Asiga Mining Corporation Vs. Manila Mining Corporation and Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation

Philippine National Bank Vs. Pablo V. Raymundo
G.R. No. 208672. December 7, 2016

Raymundo' approved, as then Department Manager of PNB San Pedro Branch, payment of six (6) checks, all in the aggregate amount of FOUR MILLION PESOS (P4,000,000.00), negotiated by Ms. Juan on August 3, 1993 and August 5, 1993, without waiting for the foreign draft check intended to fund the peso checking account she opened on July 30, 1993, to be cleared by the PNB Foreign Currency Clearing Unit.

The foreign draft check was dishonored for being fraudulent.

Raymundo filed affidavits, complaints and testimonies before the other trial courts in San Pedro, Laguna, where he had filed separate criminal and civil cases against Ms. Juan and her cohorts in order to recover the value of the six (6) checks which were encashed despite having been drawn against uncollected deposit.

As of the date of the litigation, the amount of P2,100,882.87 remained unpaid or uncollected by the bank, and is still lodged as account receivable of "Merry May Juan c/o Pablo Raymundo."

1.    May Raymundo can still be held civilly liable for the charge of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019?

Yes, on the ground of gross negligence.

As a bank Branch Manager, Raymundo is expected to be an expert in banking procedures, and he has the necessary means to ascertain whether a check, local or foreign, is sufficiently funded. Raymundo's act of approving the deposit to Ms. Juan's newly-opened peso checking account of the foreign check prior to the lapse of the 21-day clearing period is the proximate cause why the six (6) checks worth P4,000,000.00 were later encashed, thereby causing the PNB undue injury.

2.    Explain proximate cause.

Proximate cause is defined as that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred.

3.    How to determine proximate cause?

The proximate cause can be determined by asking a simple question: "If the event did not happen, would the injury have resulted? If the answer is no, then the event is the proximate cause."

4.    Determine whether Raymundo’s act was the proximate cause of PNB’s injury.

If Raymundo did not disregard the bank's foreign check clearing policy when he approved crediting of the peso conversion of Ms. Juan's foreign check in her newly-opened peso checking account, the PNB would not have suffered losses due to the irregular encashment of the six (6) checks.

5.    What are the requirements to justify claim of actual damages?

It is well settled that actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts, and courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages.

6.    May PNB claim the total P4 million as actual damages?

No.

While the PNB claims having suffered damages to the extent of P4,000,000.00 due to the encashment of checks drawn against uncollected deposit, the testimonial and documentary evidence on record show that it only incurred losses in the total sum of P2,100,882.87.

Based on the facts provided, no evidence was adduced to prove such higher amount of damages; thus, PNB can only be awarded actual damages in the amount of P2,100,882.87.

7.    Explain the two kinds of acquittal recognized by law, as well their effects on the civil liability of the accused.

Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.

The Rules of Court requires that in case of an acquittal, the judgment shall state "whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.”

8.    In this case, may the factual finding be reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion. In this case, however, both the RTC and the CA totally ignored the fact showing Raymundo's gross negligence in approving the payment of six (6) checks negotiated by Ms. Juan on August 3, 1993 and August 5, 1993, without waiting for the foreign draft check intended to fund the peso checking account she opened on July 30, 1993, to be cleared by the PNB Foreign Currency Clearing Unit.

9.    May PNB use the documentary and testimonial evidence that Raymundo filed in other trial court?

Yes.

Such extra-judicial admissions do not violate his right against self­incrimination, which simply proscribes the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. Suffice it to state that Raymundo's Complaints and Affidavits in the civil and criminal cases he filed against Ms. Juan contain his voluntary statements, which were subscribed and sworn to either before the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and the Judge or the Notary Public, whereas his testimonies were given during hearings in the said cases. Clearly, Raymundo is not being compelled to testify against himself. In the same vein, PNB cannot be faulted for merely using the documentary and testimonial evidence he willingly proffered in the cases he had filed to recover the losses incurred by the bank due to his unauthorized approval for payment of the six (6) checks drawn against the uncollected deposit.