China Bank v. CA, Gotianuy Digest

China Bank v. CA, Gotianuy Digest
G.R. No. 140687 December 18, 2006
Ponente: Phil. SC Justice Chico-Nazario

Facts: 

1. The case stems from a complaint for a recovery of sums of money and annulment of sales ofreal property and shares of stocks filed by Jose Gotianuy against his son-in-law George Dee and his daughter Mary Margaret Dee.

2. Gotianuy accused his daughter of stealing his properties, US Dollar deposits with Citybank amounting to P35M and $864,000. Margaret Dee obtained these amounts through check issued by Citybank naming her as a co-payee of Gotianuy. She allegedly deposited the checks with petitioner bank. Gotianuy died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by his daughter Elizabeth.

3. Subsequently, employees of China Bank were sent subpoena to testify re:bank  deposits of Margaret Dee but petitioner invoked RA 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law). The lower court held that the disclosure of the name only of a depositor does not constitute a violation of RA 1405. The CA affirms the lower court's decision.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner can validly invoke the bank secrecy law to prevent the disclosure 

HELD: No.

Jose Gotianuy is a co-payee of the checks deposited in China Bank hence, he is deemed also a depositor. A depositor is one who pays money into the bank in the usual course of business to be placed to his credit and subject to his check of the beneficiary of the funds held by the bank as trustee. As such, no  written consent from Margaret Dee is needed in order to inquire into the said deposits. Moreover, there was no issue as to the real source of the funds since even Marygaret Dee declared that Gotianuy was the source of the Citibank US Dollar checks. As the owner of the funds unlawfully taken and now deposited with the petitioner bank, Gotianuy has the right to inquire into the said deposit. Clearly, it was not the intention of the lawmakers to perpetrate injustice when it enacted the Bank Secrecy Law or RA 1405.

PNB v. Pike Digest

PNB v. Pike

G.R. No. 157845 September 20, 2005

Ponente: Phil. SC Justice Chico-Nazario

Facts: The petitioner PNB allowed a representative of Defendant (his talent manager) to withdraw from his dollar account with the use of a pre-signed withrdawal slip.

Issue: Whether or not the bank is liable

HELD: Yes. PNB was held liable due to the negligence of its employees in allowing the unauthorized withdrawal. This was shown by the lackadaisical attitude of its employees in treating Pike's US dollar account, an act which resulted to the loss of $7,500. Such warrants for the award of damages. The slips used were in breach of the standard operating procedure of the bank in the ordinary and usual course of business.

Even if it is the employees who are negligent, the bank's liability as the obligor is not merely vicarious but primary since banks are expected to exercise the degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.

People v. Navaja Digest 220 SCRA 624 GR. No. 104044

People v. Navaja

G.R. No 104044 March 30, 1993

Ponente: Davide, Jr., J

Disputable presumption: Suppression of Evidence

Facts:

1. The Accused Alexander Navaja was convicted of the crime of selling a prohibited drug, 'shabu' under RA 6425. The authorities set up a buy bust operation but he managed to elude arrest after the transaction. Accused was subsequently arrested during a hearing of the Habeas Corpus case filed by his mother, about a year after.

2. In his appeal the accused contended that the court erred in convicting him as only one of the witnesses among 5 (of the policemen who accosted him) were presented by the prosecution.

Issue: Whether or not the non-presentation of the other witnesses gave rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence

HELD:

The non-presentation of the corroborative witnesses did not constitute suppression of evidence and such would not be fatal the prosecution's case. The rule is settled that the adverse presumption is not applicable when ---

1) suppression is not willful

2) the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative

3) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties

4) the suppresion is an exercise of privilege

Moreover, the Court has consistently held in drugs cases that absent any proof to the contrary, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty. The accused has also failed to present proof of an ulterior motive on the part of the police officers.

Note: This case digest/summary may serve as a ticker or memory aid. Reading of the full text of the case is still highly recommended. 

Sample Affidavit of 2 Disinterested Persons

Here is a sample format for an Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons.

Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons

I, (Insert Name of Affiant 1), (Insert Citizenship) citizen, of legal age, and with residence address at (Insert Affiant 1 Address), and I (Insert Name of Affiant 2), (Insert Citizenship) citizen, of legal age, and with residence at (Insert Affiant 2 Address), after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. That we know (Insert Name of Father) and (Insert Name of Mother) as the parents of the child (Insert Name of the Child), and have known both since (Insert Date).

2. That we also know their child (Insert Name of the Child) and have known him/her since (Insert Date).

3. That we are not related by consanguinity or affinity to the child's parents.

4. That we are executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth and veracity of the foregoing facts and in compliance with law.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NONE.

                                    _____________________     _____________________

                                                 Affiant                                         Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this (Insert Day) Day of (Insert Month) in (Insert City/Municipality), (Insert Country).

                                                                                        NOTARY PUBLIC

Sample Excuse Letter for Being Absent from Class Due to Illness

Here is a sample format for an Excuse Letter. This is often used when a child misses his or her classes due to an illness. 

                                                                                   Date

(Insert School Name)

(Insert School Address)

Dear Sir/Madame (Insert Teacher's Name):

     Please excuse my son/daughter (Insert your child's name) from his/her classes last (Insert Date of Absence or Period) as he/she was ill. Kindly extend to her/him any assistance on the lessons or assignments missed during that period. Please refer to the attached medical certificate. (Include this only if he/she has one)

        Hoping for your consideration and understanding. Thank you very much.

                                                                                  Sincerely,

                                                                                  (Insert Your Signature)

                                                                                  (Insert Your Full Name)

                                                                                  Parent/Guardian

Cruz v. Villasor Digest

Cruz v. Villasor 

G.R. L-32213 November 26, 1973

Ponente: Esguerra, J.:

Facts:

1. The CFI of Cebu allowed the probate of the last will and testament of the late Valenti Cruz. However, the petitioner opposed the allowance of the will alleging that it was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and undue influence. He further alleged that the instrument was executed without the testator having been informed of its contents and finally, that it was not executed in accordance with law.

2. One of the witnesses, Angel Tevel Jr. was also the notary before whom the will was acknowledged. Despite the objection, the lower court admitted the will to probate on the ground that there is substantial compliance with the legal requirements of having at least 3 witnesses even if the notary public was one of them.

Issue: Whether or not the will is valid in accordance with Art. 805 and 806 of the NCC

HELD: NO.

The will is not valid. The notary public cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the said will. An acknowledging officer cannot serve as witness at the same time.

To acknowledge before means to avow, or to own as genuine, to assent, admit, and 'before' means in front of or preceding in space or ahead of. The notary cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his participation int he making of the will. To permit such situation would be absurd.

Finally, the function of a notary among others is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements, a function defeated if he were to be one of the attesting or instrumental witnesses. He would be interested in sustaining the validity of the will as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. he would be in an inconsistent position, thwarting the very purpose of the acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud.

Nera v. Rimando Digest

Nera v. Rimando 

G.R. L-5971 February 27, 1911

Ponente: Carson, J.:

'Test of Presence'

Facts:

1. At the time the will was executed, in a large room connecting with a smaller room by a doorway where a curtain hangs across, one of the witnesses was in the outside room when the other witnesses were attaching their signatures to the instrument.

2. The trial court did not consider the determination of the issue as to the position of the witness as of vital importance in determining the case. It agreed with the ruling in the case of Jaboneta v. Gustillo that the alleged fact being that one of the subscribing witnesses  was in the outer room while the signing occurred in the inner room, would not be sufficient to invalidate the execution of the will.

3. The CA deemed the will valid.

Issue: Whether or not the subscribing witness was able to see the testator and other witnesses in the act of affixing their signatures.

HELD: YES

The Court is unanimous in its opinion that had the witnesses been proven to be in the outer room when the testator and other witnesses signed the will in the inner room, it would have invalidated the will since the attaching of the signatures under the circumstances was not done 'in the presence' of the witnesses in the outer room. The line of vision of the witness to the testator and other witnesses was blocked by the curtain separating the rooms. 

The position of the parties must be such that with relation to each other at the moment of the attaching the signatures, they may see each other sign if they chose to.

In the Jaboneta case, the true test of presence is not whether or not they actualy saw each other sign but whether they might have seen each other sign if they chose to doso considering their physical, mental condition and position in relation to each other at the moment of the inscription of the signature.

Garcia v. Lacuesta Digest

Garcia v. Lacuesta 

G.R. L-4067 November 29, 1951

Ponente: Paras, C.J.

Facts:

1. The CA disallowed the probate of the will of Antero Mercado dated Jan 1943. The said will was written in Ilocano dialect.

2. The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of the testator followed below by 'A ruego del testador' and the name of Florentino Javier. In effect, it was signed by another although under the express direction of the testator. This fact however was not recited in the attestation clause. Mercado also affixed a cross on the will.

3. The lower court admitted the will to probate but this order was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the attestation failed to recite the facts surrounding the signing of the testator and the witnesses. 

Issue: Whether or not the attestation clause in the will is valid

HELD: NO the attestation is fatally defective for its failure to state that Antero or the testator caused Atty. Javier to write the former's name under his express direction as required by Sec. 618 of the Civil Procedure. Finally, on the cross affixed on the will by the testator, the Court held that it is not prepared to liken the mere sign of a cross to a thumbmark for obvious reasons- the cross does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark so it is not considered as a valid signature.

Matias v. Salud Digest

Matias vs. Salud

G.R. L-10907 June 29, 1957

Ponente: Concepcion, J.

Facts: 

1. This case is an appeal from a CFI Cavite order denying the probate of the will of Gabina Raquel. The document consist of 3 pages and it seems that after the attestation clause, there appears the siganture of the testatrix 'Gabina Raquel', alongside is a smudged in violet ink claimed by the proponents as the thumbmark allegedly affixed by the tetratrix. On the third page at the end of the attestation clause appears signatures on the left margin of each page, and also on the upper part of each left margin appears the same violet ink smudge accompanied by the written words 'Gabina Raquel' with 'by Lourdes Samonte' underneath it.

2. The proponent's evidence is to the effect that the decedent allegedly instructed Atty. Agbunag to drat her will and brought to her on January 1950. With all the witnesses with her and the lawyer, the decedent affixed her thumbmark at the foot of the document and the left margin of each page. It was also alleged that she attempted to sign using a sign pen but was only able to do so on the lower half of page 2 due to the pain in her right shoulder. The lawyer, seeing Gabina unable to proceed instructed Lourdes Samonte to write 'Gabina Raquel by Lourdes Samonte' next to each thumbmark, after which the witnesses signed at the foot of the attestation clause and the left hand margin of each page.

3. The probate was opposed by Basilia Salud, the niece of the decedent.

4. The CFI of cavite denied the probate on the ground that the attestation clause did not state that the testatrix and the witnesses signed each and every page nor did it express that Lourdes was specially directed to sign after the testatrix.

Issue: Whether or not the thumbprint was sufficient compliance with the law despite the absence of a description of such in the attestation clause

HELD: YES

The absence of the description on the attestation clause that another person wrote the testatrix' name  at her request is not a fatal defect, The legal requirement only ask that it be signed by the testator, a requirement satisfied by a thumbprint or other mark affixed by him.

As to the issue on the clarity of the ridge impression, it is held to be dependent on the aleatory circumstances. Where a testator employs an unfamiliar way of signing and that both the attestation clause and the will are silent on the matter, such silence is a factor to be considered against the authenticity of the testament. However, the failure to describe the signature itself alone is not sufficient to refuse probate when evidence fully satisfied that the will was executed and witnessed in accordance with law.

Testate Estate of Cagro v. Cagro Digest

Testate Estate of Cagro vs. Cagro

G.R. L-5826

Facts: 

1. The case is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from a decision of the CFI of Samar which admitted to probate a will allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who died in Pambujan, Samar on Feb. 14, 1949.

2. The appellants insisted that the will is defective because the attestation was not signed by the witnesses at the bottom although the page containing the same was signed by the witnesses on the left hand margin.

3. Petitioner contended that the signatures of the 3 witnesses on the left hand margin conform substantially to law and may be deemed as their signatures to the attestation clause.

Issue: Whether or not the will is valid

HELD: Will is not valid. The attestation clause is a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will. It is required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses and it must necessarily bear their signatures.

An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses since the omission of their signatures at the bottom negatives their participation.

Moreover, the signatures affixed on the let hand margin is not substantial conformance to the law. The said signatures were merely in conformance with the requirement that the will must be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages. If the attestation clause is unsigned by the 3 witnesses at the bottom, it would be easier to add clauses to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.

The probate of the will is denied.