed in the pueblo of Pilar, Province of Bataan, on the 19th day of April, 1908. The testator died on the 28th of September, 1909, a year and five months following the date of the execution of the will. The will was propounded by the executrix, Juliana Bagtas, widow of the decedent, and the opponents are a son and several grandchildren by a former marriage, the latter being the children of a deceased daughter.

The basis of the opposition to the probation of the will is that the same was not executed according to the formalities and requirements of the law touching wills, and further that the testator was not in the full of enjoyment and use of his mental faculties and was without the mental capacity necessary to execute a valid will.

The record shows that the testator, Pioquinto Paguio, for some fourteen of fifteen years prior to the time of his death suffered from a paralysis of the left side of his body; that a few years prior to his death his hearing became impaired and that he lost the power of speech. Owing to the paralysis of certain muscles his head fell to one side, and saliva ran from his mouth. He retained the use of his right hand, however, and was able to write fairly well. Through the medium of signs he was able to indicate his wishes to his wife and to other members of his family.

At the time of the execution of the will there were present the four testamentary witnesses, Agustin Paguio, Anacleto Paguio, and Pedro Paguio, and attorney, Señor Marco, and one Florentino Ramos. Anacleto Paguio and the attorney have since died, and consequently their testimony was not available upon the trial of the case in the lower court. The other three testamentary witnesses and the witness Florentino Ramos testified as to the manner in which the will was executed. According to the uncontroverted testimony of these witnesses the will was executed in the following manner:

Pioquinto Paguio, the testator, wrote out on pieces of paper notes and items relating to the disposition of his property, and these notes were in turn delivered to Señor Marco, who transcribed them and put them in form. The witnesses testify that the pieces of paper upon which the notes were written are delivered to attorney by the testator; that the attorney read them to the testator asking if they were his testamentary dispositions; that the testator assented each time with an affirmative movement of his head; that after the will as a whole had been thus written by the attorney, it was read in a loud voice in the presence of the testator and the witnesses; that Señor Marco gave the document to the testator; that the latter, after looking over it, signed it in the presence of the four subscribing witnesses; and that they in turn signed it in the presence of the testator and each other.

These are the facts of record with reference to the execution of the will and we are in perfect accord with the judgment of the lower court that the formalities of the Code of Civil Procedure have been fully complied with.

This brings us now to a consideration of appellants' second assignment of error, viz, the testator's alleged mental incapacity at the time of the execution of the will. Upon this point considerable evidence was adduced at the trial. One of the attesting witnesses testified that at the time of the execution of the will the testator was in his right mind, and that although he was seriously ill, he indicated by movements of his head what his wishes were. Another of the attesting witnesses stated that he was not able to say whether decedent had the full use of his mental faculties or not, because he had been ill for some years, and that he (the witnesses) was not a physician. The other subscribing witness, Pedro Paguio, testified in the lower court as a witness for the opponents. He was unable to state whether or not the will was the wish of the testator. The only reasons he gave for his statement were the infirmity and advanced age of the testator and the fact that he was unable to speak. The witness stated that the testator signed the will, and he verified his own signature as a subscribing witness.

Florentino Ramos, although not an attesting witness, stated that he was present when the will was executed and his testimony was cumulative in corroboration of the manner in which the will was executed and as to the fact that the testator signed the will. This witness also stated that he had frequently transacted matters of business for the decedent and had written letters and made inventories of his property at his request, and that immediately before and after the execution of the will he had performed offices of his character. He stated that the decedent was able to communicate his thoughts by writing. The testimony of this witness clearly indicates the presence of mental capacity on the part of the testator. Among other witnesses for the opponents were two physician, Doctor Basa and Doctor Viado. Doctor Basa testified that he had attended the testator some four or five years prior to his death and that the latter had suffered from a cerebral congestion from which the paralysis resulted. The following question was propounded to Doctor Basa:

Q.       Referring to mental condition in which you found him the last time you attended him, do you think he was in his right mind?

A.       I can not say exactly whether he was in his right mind, but I noted some mental disorder, because when I spoke to him he did not answer me.

Doctor Basa testified at more length, but the substance of his testimony is that the testator had suffered a paralysis and that he had noticed some mental disorder. He does not say that the testator was not in his right mind at the time of the execution of the will, nor does he give it at his opinion that he was without the necessary mental capacity to make a valid will. He did not state in what way this mental disorder had manifested itself other than that he had noticed that the testator did not reply to him on one occasion when he visited him.

Doctor Viado, the other physician, have never seen the testator, but his answer was in reply to a hypothetical question as to what be the mental condition of a person who was 79 years old and who had suffered from a malady such as the testator was supposed to have had according to the testimony of Doctor Basa, whose testimony Doctor Viado had heard. He replied and discussed at some length the symptoms and consequences of the decease from which the testator had suffered; he read in support of his statements from a work by a German Physician, Dr. Herman Eichost. In answer, however, to a direct question, he stated that he would be unable to certify to the mental condition of a person who was suffering from such a disease.

We do not think that the testimony of these two physicians in any way strengthens the contention of the appellants. Their testimony only confirms the fact that the testator had been for a number of years prior to his death afflicted with paralysis, in consequence of which his physician and mental strength was greatly impaired. Neither of them attempted to state what was the mental condition of the testator at the time he executed the will in question. There can be no doubt that the testator's infirmities were of a very serious character, and it is quite evident that his mind was not as active as it had been in the earlier years of his life. However, we can not include from this that he wanting in the necessary mental capacity to dispose of his property by will.

The courts have been called upon frequently to nullify wills executed under such circumstances, but the weight of the authority is in support if the principle that it is only when those seeking to overthrow the will have clearly established the charge of mental incapacity that the courts will intervene to set aside a testamentary document of this character. In the case of Bugnao vs. Ubag (14 Phil. Rep., 163), the question of testamentary capacity was discussed by this court. The numerous citations there given from the decisions of the United States courts are especially applicable to the case at bar and have our approval. In this jurisdiction the presumption of law is in favor of the mental capacity of the testator and the burden is upon the contestants of the will to prove the lack of testamentary capacity. (In the matter of the will of Cabigting, 14 Phil. Rep., 463; in the matter of the will of Butalid, 10 Phil. Rep., 27; Hernaez vs. Hernaez, 1 Phil. Rep., 689.)

The rule of law relating to the presumption of mental soundness is well established, and the testator in the case at bar never having been adjudged insane by a court of competent jurisdiction, this presumption continues, and it is therefore incumbent upon the opponents to overcome this legal presumption by proper evidence. This we think they have failed to do. There are many cases and authorities which we might cite to show that the courts have repeatedly held that mere weakness of mind and body, induced by age and disease do not render a person incapable of making a will. The law does not require that a person shall continue in the full enjoyment and use of his pristine physical and mental powers in order to execute a valid will. If such were the legal standard, few indeed would be the number of wills that could meet such exacting requirements. The authorities, both medical and legal, are universal in statement that the question of mental capacity is one of degree, and that there are many gradations from the highest degree of mental soundness to the lowest conditions of diseased mentality which are denominated as insanity and idiocy.

The right to dispose of property by testamentary disposition is as sacred as any other right which a person may exercise and this right should not be nullified unless mental incapacity is established in a positive and conclusive manner. In discussing the question of testamentary capacity, it is stated in volume 28, 70, of the American and English Encyclopedia of Law, that —

Contrary to the very prevalent lay impression, perfect soundness of mind is not essential to testamentary capacity. A testator may be afflicted with a variety of mental weaknesses, disorders, or peculiarities and still be capable in law of executing a valid will. (See the numerous cases there cited in support of this statement.)

The rule relating to testamentary capacity is stated in Buswell on Insanity, section 365, and quoted with approval in Campbell vs. Campbell (130 Ill., 466), as follows:

To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind shall be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease or otherwise, or that the testator should be in the full possession of his reasoning faculties.

In note, 1 Jarman on Wills, 38, the rule is thus stated:

The question is not so much, that was the degree of memory possessed by the testator, as, had he a disposing memory? Was he able to remember the property he was about to bequeath, the manner of disturbing it, and the objects of his bounty? In a word, were his mind and memory sufficiently sound to enable him to know and understand the business in which he was engaged at the time when he executed his will. (See authorities there cited.)

In Wilson vs. Mitchell (101 Penn., 495), the following facts appeared upon the trial of the case: The testator died at the age of nearly 102 years. In his early years he was an intelligent and well informed man. About seven years prior to his death he suffered a paralytic stroke and from that time his mind and memory were mush enfeebled. He became very dull of hearing and in consequence of the shrinking of his brain he was affected with senile cataract causing total blindness. He became filthy and obscene in his habits, although formerly he was observant of the properties of life. The court, in commenting upon the case, said:

Neither age, nor sickness, nor extreme distress, nor debility of body will affect the capacity to make a will, if sufficient intelligence remains. The failure of memory is not sufficient to create the incapacity, unless it be total, or extend to his immediate family or property. . . .

x x x             x x x             x x x

Dougal (the testator) had lived over one hundred years before he made the will, and his physical and mental weakness and defective memory were in striking contrast with their strength in the meridian of his life. He was blind; not deaf, but hearing impaired; his mind acted slowly, he was forgetful or recent events, especially of names, and repeated questions in conversation; and sometimes, when aroused for sleep or slumber, would seem bewildered. It is not singular that some of those who had known him when he was remarkable for vigor and intelligence, are of the opinion that his reason was so far gone that he was incapable of making a will, although they never heard him utter an irrational expression.

In the above case the will was sustained. In the case at bar we might draw the same contrast as was pictured by the court in the case just quoted. The striking change in the physical and mental vigor of the testator during the last years of his life may have led some of those who knew him in his earlier days to entertain doubts as to his mental capacity to make a will, yet we think that the statements of the witnesses to the execution of the will and statements of the conduct of the testator at that time all indicate that he unquestionably had mental capacity and that he exercised it on this occasion. At the time of the execution of the will it does not appear that his conduct was irrational in any particular. He seems to have comprehended clearly what the nature of the business was in which he was engaged. The evidence show that the writing and execution of the will occupied a period several hours and that the testator was present during all this time, taking an active part in all the proceedings. Again, the will in the case at bar is perfectly reasonable and its dispositions are those of a rational person.

For the reasons above stated, the order probating the will should be and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs of this instance against the appellants.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA (1997)

G.R. No. 97626   March 14, 1997
Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)


FACTS:

• May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976: Romeo Lipana claims to have entrusted RMC funds in the form of cash totalling P304,979.74 to his secretary, Irene Yabut, for the purpose of depositing said funds in the current accounts of RMC with Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC)
• They were not credited to RMC's account but were instead deposited to Account No. 53-01734-7 of Yabut's husband, Bienvenido Cotas
• Romeo Lipana  never checked their monthly statements of account reposing complete trust and confidence on PBC
• Irene Yabut's modus operandi was to furnish 2 copies of deposit slip upon and both are always validated and stamped by the teller Azucena Mabayad :
• original showed the name of her husband as depositor and his current account number - retained by the bank
• duplicate copy was written the account number of her husband but the name of the account holder was left blank
• After validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the space left blank in the duplicate copy and change the account number to RMC's account number
• This went on in a span of more than 1 year without private respondent's knowledge
• Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC demanded from PBC the return of its money and later on filed in the RTC
• RTC: PBC and Azucena Mabayad jointly and severally liable
• CA: affirmed with modification deleting awards of exemplary damages and attorney's fees 

ISSUE: 

1. W/N applying the last clear chance, PBC's teller is negligent for failing to avoid the injury by not exercising the proper validation procedure-YES

2. W/N there was contirbutory negligence by RMC - YES

HELD: 60-40 ratio. only the balance of 60% needs to be paid by the PBC

1. YES.

• The fact that the duplicate slip was not compulsorily required by the bank in accepting deposits should not relieve the PBC of responsibility
• The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy lacked one vital information (Name of the account holder) should have already put Ms. Mabayad on guard. 
• Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but also on the part of the bank itself in its lack in selection and supervision of Ms. Mabayad. 
• Mr. Romeo Bonifacio, then Manager of the Pasig Branch of the petitioner bank and now its Vice-President, to the effect that, while he ordered the investigation of the incident, he never came to know that blank deposit slips were validated in total disregard of the bank's validation procedures until 7 years later
• last clear chance/supervening negligence/discovered peril
• where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof
• antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another, if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. 
• Here, assuming that RMC was negligent in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, yet it cannot be denied that PBC bank, thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation procedure.
• Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
  If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.  In the case of banks, however, the degree of diligence required is more than that of a good father of a family. Considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors, banks are duty bound to treat the accounts of their clients with the highest degree of care

2. YES.

• it cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private respondent
• Article 2179 of the New Civil Code

When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded

Jurisprudence: G.R. No. 97626

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 97626 March 14, 1997

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE, now absorbed by PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, ROGELIO LACSON, DIGNA DE LEON, MARIA ANGELITA PASCUAL, et al., petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROMMEL'S MARKETING CORP., represented by ROMEO LIPANA, its President & General Manager, respondents.

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

Challenged in this petition for review is the Decision dated February 28, 1991 ¹ rendered by public respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the Decision dated November 15, 1985 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch CLX (160), Pasig City, in Civil Case No. 27288 entitled "Rommel's Marketing Corporation, etc. v. Philippine Bank of Commerce, now absorbed by Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank."

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the private respondent Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC for brevity), represented by its President and General Manager Romeo Lipana, to recover from the former Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC for brevity), now absorbed by the Philippine Commercial International Bank, the sum of P304,979.74 representing various deposits it had made in its current account with said bank but which were not credited to its account, and were instead deposited to the account of one Bienvenido Cotas, allegedly due to the gross and inexcusable negligence of the petitioner bank.

RMC maintained two (2) separate current accounts, Current Account Nos. 53-01980-3 and 53-01748-7, with the Pasig Branch of PBC in connection with its business of selling appliances.

In the ordinary and usual course of banking operations, current account deposits are accepted by the bank on the basis of deposit slips prepared and signed by the depositor, or the latter's agent or representative, who indicates therein the current account number to which the deposit is to be credited, the name of the depositor or current account holder, the date of the deposit, and the amount of the deposit either in cash or checks. The deposit slip has an upper portion or stub, which is detached and given to the depositor or his agent; the lower portion is retained by the bank. In some instances, however, the deposit slips are prepared in duplicate by the depositor. The original of the deposit slip is retained by the bank, while the duplicate copy is returned or given to the depositor.

From May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976, petitioner Romeo Lipana claims to have entrusted RMC funds in the form of cash totalling P304,979.74 to his secretary, Irene Yabut, for the purpose of depositing said funds in the current accounts of RMC with PBC. It turned out, however, that these deposits, on all occasions, were not credited to RMC's account but were instead deposited to Account No. 53-01734-7 of Yabut's husband, Bienvenido Cotas who likewise maintains an account with the same bank. During this period, petitioner bank had, however, been regularly furnishing private respondent with monthly statements showing its current accounts balances. Unfortunately, it had never been the practice of Romeo Lipana to check these monthly statements of account reposing complete trust and confidence on petitioner bank.

Irene Yabut's modus operandi is far from complicated. She would accomplish two (2) copies of the deposit slip, an original and a duplicate. The original showed the name of her husband as depositor and his current account number. On the duplicate copy was written the account number of her husband but the name of the account holder was left blank. PBC's teller, Azucena Mabayad, would, however, validate and stamp both the original and the duplicate of these deposit slips retaining only the original copy despite the lack of information on the duplicate slip. The second copy was kept by Irene Yabut allegedly for record purposes. After validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the space left blank in the duplicate copy and change the account number written thereon, which is that of her husband's, and make it appear to be RMC's account number, i.e., C.A. No. 53-01980-3. With the daily remittance records also prepared by Ms. Yabut and submitted to private respondent RMC together with the validated duplicate slips with the latter's name and account number, she made her company believe that all the while the amounts she deposited were being credited to its account when, in truth and in fact, they were being deposited by her and credited by the petitioner bank in the account of Cotas. This went on in a span of more than one (1) year without private respondent's knowledge.

Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC demanded from petitioner bank the return of its money, but as its demand went unheeded, it filed a collection suit before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 160. The trial court found petitioner bank negligent and ruled as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing defendant Philippine Bank of Commerce, now absorbed by defendant Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank, and defendant Azucena Mabayad to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, and without prejudice to any criminal action which may be instituted if found warranted:

1. The sum of P304,979.72, representing plaintiffs lost deposit, plus interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint;

2. A sum equivalent to 14% thereof, as exemplary damages;

3. A sum equivalent to 25% of the total amount due, as and for attorney's fees; and

4. Costs.

Defendants' counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. ²

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the foregoing decision with modifications, viz:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from herein is MODIFIED in the sense that the awards of exemplary damages and attorney's fees specified therein are eliminated and instead, appellants are ordered to pay plaintiff, in addition to the principal sum of P304,979.74 representing plaintiff's lost deposit plus legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint, P25,000.00 attorney's fees and costs in the lower court as well as in this Court. ³

Hence, this petition anchored on the following grounds:

1) The proximate cause of the loss is the negligence of respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation and Romeo Lipana in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee.

2) The failure of respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation to cross-check the bank's statements of account with its own records during the entire period of more than one (1) year is the proximate cause of the commission of subsequent frauds and misappropriation committed by Ms. Irene Yabut.

3) The duplicate copies of the deposit slips presented by respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation are falsified and are not proof that the amounts appearing thereon were deposited to respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation's account with the bank,

4) The duplicate copies of the deposit slips were used by Ms. Irene Yabut to cover up her fraudulent acts against respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation, and not as records of deposits she made with the bank. ⁴

The petition has no merit.

Simply put, the main issue posited before us is: What is the proximate cause of the loss, to the tune of P304,979.74, suffered by the private respondent RMC — petitioner bank's negligence or that of private respondent's?

Petitioners submit that the proximate cause of the loss is the negligence of respondent RMC and Romeo Lipana in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee in the person of Ms. Irene Yabut. ⁵ According to them, it was impossible for the bank to know that the money deposited by Ms. Irene Yabut belong to RMC; neither was the bank forewarned by RMC that Yabut will be depositing cash to its account. Thus, it was impossible for the bank to know the fraudulent design of Yabut considering that her husband, Bienvenido Cotas, also maintained an account with the bank. For the bank to inquire into the ownership of the cash deposited by Ms. Irene Yabut would be irregular. Otherwise stated, it was RMC's negligence in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee which provided Ms. Irene Yabut the opportunity to defraud RMC. ⁶

Private respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the proximate cause of the loss was the negligent act of the bank, thru its teller Ms. Azucena Mabayad, in validating the deposit slips, both original and duplicate, presented by Ms. Yabut to Ms. Mabayad, notwithstanding the fact that one of the deposit slips was not completely accomplished.

We sustain the private respondent.

Our law on quasi-delicts states:

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

There are three elements of a quasi-delict: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. ⁷

In the case at bench, there is no dispute as to the damage suffered by the private respondent (plaintiff in the trial court) RMC in the amount of P304,979.74. It is in ascribing fault or negligence which caused the damage where the parties point to each other as the culprit.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do. The seventy-eight (78)-year-old, yet still relevant, case of Picart v. Smith, ⁸ provides the test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case which may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.

Applying the above test, it appears that the bank's teller, Ms. Azucena Mabayad, was negligent in validating, officially stamping and signing all the deposit slips prepared and presented by Ms. Yabut, despite the glaring fact that the duplicate copy was not completely accomplished contrary to the self-imposed procedure of the bank with respect to the proper validation of deposit slips, original or duplicate, as testified to by Ms. Mabayad herself, thus:

Q: Now, as teller of PCIB, Pasig Branch, will you please tell us Mrs. Mabayad your important duties and functions?

A: I accept current and savings deposits from depositors and encashments.

Q: Now in the handling of current account deposits of bank clients, could you tell us the procedure you follow?

A: The client or depositor or the authorized representative prepares a deposit slip by filling up the deposit slip with the name, the account number, the date, the cash breakdown, if it is deposited for cash, and the check number, the amount and then he signs the deposit slip.

Q: Now, how many deposit slips do you normally require in accomplishing current account deposit, Mrs. Mabayad?

A: The bank requires only one copy of the deposit although some of our clients prepare the deposit slip in duplicate.

Q: Now in accomplishing current account deposits from your clients, what do you issue to the depositor to evidence the deposit made?

A: We issue or we give to the clients the depositor's stub as a receipt of the deposit.

Q: And who prepares the deposit slip?

A: The depositor or the authorized representative sir?

Q: Where does the depositor's stub comes (sic) from Mrs. Mabayad, is it with the deposit slip?

A: The depositor's stub is connected with the deposit slip or the bank's copy. In a deposit slip, the upper portion is the depositor's stub and the lower portion is the bank's copy, and you can detach the bank's copy from the depositor's stub by tearing it sir.

Q: Now what do you do upon presentment of the deposit slip by the depositor or the depositor's authorized representative?

A: We see to it that the deposit slip ⁹ is properly accomplished and then we count the money and then we tally it with the deposit slip sir.

Q: Now is the depositor's stub which you issued to your clients validated?

A: Yes, sir. ¹⁰ [Emphasis ours]

Clearly, Ms. Mabayad failed to observe this very important procedure. The fact that the duplicate slip was not compulsorily required by the bank in accepting deposits should not relieve the petitioner bank of responsibility. The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy lacked one vital information — that of the name of the account holder — should have already put Ms. Mabayad on guard. Rather than readily validating the incomplete duplicate copy, she should have proceeded more cautiously by being more probing as to the true reason why the name of the account holder in the duplicate slip was left blank while that in the original was filled up. She should not have been so naive in accepting hook, line and sinker the too shallow excuse of Ms. Irene Yabut to the effect that since the duplicate copy was only for her personal record, she would simply fill up the blank space later on. ¹¹ A "reasonable man of ordinary prudence" ¹² would not have given credence to such explanation and would have insisted that the space left blank be filled up as a condition for validation. Unfortunately, this was not how bank teller Mabayad proceeded thus resulting in huge losses to the private respondent.

Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but also on the part of the bank itself in its lack in the selection and supervision of Ms. Mabayad. This was exemplified in the testimony of Mr. Romeo Bonifacio, then Manager of the Pasig Branch of the petitioner bank and now its Vice-President, to the effect that, while he ordered the investigation of the incident, he never came to know that blank deposit slips were validated in total disregard of the bank's validation procedures, viz:

Q: Did he ever tell you that one of your cashiers affixed the stamp mark of the bank on the deposit slips and they validated the same with the machine, the fact that those deposit slips were unfilled up, is there any report similar to that?

A: No, it was not the cashier but the teller.

Q: The teller validated the blank deposit slip?

A: No it was not reported.

Q: You did not know that any one in the bank tellers or cashiers validated the blank deposit slip?

A: I am not aware of that.

Q: It is only now that you are aware of that?

A: Yes, sir. ¹³

Prescinding from the above, public respondent Court of Appeals aptly observed:

xxx xxx xxx

It was in fact only when he testified in this case in February, 1983, or after the lapse of more than seven (7) years counted from the period when the funds in question were deposited in plaintiff's accounts (May, 1975 to July, 1976) that bank manager Bonifacio admittedly became aware of the practice of his teller Mabayad of validating blank deposit slips. Undoubtedly, this is gross, wanton, and inexcusable negligence in the appellant bank's supervision of its employees. ¹⁴

It was this negligence of Ms. Azucena Mabayad, coupled by the negligence of the petitioner bank in the selection and supervision of its bank teller, which was the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the private respondent, and not the latter's act of entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, as insisted by the petitioners.

Proximate cause is determined on the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. ¹⁵ Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina, ¹⁶ reiterated in the case of Bank of the Phil. Islands v. Court of Appeals, ¹⁷ defines proximate cause as "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. . . ." In this case, absent the act of Ms. Mabayad in negligently validating the incomplete duplicate copy of the deposit slip, Ms. Irene Yabut would not have the facility with which to perpetrate her fraudulent scheme with impunity. Apropos, once again, is the pronouncement made by the respondent appellate court, to wit:

. . . . Even if Yabut had the fraudulent intention to misappropriate the funds entrusted to her by plaintiff, she would not have been able to deposit those funds in her husband's current account, and then make plaintiff believe that it was in the latter's accounts wherein she had deposited them, had it not been for bank teller Mabayad's aforesaid gross and reckless negligence. The latter's negligence was thus the proximate, immediate and efficient cause that brought about the loss claimed by plaintiff in this case, and the failure of plaintiff to discover the same soon enough by failing to scrutinize the monthly statements of account being sent to it by appellant bank could not have prevented the fraud and misappropriation which Irene Yabut had already completed when she deposited plaintiff's money to the account of her husband instead of to the latter's accounts. ¹⁸

Furthermore, under the doctrine of "last clear chance" (also referred to, at times as "supervening negligence" or as "discovered peril"), petitioner bank was indeed the culpable party. This doctrine, in essence, states that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. ¹⁹ Stated differently, the rule would also mean that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another, if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. ²⁰ Here, assuming that private respondent RMC was negligent in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, thus providing the latter with the opportunity to defraud the company, as advanced by the petitioner, yet it cannot be denied that the petitioner bank, thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation procedure.

At this juncture, it is worth to discuss the degree of diligence ought to be exercised by banks in dealing with their clients.

The New Civil Code provides:

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. (1104a)

In the case of banks, however, the degree of diligence required is more than that of a good father of a family. Considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors, banks are duty bound to treat the accounts of their clients with the highest degree of care. ²¹

As elucidated in Simex International (Manila), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, ²² in every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money the depositor can dispose as he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the failure to duly credit him his deposits as soon as they are made, can cause the depositor not a little embarrassment if not financial loss and perhaps even civil and criminal litigation.

The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. In the case before us, it is apparent that the petitioner bank was remiss in that duty and violated that relationship.

Petitioners nevertheless aver that the failure of respondent RMC to cross-check the bank's statements of account with its own records during the entire period of more than one (1) year is the proximate cause of the commission of subsequent frauds and misappropriation committed by Ms. Irene Yabut.

We do not agree.

While it is true that had private respondent checked the monthly statements of account sent by the petitioner bank to RMC, the latter would have discovered the loss early on, such cannot be used by the petitioners to escape liability. This omission on the part of the private respondent does not change the fact that were it not for the wanton and reckless negligence of the petitioners' employee in validating the incomplete duplicate deposit slips presented by Ms. Irene Yabut, the loss would not have occurred. Considering, however, that the fraud was committed in a span of more than one (1) year covering various deposits, common human experience dictates that the same would not have been possible without any form of collusion between Ms. Yabut and bank teller Mabayad. Ms. Mabayad was negligent in the performance of her duties as bank teller nonetheless. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to claim reimbursement from her for whatever they shall be ordered to pay in this case.

The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private respondent ²³ under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code, to wit:

. . . When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

In view of this, we believe that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by allocating the damage on a 60-40 ratio. Thus, 40% of the damage awarded by the respondent appellate court, except the award of P25,000.00 attorney's fees, shall be borne by private respondent RMC; only the balance of 60% needs to be paid by the petitioners. The award of attorney's fees shall be borne exclusively by the petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is modified by reducing the amount of actual damages private respondent is entitled to by 40%. Petitioners may recover from Ms. Azucena Mabayad the amount they would pay the private respondent. Private respondent shall have recourse against Ms. Irene Yabut. In all other respects, the appellate court's decision is AFFIRMED.

Proportionate costs.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

I regret that I cannot join the majority in ruling that the proximate cause of the damage suffered by Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC) is mainly "the wanton and reckless negligence of the petitioner's employee in validating the incomplete duplicate deposit slips presented by Ms. Irene Yabut" (Decision, p. 15). Moreover, I find it difficult to agree with the ruling that "petitioners are entitled to claim reimbursement from her (the bank teller) for whatever they shall be ordered to pay in this case."

It seems that an innocent bank teller is being unduly burdened with what should fall on Ms. Irene Yabut, RMC's own employee, who should have been charged with estafa or estafa through falsification of private document. Interestingly, the records are silent on whether RMC had ever filed any criminal case against Ms. Irene Yabut, aside from the fact that she does not appear to have been impleaded even as a party defendant in any civil case for damages. Why is RMC insulating Ms. Irene Yabut from liability when in fact she orchestrated the entire fraud on RMC, her employer?

To set the record straight, it is not completely accurate to state that from 5 May 1975 to 16 July 1976, Miss Irene Yabut had transacted with PCIB (then PBC) through only one teller in the person of Azucena Mabayad. In fact, when RMC filed a complaint for estafa before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, it indicted all the tellers of PCIB in the branch who were accused of conspiracy to defraud RMC of its current account deposits. (See Annex B, Rollo p. 22 and 47).

Even private respondent RMC, in its Comment, maintains that "when the petitioner's tellers" allowed Irene Yabut to carry out her modus operandi undetected over a period of one year, "their negligence cannot but be gross." (Rollo, p. 55; see also Rollo pp. 58 to 59). This rules out the possibility that there may have been some form of collusion between Yabut and bank teller Mabayad. Mabayad was just unfortunate that private respondent's documentary evidence showed that she was the attending teller in the bulk of Yabut's transactions with the bank.

Going back to Yabut's modus operandi, it is not disputed that each time Yabut would transact business with PBC's tellers, she would accomplish two (2) copies of the current account deposit slip. PBC's deposit slip, as issued in 1975, had two parts. The upper part was called the depositor's stub and the lower part was called the bank copy. Both parts were detachable from each other. The deposit slip was prepared and signed by the depositor or his representative, who indicated therein the current account number to which the deposit was to be credited, the name of the depositor or current account holder, the date of the deposit, and the amount of the deposit either in cash or in checks. (Rollo, p. 137)

Since Yabut deposited money in cash, the usual bank procedure then was for the teller to count whether the cash deposit tallied with the amount written down by the depositor in the deposit slip. If it did, then the teller proceeded to verify whether the current account number matched with the current account name as written in the deposit slip.

In the earlier days before the age of full computerization, a bank normally maintained a ledger which served as a repository of accounts to which debits and credits resulting from transactions with the bank were posted from books of original entry. Thus, it was only after the transaction was posted in the ledger that the teller proceeded to machine validate the deposit slip and then affix his signature or initial to serve as proof of the completed transaction.

It should be noted that the teller validated the depositor's stub in the upper portion and the bank copy on the lower portion on both the original and duplicate copies of the deposit slips presented by Yabut. The teller, however, detached the validated depositor's stub on the original deposit slip and allowed Yabut to retain the whole validated duplicate deposit slip that bore the same account number as the original deposit slip, but with the account name purposely left blank by Yabut, on the assumption that it would serve no other purpose but for a personal record to complement the original validated depositor's stub.

Thus, when Yabut wrote the name of RMC on the blank account name on the validated duplicate copy of the deposit slip, tampered with its account number, and superimposed RMC's account number, said act only served to cover-up the loss already caused by her to RMC, or after the deposit slip was validated by the teller in favor of Yabut's husband. Stated otherwise, when there is a clear evidence of tampering with any of the material entries in a deposit slip, the genuineness and due execution of the document become an issue in resolving whether or not the transaction had been fair and regular and whether the ordinary course of business had been followed by the bank.

It is logical, therefore, to conclude that the legal or proximate cause of RMC's loss was when Yabut, its employee, deposited the money of RMC in her husband's name and account number instead of that of RMC, the rightful owner of such deposited funds. Precisely, it was the criminal act of Yabut that directly caused damage to RMC, her employer, not the validation of the deposit slip by the teller as the deposit slip was made out by Yabut in her husband's name and to his account.

Even if the bank teller had required Yabut to completely fill up the duplicate deposit slip, the original deposit slip would nonetheless still be validated under the account of Yabut's husband. In fine, the damage had already been done to RMC when Yabut deposited its funds in the name and account number of her husband with petitioner bank. It is then entirely left to speculation what Yabut would have done afterwards — like tampering both the account number and the account name on the stub of the original deposit slip and on the duplicate copy — in order to cover up her crime.

Under the circumstances in this case, there was no way for PBC's bank tellers to reasonably foresee that Yabut might or would use the duplicate deposit slip to cover up her crime. In the first place, the bank tellers were absolutely unaware that a crime had already been consummated by Yabut when her transaction by her sole doing was posted in the ledger and validated by the teller in favor of her husband's account even if the funds deposited belonged to RMC.

The teller(s) in this case were not in any way proven to be parties to the crime either as accessories or accomplices. Nor could it be said that the act of posting and validation was in itself a negligent act because the teller(s) simply had no choice but to accept and validate the deposit as written in the original deposit slip under the account number and name of Yabut's husband. Hence, the act of validating the duplicate copy was not the proximate cause of RMC's injury but merely a remote cause which an independent cause or agency merely took advantage of to accomplish something which was not the probable or natural effect thereof. That explains why Yabut still had to tamper with the account number of the duplicate deposit slip after filling in the name of RMC in the blank space.

Coming now to the doctrine of "last clear chance," it is my considered view that the doctrine assumes that the negligence of the defendant was subsequent to the negligence of the plaintiff and the same must be the proximate cause of the injury. In short, there must be a last and a clear chance, not a last possible chance, to avoid the accident or injury. It must have been a chance as would have enabled a reasonably prudent man in like position to have acted effectively to avoid the injury and the resulting damage to himself.

In the case at bar, the bank was not remiss in its duty of sending monthly bank statements to private respondent RMC so that any error or discrepancy in the entries therein could be brought to the bank's attention at the earliest opportunity. Private respondent failed to examine these bank statements not because it was prevented by some cause in not doing so, but because it was purposely negligent as it admitted that it does not normally check bank statements given by banks.

It was private respondent who had the last and clear chance to prevent any further misappropriation by Yabut had it only reviewed the status of its current accounts on the bank statements sent to it monthly or regularly. Since a sizable amount of cash was entrusted to Yabut, private respondent should, at least, have taken ordinary care of its concerns, as what the law presumes. Its negligence, therefore, is not contributory but the immediate and proximate cause of its injury.

I vote to grant the petition.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

I regret that I cannot join the majority in ruling that the proximate cause of the damage suffered by Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC) is mainly "the wanton and reckless negligence of the petitioner's employee in validating the incomplete duplicate deposit slips presented by Ms. Irene Yabut" (Decision, p. 15). Moreover, I find it difficult to agree with the ruling that "petitioners are entitled to claim reimbursement from her (the bank teller) for whatever they shall be ordered to pay in this case."

It seems that an innocent bank teller is being unduly burdened with what should fall on Ms. Irene Yabut, RMC's own employee, who should have been charged with estafa or estafa through falsification of private document. Interestingly, the records are silent on whether RMC had ever filed any criminal case against Ms. Irene Yabut, aside from the fact that she does not appear to have been impleaded even as a party defendant in any civil case for damages. Why is RMC insulating Ms. Irene Yabut from liability when in fact she orchestrated the entire fraud on RMC, her employer?

To set the record straight, it is not completely accurate to state that from 5 May 1975 to 16 July 1976, Miss Irene Yabut had transacted with PCIB (then PBC) through only one teller in the person of Azucena Mabayad. In fact, when RMC filed a complaint for estafa before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, it indicted all the tellers of PCIB in the branch who were accused of conspiracy to defraud RMC of its current account deposits. (See Annex B, Rollo p. 22 and 47).

Even private respondent RMC, in its Comment, maintains that "when the petitioner's tellers" allowed Irene Yabut to carry out her modus operandi undetected over a period of one year, "their negligence cannot but be gross." (Rollo, p. 55; see also Rollo pp. 58 to 59). This rules out the possibility that there may have been some form of collusion between Yabut and bank teller Mabayad. Mabayad was just unfortunate that private respondent's documentary evidence showed that she was the attending teller in the bulk of Yabut's transactions with the bank.

Going back to Yabut's modus operandi, it is not disputed that each time Yabut would transact business with PBC's tellers, she would accomplish two (2) copies of the current account deposit slip. PBC's deposit slip, as issued in 1975, had two parts. The upper part was called the depositor's stub and the lower part was called the bank copy. Both parts were detachable from each other. The deposit slip was prepared and signed by the depositor or his representative, who indicated therein the current account number to which the deposit was to be credited, the name of the depositor or current account holder, the date of the deposit, and the amount of the deposit either in cash or in checks. (Rollo, p. 137)

Since Yabut deposited money in cash, the usual bank procedure then was for the teller to count whether the cash deposit tallied with the amount written down by the depositor in the deposit slip. If it did, then the teller proceeded to verify whether the current account number matched with the current account name as written in the deposit slip.

In the earlier days before the age of full computerization, a bank normally maintained a ledger which served as a repository of accounts to which debits and credits resulting from transactions with the bank were posted from books of original entry. Thus, it was only after the transaction was posted in the ledger that the teller proceeded to machine validate the deposit slip and then affix his signature or initial to serve as proof of the completed transaction.

It should be noted that the teller validated the depositor's stub in the upper portion and the bank copy on the lower portion on both the original and duplicate copies of the deposit slips presented by Yabut. The teller, however, detached the validated depositor's stub on the original deposit slip and allowed Yabut to retain the whole validated duplicate deposit slip that bore the same account number as the original deposit slip, but with the account name purposely left blank by Yabut, on the assumption that it would serve no other purpose but for a personal record to complement the original validated depositor's stub.

Thus, when Yabut wrote the name of RMC on the blank account name on the validated duplicate copy of the deposit slip, tampered with its account number, and superimposed RMC's account number, said act only served to cover-up the loss already caused by her to RMC, or after the deposit slip was validated by the teller in favor of Yabut's husband. Stated otherwise, when there is a clear evidence of tampering with any of the material entries in a deposit slip, the genuineness and due execution of the document become an issue in resolving whether or not the transaction had been fair and regular and whether the ordinary course of business had been followed by the bank.

It is logical, therefore, to conclude that the legal or proximate cause of RMC's loss was when Yabut, its employee, deposited the money of RMC in her husband's name and account number instead of that of RMC, the rightful owner of such deposited funds. Precisely, it was the criminal act of Yabut that directly caused damage to RMC, her employer, not the validation of the deposit slip by the teller as the deposit slip was made out by Yabut in her husband's name and to his account.

Even if the bank teller had required Yabut to completely fill up the duplicate deposit slip, the original deposit slip would nonetheless still be validated under the account of Yabut's husband. In fine, the damage had already been done to RMC when Yabut deposited its funds in the name and account number of her husband with petitioner bank. It is then entirely left to speculation what Yabut would have done afterwards — like tampering both the account number and the account name on the stub of the original deposit slip and on the duplicate copy — in order to cover up her crime.

Under the circumstances in this case, there was no way for PBC's bank tellers to reasonably foresee that Yabut might or would use the duplicate deposit slip to cover up her crime. In the first place, the bank tellers were absolutely unaware that a crime had already been consummated by Yabut when her transaction by her sole doing was posted in the ledger and validated by the teller in favor of her husband's account even if the funds deposited belonged to RMC.

The teller(s) in this case were not in any way proven to be parties to the crime either as accessories or accomplices. Nor could it be said that the act of posting and validation was in itself a negligent act because the teller(s) simply had no choice but to accept and validate the deposit as written in the original deposit slip under the account number and name of Yabut's husband. Hence, the act of validating the duplicate copy was not the proximate cause of RMC's injury but merely a remote cause which an independent cause or agency merely took advantage of to accomplish something which was not the probable or natural effect thereof. That explains why Yabut still had to tamper with the account number of the duplicate deposit slip after filling in the name of RMC in the blank space.

Coming now to the doctrine of "last clear chance," it is my considered view that the doctrine assumes that the negligence of the defendant was subsequent to the negligence of the plaintiff and the same must be the proximate cause of the injury. In short, there must be a last and a clear chance, not a last possible chance, to avoid the accident or injury. It must have been a chance as would have enabled a reasonably prudent man in like position to have acted effectively to avoid the injury and the resulting damage to himself.

In the case at bar, the bank was not remiss in its duty of sending monthly bank statements to private respondent RMC so that any error or discrepancy in the entries therein could be brought to the bank's attention at the earliest opportunity. Private respondent failed to examine these bank statements not because it was prevented by some cause in not doing so, but because it was purposely negligent as it admitted that it does not normally check bank statements given by banks.

It was private respondent who had the last and clear chance to prevent any further misappropriation by Yabut had it only reviewed the status of its current accounts on the bank statements sent to it monthly or regularly. Since a sizable amount of cash was entrusted to Yabut, private respondent should, at least, have taken ordinary care of its concerns, as what the law presumes. Its negligence, therefore, is not contributory but the immediate and proximate cause of its injury.

I vote to grant the petition.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 37-46.

2 Rollo, pp. 40-41.

3 Decision. pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 45-46.

4 Petition, pp. 13-14; Rollo, pp. 20-21.

5 Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 21.

6 Reply, p. 13; Rollo, p. 82.

7 Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 191 SCRA 195, 201 [1990], citing Taylor v. Manila Electric Company, 16 Phil. 8 [1910]; Vergara v. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 564 [1987].

8 37 Phil. 809, 813 [1918], reiterated in Bank of the Phil. Islands v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 51, 72-73 [1992]; Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 167 SCRA 363, 373 [1988]; Gan v. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 378, 382 [1988]; see also Leano v. Domingo, 198 SCRA 800, 804 [1991].

9 Original or duplicate.

10 Rollo, pp. 104-105. citing TSN, 14 August 1981, pp. 6-12.

11 Rollo, p. 56, citing TSN, 14 August 1981, pp. 42-47.

12 Sangco, Torts and Damages, Vol. I, 1993 ed., p. 8, citing Prosser, Law on Torts, 3rd Edition, 1964, pp. 153-154.

13 Rollo, p. 43, citing TSN, 9 February 1983, pp. 10-12.

14 Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 44.

15 Supra., note 12 at 90.

16 102 Phil. 181, 186 [1957].

17 216 SCRA 51, 75 [1992].

18 Decision, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 42-43.

19 LBC Air Cargo, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 619, 624 [1995], citing Picart v. Smith, supra.

20 Ibid., citing Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384; Glan People's Lumber and Hardware v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 173 SCRA 464.

21 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 761, 767 [1994]; Bank of the Phil. Islands v. Court of Appeals, supra., note 16 at 71.

22 183 SCRA 360, 367 [1990], cited in Bank of the Phil. Islands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 206 SCRA 408, 412-413 [1992]; City Trust Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 232 SCRA 559, 564 [1994]; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. CA, supra.

23 Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 353, 368 [1987]; Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil. 900, 906 [1929]; Rakes v. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359, 375 [1907].

Corporate Law Case Digest: Fleischer v. Botica Nolasco Co. (1925)

G.R. No. L-23241             March 14, 1925

Lessons Applicable: Right of First Refusal (Corporate Law)

FACTS:

• March 13, 1923: Manuel Gonzales made a written statement to the Botica Nolasco, Inc., requesting that 5 shares of stock sold by him to Henry Fleischer be noted transferred to Fleischer's name
• He also acknowledged in said written statement the preferential right of the corporation to buy said five shares 
• June 14, 1923: he withdraw and cancelled his written statement of March 13, 1923 
• Nolasco replied that his letter of June 14th was of no effect, and that the shares in question had been registered in the name of the Botica Nolasco, Inc.,
• November 15, 1923:  Fleischer 
• filed an amended complaint against the Botica Nolasco, Inc., alleging that he became the owner of 5 shares of fully paid stock of Botica Nolasco Co (Nolasco) by purchase from their original owner, Manuel Gonzalez
• Despite repeated demands, Nolasco refused to register said shares in his name in the books of the corporation 
• caused him damages amounting to P500
• Nolasco's defense: 
• article 12 of its by-laws: it had preferential right to buy the shares at the par value of P100/share, plus P90 as dividends corresponding to the year 1922
• offer was refused by Fleischer
• Trial Court: favored Fleischer and ordered the shared be registered

ISSUE: W/N article 12 of Nolasco's by-laws is in conflict with Act No. 1459 (Corporation Law), especially with section 35 (Now Sec. 63)

HELD: Affirmed. mandamus will lie to compel the officers of the corporation to transfer said stock upon the books of the corporation

• Section 13, paragraph 7, above-quoted, empowers a corporation to make by-laws, not inconsistent with any existing law, for the transferring of its stock.
• section 35 of Act No. 1459 (now Sec. 63)
• contemplates no restriction as to whom they may be transferred or sold
• It does not suggest that any discrimination may be created by the corporation in favor or against a certain purchaser. 
• The holder of shares, as owner of personal property, is at liberty, under said section, to dispose of them in favor of whomsoever he pleases, without any other limitation in this respect, than the general provisions of law
• GR: the by-laws of a corporation are valid if they are reasonable and calculated to carry into effect the objects of the corporation, and are not contradictory to the general policy of the laws of the land
• A by-law cannot take away or abridge the substantial rights of stockholder. 
• Under a statute authorizing by- laws for the transfer of stock, a corporation can do no more than prescribe a general mode of transfer on the corporate books and cannot justify an unreasonable restriction upon the right of sale.
• by-law cannot operate to defeat his rights as a purchaser who obtained them in good faith and for a valuable consideration