ASIA BREWERY v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK

Asia Brewery, Inc. and Charlie S. Go Vs. Equitable PCI Bank
G.R. No. 190432
April 25, 2017


FACTS

Within the period of September 1996 to July 1998, 10 checks and 16 demand drafts (collectively, “instruments”) were issued in the name of Charlie Go. The instruments, with a total value of P3,785,257.38, bore the annotation “endorsed by PCI Bank, Ayala Branch, All Prior Endorsement And/Or Lack of Endorsement Guaranteed.” All the demand drafts, except those issued by the Lucena City and Ozamis branches of Allied Bank, were crossed.

In their Complaint, petitioners narrate:

10. None of the above checks and demand drafts set out under the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action reached payee, co-plaintiff Charlie S. Go.

11. All of the above checks and demand drafts fell into the hands of a certain Raymond U. Keh, then a Sales Accounting Manager of plaintiff Asia Brewery, Inc., who falsely, willfully, and maliciously pretending to be the payee, co-plaintiff Charlie S. Go, succeeded in opening accounts with defendant Equitable PCI Bank in the name of Charlie Go and thereafter deposited the said checks and demand drafts in said accounts and withdrew the proceeds thereof to the damage and prejudice of plaintiff Asia Brewery, Inc.

Raymond Keh was allegedly charged with and convicted of theft and ordered to pay the value of the checks, but not a single centavo was collected, because he jumped bail and left the country while the cases were still being tried.

ISSUE

Petitioners argue that the trial court seriously erred in dismissing their Complaint for lack of cause of action.

HELD

The Court believes that it need not delve into the issue of whether the instruments have been delivered, because it is a matter of defense that would have to be proven during trial on the merits. In Aquino v. Quiazon, we held that if the allegations in a complaint furnish sufficient basis on which the suit may be maintained, the complaint should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be raised by the defendants. In other words, "[a]n affirmative defense, raising the ground that there is no cause of action as against the defendants poses a question of fact that should be resolved after the conduct of the trial on the merits.”

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated 30 January 2008 issued by Judge Benjamin T. Pozon and the Order dated 23 November 2009 issued by Judge Winlove Dumayas in Civil Case No. 04­336 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint is REINSTATED, and the case is ordered REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for further proceedings. Let the records of the case be likewise remanded to the court a quo.