Caltex Phils. vs CA (NIL)

Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Security Bank and Trust Co. 

G.R. No. 97753 

August 10, 1992 

FACTS:

Security bank issued Certificates of Time Deposits (CTD) to Angel dela Cruz.  The same were given by Dela Cruz to Caltex in connection to his purchase of fuel products of the latter.  On a later date, Dela Cruz approached the bank manager,  communicated  the  loss  of  the  certificates  and  requested  for  a reissuance.

Upon compliance with some formal requirements, he was issued replacements.  Thereafter, he secured a loan from the bank where he assigned the certificates as security.    Here  comes  the  petitioner, averred  that  the  certificates  were  not  actually  lost  but  were  given  as security for payment for fuel purchases.

The bank demanded some proof of the agreement but the petitioner failed to comply.    The loan matured and the time deposits were terminated and then applied to the payment of the loan. Petitioner demands the payment of the certificates but to no avail.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the certificates of time deposits (CTDs) are negotiable instruments?

HELD:

Yes. The Court held that the CTDs are negotiable instruments. The CTDs in question undoubtedly meet the requirements of the law for negotiability.

The Negotiable Instruments Law provides, an instrument to be negotiable must conform to certain requirements, hence,

1. It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer;
2. Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money;
3. Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time;
4. Must be payable to order or to bearer; and
5. Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.

The documents provide that the amounts deposited shall be repayable to the depositor.  And who, according to the document, is the depositor? It is the “bearer.” The documents do not say that the depositor is Angel de la Cruz and that the amounts deposited are repayable specifically to him. Rather, the amounts are to  be repayable to the  bearer  of  the  documents  or,  for  that  matter,  whosoever  may  be  the bearer at the time of presentment.

If  it  was  really  the  intention  of  respondent  bank  to  pay  the  amount  to Angel de la Cruz only, it could have with facility so expressed that fact in clear and categorical terms in the documents, instead of having the word “BEARER” stamped on the space provided for the name of the depositor in each  CTD.  On  the  wordings  of  the  documents,  therefore,  the  amounts deposited  are  repayable  to  whoever  may  be  the  bearer  thereof.

Thus, petitioner’s aforesaid witness merely declared that Angel de la Cruz is the depositor  “insofar  as  the  bank  is  concerned,”  but  obviously  other  parties not  privy  to  the  transaction  between  them  would  not  be  in  a  position  to know that the depositor is not the bearer stated in the  CTDs. Hence, the situation  would require any party dealing with the CTDs to go behind the plain  import  of  what  is  written  thereon  to  unravel  the  agreement  of  the parties  thereto  through  facts  aliunde.  This  need  for  resort  to  extrinsic evidence  is  what  is  sought  to  be  avoided  by  the  Negotiable  Instruments Law  and  calls  for  the  application  of  the  elementary  rule  that  the interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.