THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 74886. December 8, 1992.]PRUDENTIAL BANK, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, PHILIPPINE RAYON MILLS INC. and ANACLETO R. CHI, respondents.

SYLLABUS

1.COMMERCIAL LAW; NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS; LETTER OF CREDIT; CONSTRUED. — A letter of credit is defined as an engagement by a bank or other person made at the request of a customer that the issuer will honor drafts or other demands for payment upon compliance with the conditions specified in the credit. Through a letter of credit, the bank merely substitutes its own promise to pay for the promise to pay of one of its customers who in return promises to pay the bank the amount of funds mentioned in the letter of credit plus credit or commitment fees mutually agreed upon.2.ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESENTMENT FOR ACCEPTANCE, NOT NECESSARY IN CASE AT BAR. — The transaction in the case at bar stemmed from Philippine Rayon's application for a commercial letter of credit with the petitioner in the amount of $128,548.78 to cover the former's contract to purchase and import loom and textile machinery from Nissho Company, Ltd. of Japan under a five-year deferred payment plan. Petitioner approved the application. The drawee was necessarily the herein petitioner. It was to the latter that the drafts were presented for payment. There was no need for acceptance as the issued drafts are sight drafts. They are, pursuant to Section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), payable on demand. Presentment for acceptance is defined as the production of a bill of exchange to a drawee for acceptance. Contrary to both courts' pronouncements, Philippine Rayon immediately became liable thereon upon petitioner's payment thereof. Such is the essence of the letter of credit issued by the petitioner. A different conclusion would violate the principle upon which commercial letters of credit are founded because in such a case, both the beneficiary and the issuer, Nissho Company Ltd. and the petitioner, respectively, would be placed at the mercy of Philippine Rayon even if the latter had already received the imported machinery and the petitioner had fully paid for it. Presentment for acceptance is necessary only in the cases expressly provided for in Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL).3.ID.; ID.; ACCEPTANCE OF A BILL, EXPLAINED. — The acceptance of a bill is the signification by the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer; this may be done in writing by the drawee in the bill itself, or in a separate instrument.4.ID.; TRUST RECEIPTS LAW (P.D. 115), TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION, DEFINED. — Under P.D. No. 115, otherwise known as the Trust Receipts Law, which took effect on 29 January 1973, a trust receipt transaction is defined as "any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as the entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter's execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called the trust receipt wherein the entrustee binds

himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes substantially equivalent to any one of the following: . . ."5.ID.; ID.; VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL ACTION, NOT A LEGAL OBSTACLE TO A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION. — Although petitioner commenced a criminal action for the violation of the Trust Receipts Law, no legal obstacle prevented it from enforcing the civil liability arising out of the trust receipt in a separate civil action. Under Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law, the failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Under Article 33 of the Civil Code, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party in cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries. Estafa falls under fraud.6.ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY WHEN VIOLATION COMMITTED BY JURIDICAL ENTITIES. — A close examination of Sec. 13 of P.D. No. 115 reveals that the penalty referred to therein which shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons of the corporation, partnership, association or other judicial utility is imprisonment, the duration of which would depend on the amount of the fraud as provided for in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The reason for this is obvious: corporations, partnerships, associations and other juridical entities cannot be put in jail. However, it is these entities which are made liable for the civil liability arising from the criminal offense. This is the import of the clause "without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense."7.CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; GUARANTY; VALIDITY THEREOF. — The attestation by witnesses and the acknowledgment before a notary public are not required by law to make a party liable on the instrument. The rule is that contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present; however, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that it be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. With respect to a guaranty, which is a promise to answer for the debt or default of another, the law merely requires that it, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing. Otherwise, it would be unenforceable unless ratified. While the acknowledgment of a surety before a notary public is required to make the same a public document, under Article 1358 of the Civil Code, a contract of guaranty does not have to appear in a public document.8.ID.; ID.; ID.; DEFENSE OF EXCUSSION; NOT A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE INSTITUTION OF ACTION AGAINST GUARANTOR. — Under Article 2058 of the Civil Code, the defense of exhaustion (excussion) may be raised by a guarantor before he may be held liable for the obligation. However, excussion is not a condition sine qua non for the institution of an action against the guarantor. In Southern Motors, Inc. vs. Barbosa (99 Phil. 263, 268 [1956]), this Court stated: "4. Although an ordinary personal guarantor —

not a mortgagor or pledgor — may demand the aforementioned exhaustion, the creditor may, prior thereto, secure a judgment against said guarantor, who shall be entitled, however, to a deferment of the execution of said judgment against him until after the properties of the principal debtor shall have been exhausted to satisfy the obligation involved in the case."9.ID.; ID.; CONTRACT OF ADHESION; CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. — Any doubt as to the import or true intent of the solidary guaranty clause should be resolved against the petitioner. The trust receipt, together with the questioned solidary guaranty clause, is on a form drafted and prepared solely by the petitioner; Chi's participation therein is limited to the affixing of his signature thereon. It is, therefore, a contract of adhesion; as such, it must be strictly construed against the party responsible for its preparation.10.REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES; RATIONALE. — There was then nothing procedurally objectionable in impleading private respondent Chi as a co-defendant in Civil Case No. Q-19312 before the trial court. Section 6, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on permissive joinder of parties explicitly allows it. This is the equity rule relating to multifariousness. It is based on trial convenience and is designed to permit the joinder of plaintiffs or defendants whenever there is a common question of law or fact. It will save the parties unnecessary work, trouble and expense.11.CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; GUARANTY; GUARANTOR; LIABILITY IN CASE AT BAR. — Chi's liability is limited to the principal obligation in the trust receipt plus all the accessories thereof including judicial costs; with respect to the latter, he shall only be liable for those costs incurred after being judicially required to pay. Interest and damages, being accessories of the principal obligation, should also be paid; these, however, shall run only from the date of the filing of the complaint. Attorney's fees may even be allowed in appropriate cases. In the instant case, the attorney's fees to be paid by Chi cannot be the same as that to be paid by Philippine Rayon since it is only the trust receipt that is covered by the guaranty and not the full extent of the latter's liability. All things considered, he can be held liable for the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees in favor of the petitioner.

D E C I S I O N

DAVIDE, JR., J p:

Petitioner seeks to review and set aside the decision 1 of public respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals), dated 10 March 1986, in AC-G.R. No. 66733 which affirmed in toto the 15 June 1978 decision of Branch 9 (Quezon City) of the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Rizal in Civil Case No. Q-19312. The latter involved an action instituted by the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of money representing the amount paid by it to the Nissho Company Ltd. of Japan for textile machinery imported by the defendant, now private respondent, Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc. (hereinafter Philippine Rayon), represented by co-defendant Anacleto R. Chi. The facts which gave rise to the instant controversy are summarized by the public respondent as follows:

"On August 8, 1962, defendant-appellant Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc. entered into a contract with Nissho Co., Ltd. of Japan for the importation of textile machineries under a five-year deferred payment plan (Exhibit B, Plaintiff's Folder of Exhibits, p. 2). To effect payment for said machineries, the defendant-appellant applied for a commercial letter of credit with the Prudential Bank and Trust Company in favor of Nissho. By virtue of said application, the Prudential Bank opened Letter of Credit No. DPP-63762 for $128,548.78 (Exhibit A, Ibid., p. 1). Against this letter of credit, drafts, were drawn and issued by Nissho (Exhibits X, X-1 to X-11, Ibid., pp. 65, 66 to 76), which were all paid by the Prudential Bank through its correspondent in Japan, the Bank of Tokyo, Ltd. As indicated on their faces, two of these drafts (Exhibits X and X-1, Ibid., pp. 65-66) were accepted by the defendant-appellant through its president, Anacleto R. Chi, while the others were not (Exhibits X-2 to X-11, Ibid., pp. 66 to 76).Upon the arrival of the machineries, the Prudential Bank indorsed the shipping documents to the defendant-appellant which accepted delivery of the same. To enable the defendant-appellant to take delivery of the machineries, it executed, by prior arrangement with the Prudential Bank, a trust receipt which was signed by Anacleto R. Chi in his capacity as President (sic) of defendant-appellant company (Exhibit C, Ibid., p. 13).At the back of the trust receipt is a printed form to be accomplished by two sureties who, by the very terms and conditions thereof, were to be jointly and severally liable to the Prudential Bank should the defendant-appellant fail to pay the total amount or any portion of the drafts issued by Nissho and paid for by Prudential Bank. The defendant-appellant was able to take delivery of the textile machineries and installed the same at its factory site at 69 Obudan Street, Quezon City.Sometime in 1967, the defendant-appellant ceased business operation (sic). On December 29, 1969, defendant-appellant's factory was leased by Yupangco Cotton Mills for an annual rental of P300,000.00 (Exhibit I, Ibid., p. 22). The lease was renewed on January 3, 1973 (Exhibit J, Ibid., p. 26). On January 5, 1974, all the textile machineries in the defendant-appellant's factory were sold to AIC Development Corporation for P300,000.00 (Exhibit K, Ibid., p. 29)The obligation of the defendant-appellant arising from the letter of credit and the trust receipt remained unpaid and unliquidated. Repeated formal demands (Exhibits U, V, and W, Ibid., pp. 62, 63, 64) for the payment of the said trust receipt yielded no result. Hence, the present action for the collection of the principal amount of P956,384.95 was filed on October 3, 1974 against the defendant-appellant and Anacleto R. Chi. In their respective answers, the defendants interposed identical special defenses, viz., the complaint states no cause of action; if there is, the same has prescribed; and the plaintiff is guilty of laches." 2

On 15 June 1978, the trial court rendered its decision the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing the defendant Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc. to pay plaintiff the sum of P153,645.22, the amounts due under Exhibits "X" & "X-1", with interest at 6% per annum beginning September 15, 1974 until fully paid. LLphilInsofar as the amounts involved in drafts Exhs. "X" (sic) to "X-11", inclusive, the same not having been accepted by defendant Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc., plaintiff's cause of action thereon has not accrued, hence, the instant case is premature.Insofar as defendant Anacleto R. Chi is concerned, the case is dismissed. Plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant Anacleto R. Chi the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees.With costs against defendant Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc.SO ORDERED." 3

Petitioner appealed the decision to the then Intermediate Appellate Court. In urging the said court to reverse or modify the decision, petitioner alleged in its Brief that the trial court erred in (a) disregarding its right to reimbursement from the private respondents for the entire unpaid balance of the imported machines, the total amount of which was paid to the Nissho Company Ltd., thereby violating the principle of the third party payor's right to reimbursement provided for in the second paragraph of Article 1236 of the Civil Code and under the rule against unjust enrichment; (b) refusing to hold Anacleto R. Chi, as the responsible officer of defendant corporation, liable under Section 13 of P.D. No 115 for the entire unpaid balance of the imported machines covered by the bank's trust receipt (Exhibit "C"); (c) finding that the solidary guaranty clause signed by Anacleto R. Chi is not a guaranty at all; (d) controverting the judicial admissions of Anacleto R. Chi that he is at least a simple guarantor of the said trust receipt obligation; (e) contravening, based on the assumption that Chi is a simple guarantor, Articles 2059, 2060 and 2062 of the Civil Code and the related evidence and jurisprudence which provide that such liability had already attached; (f) contravening the judicial admissions of Philippine Rayon with respect to its liability to pay the petitioner the amounts involved in the drafts (Exhibits "X", "X-1" to "X-11"); and (g) interpreting "sight" drafts as requiring acceptance by Philippine Rayon before the latter could be held liable thereon. 4In its decision, public respondent sustained the trial court in all respects. As to the first and last assigned errors, it rules that the provision on unjust enrichment, Article 2142 of the Civil Code, applies only if there is no express contract between the parties and there is a clear showing that the payment is justified. In the instant case, the relationship existing between the petitioner and Philippine Rayon is governed by specific contracts, namely the application for letters of credit, the promissory note, the drafts and the trust receipt. With respect to the last ten (10) drafts (Exhibits "X-2" to "X-11") which had not been presented to and were not accepted by Philippine Rayon, petitioner was not justified in unilaterally paying the amounts stated therein. The public respondent did not agree with the petitioner's claim that the drafts were sight drafts which did not require presentment for acceptance to Philippine Rayon because paragraph 8 of the trust receipt presupposes prior acceptance of the drafts. Since the ten (10) drafts were not presented and accepted, no valid demand for payment can be made. LLphil

Public respondent also disagreed with the petitioner's contention that private respondent Chi is solidarily liable with Philippine Rayon pursuant to Section 13 of P.D. No. 115 and based on his signature on the solidary guaranty clause at the dorsal side of the trust receipt. As to the first contention, the public respondent ruled that the civil liability provided for in said Section 13 attaches only after conviction. As to the second, it expressed misgivings as to whether Chi's signature on the trust receipt made the latter automatically liable thereon because the so-called solidary guaranty clause at the dorsal portion of the trust receipt is to be signed not by one (1) person alone, but by two (2) persons; the last sentence of the same is incomplete and unsigned by witnesses; and it is not acknowledged before a notary public. Besides, even granting that it was executed and acknowledged before a notary public, Chi cannot be held liable therefor because the records fail to show that petitioner had either exhausted the properties of Philippine Rayon or had resorted to all legal remedies as required in Article 2058 of the Civil Code. As provided for under Articles 2052 and 2054 of the Civil Code, the obligation of a guarantor is merely accessory and subsidiary, respectively. Chi's liability would therefore arise only when the principal debtor fails to comply with his obligation. 5Its motion to reconsider the decision having been denied by the public respondent in its Resolution of 11 June 1986, 6 petitioner filed the instant petition on 31 July 1986 submitting the following legal issues:

"I.WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR FULL REIMBURSEMENT AGAINST THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FOR THE PAYMENT PETITIONER MADE TO NISSHO CO. LTD. FOR THE BENEFIT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT UNDER ART. 1283 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND UNDER THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE AGAINST UNJUST ENRICHMENT;II.WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CHI IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE UNDER THE TRUST RECEIPT (EXH. C);III.WHETHER OR NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT CHI HE IS LIABLE THEREON AND TO WHAT EXTENT;IV.WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CHI IS MERELY A SIMPLE GUARANTOR; AND IF SO, HAS HIS LIABILITY AS SUCH ALREADY ATTACHED;V.WHETHER OR NOT AS THE SIGNATORY AND RESPONSIBLE OFFICER OF RESPONDENT PHIL. RAYON RESPONDENT CHI IS PERSONALLY LIABLE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13, P.D. 115;VI.WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT PHIL. RAYON IS LIABLE TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE TRUST RECEIPT (EXH. C);VII.WHETHER OR NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS RESPONDENT PHIL. RAYON IS LIABLE TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE DRAFTS (EXHS. X, X-1 TO X-11) AND TO WHAT EXTENT;VIII.WHETHER OR NOT SIGHT DRAFTS REQUIRE PRIOR ACCEPTANCE FROM RESPONDENT PHIL. RAYON BEFORE THE LATTER BECOMES LIABLE TO PETITIONER." 7

In the Resolution of 12 March 1990, 8 this Court gave due course to the petition after the filing of the Comment thereto by private respondent Anacleto Chi and of the Reply to the latter by the petitioner; both parties were also required to submit their respective memoranda which they subsequently complied with.

As We see it, the issues may be reduced as follows: 1.Whether presentment for acceptance of the drafts was indispensable to make Philippine Rayon liable thereon;2.Whether Philippine Rayon is liable on the basis of the trust receipt;3.Whether private respondent Chi is jointly and severally liable with Philippine Rayon for the obligation sought to be enforced and if not, whether he may be considered a guarantor; in the latter situation, whether the case should have been dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of action as there was no prior exhaustion of Philippine Rayon's properties. cdrep

Both the trial court and the public respondent ruled that Philippine Rayon could be held liable for the two (2) drafts, Exhibits "X" and "X-1", because only these appear to have been accepted by the latter after due presentment. The liability for the remaining ten (10) drafts (Exhibits "X-2" to "X-11" inclusive) did not arise because the same were not presented for acceptance. In short, both courts concluded that acceptance of the drafts by Philippine Rayon was indispensable to make the latter liable thereon. We are unable to agree with this proposition. The transaction in the case at bar stemmed from Philippine Rayon's application for a commercial letter of credit with the petitioner in the amount of $128,548.78 to cover the former's contract to purchase and import loom and textile machinery from Nissho Company, Ltd. of Japan under a five-year deferred payment plan. Petitioner approved the application. As correctly ruled by the trial court in its Order of 6 March 1975: 9

". . . By virtue of said Application and Agreement for Commercial Letter of Credit, plaintiff bank 10 was under obligation to pay through its correspondent bank in Japan the drafts that Nisso (sic) Company, Ltd., periodically drew against said letter of credit from 1963 to 1968, pursuant to plaintiff's contract with the defendant Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc. In turn, defendant Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc., was obligated to pay plaintiff bank the amounts of the drafts drawn by Nisso (sic) Company, Ltd. against said plaintiff bank together with any accruing commercial charges, interest, etc. pursuant to the terms and conditions stipulated in the Application and Agreement of Commercial Letter of Credit Annex "A"."

A letter of credit is defined as an engagement by a bank or other person made at the request of a customer that the issuer will honor drafts or other demands for payment upon compliance with the conditions specified in the credit. 11 Through a letter of credit, the bank merely substitutes its own promise to pay for the promise to pay of one of its customers who in return promises to pay the bank the amount of funds mentioned in the letter of credit plus credit or commitment fees mutually agreed upon. 12 In the instant case then, the drawee was necessarily the herein petitioner. It was to the latter that the

drafts were presented for payment. In fact, there was no need for acceptance as the issued drafts are sight drafts. Presentment for acceptance is necessary only in the cases expressly provided for in Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). 13 The said section reads:

"SECTION 143.When presentment for acceptance must be made. — Presentment for acceptance must be made:

(a)Where the bill is payable after sight, or in any other case, where presentment for acceptance is necessary in order to fix the maturity of the instrument; or

(b)Where the bill expressly stipulates that it shall be presented for acceptance; or

(c)Where the bill is drawn payable elsewhere than at the residence or place of business of the drawee.

In no other case is presentment for acceptance necessary in order to render any party to the bill liable."

Obviously then, sight drafts do not require presentment for acceptance.The acceptance of a bill is the signification by the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer; 14 this may be done in writing by the drawee in the bill itself, or in a separate instrument. 15

The parties herein agree, and the trial court explicitly ruled, that the subject drafts are sight drafts. Said the latter: LLpr

". . . In the instant case the drafts being at sight, they are supposed to be payable upon acceptance unless plaintiff bank has given the Philippine Rayon Mills Inc. time within which to pay the same. The first two drafts (Annexes C & D, Exh. X & X-1) were duly accepted as indicated on their face (sic), and upon such acceptance should have been paid forthwith. These two drafts were not paid and although Philippine Rayon Mills ought to have paid the same, the fact remains that until now they are still unpaid." 16

Corollarily, they are, pursuant to Section 7 of the NIL, payable on demand. Section 7 provides:

"SECTION 7.When payable on demand. — An instrument is payable on demand —

(a)When so it is expressed to be payable on demand, or at sight, or on presentation; or

(b)In which no time for payment is expressed.Where an instrument is issued, accepted, or indorsed when overdue, it is, as regards the person so issuing, accepting, or indorsing it, payable on demand." (Emphasis supplied)

Paragraph 8 of the Trust Receipt which reads: "My/our liability for payment at

maturity of any accepted draft, bill of exchange or indebtedness shall not be extinguished or modified" 17 does not, contrary to the holding of the public respondent, contemplate prior acceptance by Philippine Rayon, but by the petitioner. Acceptance, however, was not even necessary in the first place because the drafts which were eventually issued were sight drafts. And even if these were not sight drafts, thereby necessitating acceptance, it would be the petitioner — and not Philippine Rayon — which had to accept the same for the latter was not the drawee. Presentment for acceptance is defined as the production of a bill of exchange to a drawee for acceptance. 18 The trial court and the public respondent, therefore, erred in ruling that presentment for acceptance was an indispensable requisite for Philippine Rayon's liability on the drafts to attach. Contrary to both courts' pronouncements, Philippine Rayon immediately became liable thereon upon petitioner's payment thereof. Such is the essence of the letter of credit issued by the petitioner. A different conclusion would violate the principle upon which commercial letter of credit are founded because in such a case, both the beneficiary and the issuer. Nissho Company Ltd. and the petitioner, respectively, would be placed at the mercy of Philippine Rayon even if the latter had already received the imported machinery and the petitioner had fully paid for it. The typical setting and purpose of a letter of credit are described in Hibernia Bank and Trust Co. vs. J. Aron & Co., Inc., 19 thus:

"Commercial letters of credit have come into general use in international sales transactions where much time necessarily elapses between the sale and the receipt by a purchaser of the merchandise, during which interval great price changes may occur. Buyers and sellers struggle for the advantage of position. The seller is desirous of being paid as surely and as soon as possible, realizing that the vendee at a distant point has it in his power to reject on trivial grounds merchandise on arrival, and cause considerable hardship to the shipper. Letters of credit meet this condition by affording celerity and certainty of payment. Their purpose is to insure to a seller payment of a definite amount upon presentation of documents. The bank deals only with documents. It has nothing to do with the quality of the merchandise. Disputes as to the merchandise shipped may arise and be litigated later between vendor and vendee, but they may not impede acceptance of drafts and payment by the issuing bank when the proper documents are presented."

The trial court and the public respondent likewise erred in disregarding the trust receipt and in not holding that Philippine Rayon was liable thereon. In People vs. Yu Chi Ho, 20 this Court explains the nature of a trust receipt by quoting In re Dunlap Carpet Co., 21 thus:

"By this arrangement a banker advances money to an intending importer, and thereby lends the aid of capital, of credit, or of business facilities and agencies abroad, to the enterprise of foreign commerce. Much of this trade could hardly be carried on by any other means, and therefore it is of the first importance that the fundamental factor in the transaction, the banker's advance of money and credit, should receive the amplest protection. Accordingly, in order to secure that the banker shall be repaid at the critical point — that is, when the imported goods finally reach the hands of the intended vendee — the banker takes the

full title to the goods at the very beginning; he takes it as soon as the goods are bought and settled for by his payments or acceptances in the foreign country, and he continues to hold that title as his indispensable security until the goods are sold in the United States and the vendee is called upon to pay for them. This security is not an ordinary pledge by the importer to the banker, for the importer has never owned the goods, and moreover he is not able to deliver the possession; but the security is the complete title vested originally in the bankers, and this characteristic of the transaction has again and again been recognized and protected by the Courts. Of course, the title is at bottom a security title, as it has sometimes been called, and the banker is always under the obligation to reconvey; but only after his advances have been fully repaid and after the importer has fulfilled the other terms of the contract."

As further stated in National Bank vs. Viuda e Hijos de Angel Jose, 22 trust receipts:". . . [I]n a certain manner. . . partake of the nature of a conditional sale as provided by the Chattel Mortgage Law, that is, the importer becomes absolute owner of the imported merchandise as soon as he has paid its price. The ownership of the merchandise continues to be vested in the owner thereof or in the person who has advanced payment, until he has been paid in full, or if the merchandise has already been sold, the proceeds of the sale should be turned over to him by the importer or by his representative or successor in interest." 

Under P.D. No. 115, otherwise known as the Trust Receipts Law, which took effect on 29 January 1973, a trust receipt transaction is defined as "any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as the entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter's execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called the trust receipt wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes substantially equivalent to any one of the following: . . . ."It is alleged in the complaint that private respondents "not only have presumably put said machinery to good use and have profited by its operation and/or disposition but very recent information that (sic) reached plaintiff bank that defendants already sold the machinery covered by the trust receipt to Yupangco Cotton Mills," and that "as trustees of the property covered by the trust receipt, . . . and therefore acting in fiduciary (sic) capacity, defendants have willfully violated their duty to account for the whereabouts of the machinery covered by the trust receipt or for the proceeds of any lease; sale or other disposition of the same that they may have made, notwithstanding demands therefor; defendants have fraudulently misapplied or converted to their own use any money realized from the lease, sale, and other disposition of said machinery." 23 While there is

no specific prayer for the delivery to the petitioner by Philippine Rayon of the proceeds of the sale of the machinery covered by the trust receipt, such relief is covered by the general prayer for "such further and other relief as may be just and equitable on the premises." 24 And although it is true that the petitioner commenced a criminal action for the violation of the Trust Receipts Law, no legal obstacle prevented it from enforcing the civil liability arising out of the trust receipt in a separate civil action. Under Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law, the failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. 25 Under Article 33 of the Civil Code, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party in cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries. Estafa falls under fraud. cdllWe also conclude, for the reason hereinafter discussed, and not for that adduced by the public respondent, that private respondent Chi's signature in the dorsal portion of the trust receipt did not bind him solidarily with Philippine Rayon. The statement at the dorsal portion of the said trust receipt, which petitioner describes as a "solidary guaranty clause", reads:

"In consideration of the PRUDENTIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY complying with the foregoing, we jointly and severally agree and undertake to pay on demand to the PRUDENTIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY all sums of money which the said PRUDENTIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY may call upon us to pay arising out of or pertaining to, and/or in any event connected with the default of and/or non-fulfillment in any respect of the undertaking of the aforesaid:

PHILIPPINE RAYON MILLS, INC.We further agree that the PRUDENTIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY does not have to take any steps or exhaust its remedy against aforesaid:before making demand on me/us.(Sgd.) Anacleto R. ChiANACLETO R. CHI" 26

Petitioner insists that by virtue of the clear wording of the statement, specifically the clause ". . . we jointly and severally agree and undertake . . .," and the concluding sentence on exhaustion, Chi's liability therein is solidary.In holding otherwise, the public respondent ratiocinates as follows:

"With respect to the second argument, we have our misgivings as to whether the mere signature of defendant-appellee Chi of (sic) the guaranty agreement, Exhibit "C-1", will make it an actionable document. It should be noted that Exhibit "C-1" was prepared and printed by the plaintiff-appellant. A perusal of Exhibit "C-1" shows that it was to be signed and executed by two persons. It was signed only by defendant-appellee Chi. Exhibit "C-1" was to be witnessed by two persons, but no one signed in that capacity. The last sentence of the

guaranty clause is incomplete. Furthermore, the plaintiff-appellant also failed to have the purported guarantee clause acknowledged before a notary public. All these show that the alleged guaranty provision was disregarded and, therefore, not consummated.But granting arguendo that the guaranty provision in Exhibit "C-1" was fully executed and acknowledged still defendant-appellee Chi cannot be held liable thereunder because the records show that the plaintiff-appellant had neither exhausted the property of the defendant-appellant nor had it resorted to all legal remedies against the said defendant-appellant as provided in Article 2058 of the Civil Code. The obligation of a guarantor is merely accessory under Article 2052 of the Civil Code and subsidiary under Article 2054 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the liability of the defendant-appellee arises only when the principal debtor fails to comply with his obligation." 27

Our own reading of the questioned solidary guaranty clause yields no other conclusion than that the obligation of Chi is only that of a guarantor. This is further bolstered by the last sentence which speaks of waiver of exhaustion, which, nevertheless, is ineffective in this case because the space therein for the party whose property may not be exhausted was not filled up. Under Article 2058 of the Civil Code, the defense of exhaustion (excussion) may be raised by a guarantor before he may be held liable for the obligation. Petitioner likewise admits that the questioned provision is a solidary guaranty clause, thereby clearly distinguishing it from a contract of surety. It, however, described the guaranty as solidary between the guarantors; this would have been correct if two (2) guarantors had signed it. The clause "we jointly and severally agree and undertake" refers to the undertaking of the two (2) parties who are to sign it or to the liability existing between themselves. It does not refer to the undertaking between either one or both of them on the one hand and the petitioner on the other with respect to the liability described under the trust receipt. Elsewise stated, their liability is not divisible as between them, i.e., it can be enforced to its full extent against any one of them.Furthermore, any doubt as to the import or true intent of the solidary guaranty clause should be resolved against the petitioner. The trust receipt, together with the questioned solidary guaranty clause, is on a form drafted and prepared solely by the petitioner; Chi's participation therein is limited to the affixing of his signature thereon. It is, therefore, a contract of adhesion; 28 as such, it must be strictly construed against the party responsible for its preparation. 29

Neither can We agree with the reasoning of the public respondent that this solidary guaranty clause was effectively disregarded simply because it was not signed and witnessed by two (2) persons and acknowledged before a notary public. While indeed, the clause ought to have been signed by two (2) guarantors, the fact that it was only Chi who signed the same did not make his act an idle ceremony or render the clause totally meaningless. By his signing, Chi became the sole guarantor. The attestation by witnesses and the acknowledgment before a notary public are not required by law to make a party liable on the instrument. The rule is that contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present; however, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that it be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. 30 With respect to a guaranty, 31 which is a promise to answer for the debt or default of another, the law merely requires that it,

or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing. Otherwise, it would be unenforceable unless ratified. 32 While the acknowledgment of a surety before a notary public is required to make the same a public document, under Article 1358 of the Civil Code, a contract of guaranty does not have to appear in a public document.And now to the other ground relied upon by the petitioner as basis for the solidary liability of Chi, namely the criminal proceedings against the latter for the violation of P.C. No. 115. Petitioner claims that because of the said criminal proceedings, Chi would be answerable for the civil liability arising therefrom pursuant to Section 13 of P.D. No. 115. Public respondent rejected this claim because such civil liability presupposes prior conviction as can be gleaned from the phrase "without prejudice to the civil liability arising from the criminal offense." Both are wrong. The said section reads: 

"SECTION 13.Penalty Clause. — The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three hundred and fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act Numbered Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense."

A close examination of the quoted provision reveals that it is the last sentence which provides for the correct solution. It is clear that if the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense. The penalty referred to is imprisonment, the duration of which would depend on the amount of the fraud as provided for in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The reason for this is obvious: corporations, partnerships, associations and other juridical entities cannot be put in jail. However, it is these entities which are made liable for the civil liability arising from the criminal offense. This is the import of the clause "without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense." And, as We stated earlier, since that violation of a trust receipt constitutes fraud under Article 33 of the Civil Code, petitioner was acting well within its rights in filing an independent civil action to enforce the civil liability arising therefrom against Philippine Rayon.The remaining issue to be resolved concerns the propriety of the dismissal of the case against private respondent Chi. The trial court based the dismissal, and the respondent Court its affirmance thereof, on the theory that Chi is not liable on the trust receipt in any capacity — either as surety or as guarantor — because his signature at the dorsal portion thereof was useless; and even if he could be bound by such signature as a simple guarantor, he cannot, pursuant to Article 2058 of the Civil Code, be compelled to pay

until after petitioner has exhausted and resorted to all legal remedies against the principal debtor, Philippine Rayon. The records fail to show that petitioner had done so. 33 Reliance is thus placed on Article 2058 of the Civil Code which provides:

"ARTICLE 2058.The guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor, and has resorted to all the legal remedies against the debtor."

Simply stated, there is as yet no cause of action against Chi.We are not persuaded. Excussion is not a condition sine qua non for the institution of an action against a guarantor. In Southern Motors, Inc. vs. Barbosa, 34 this Court stated:

"4.Although an ordinary personal guarantor — not a mortgagor or pledgor — may demand the aforementioned exhaustion, the creditor may, prior thereto, secure a judgment against said guarantor, who shall be entitled, however, to a deferment of the execution of said judgment against him until after the properties of the principal debtor shall have been exhausted to satisfy the obligation involved in the case."

There was then nothing procedurally objectionable in impleading private respondent Chi as a co-defendant in Civil Case No. Q-19312 before the trial court. As a matter of fact, Section 6, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on permissive joinder of parties explicitly allows it. It reads:

"SECTION 6.Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any gotten of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest."

This is the equity rule relating to multifariousness. It is based on trial convenience and is designed to permit the joinder of plaintiffs or defendants whenever there is a common question of law or fact. It will save the parties unnecessary work, trouble and expense. 35

However, Chi's liability is limited to the principal obligation in the trust receipt plus all the accessories thereof including judicial costs; with respect to the latter, he shall only be liable for those costs incurred after being judicially required to pay. 36 Interest and damages, being accessories of the principal obligation, should also be paid; these, however, shall run only from the date of the filing of the complaint. Attorney's fees may even be allowed in appropriate cases. 37

In the instant case, the attorney's fees to be paid by Chi cannot be the same as that to be paid by Philippine Rayon since it is only the trust receipt that is covered by the guaranty and not the full extent of the latter's liability. All things considered, he can be held liable for the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees in favor of the petitioner.

Thus, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint as against private respondent Chi and condemning petitioner to pay him P20,000 00 as attorney's fees.In the light of the foregoing, it would no longer be necessary to discuss the other issues raised by the petitioner.WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The appealed Decision of 10 March 1986 of the public respondent in AC-G.R. CV No. 66733 and, necessarily, that of Branch 9 (Quezon City) of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. Q-19312 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another is hereby entered:

1.Declaring private respondent Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc. liable on the twelve drafts in question (Exhibits "X", "X-1" to "X-11", inclusive) and on the trust receipt (Exhibit "C'), and ordering it to pay petitioner: (a) the amounts due thereon in the total sum of P956,384.95 as of 15 September 1974, with interest thereon at six percent (6%) per annum from 16 September 1974 until it is fully paid, less whatever may have been applied thereto by virtue of foreclosure of mortgages, if any; (b) a sum equal to ten percent (10%) of the aforesaid amount as attorney's fees; and (c) the costs.2.Declaring private respondent Anacleto R. Chi secondarily liable on the trust receipt and ordering him to pay the face value thereof, with interest at the legal rate, commencing from the date of the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No Q-19312 until the same is fully paid as well as the costs and attorney's fees in the sum of P10,000.00 if the writ of execution for the enforcement of the above awards against Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc. is returned unsatisfied.

Costs against private respondents.SO ORDERED.Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 105395. December 10, 1993.]BANK OF AMERICA, NT & SA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, INTER-RESIN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, FRANCISCO TRAJANO, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE, respondents.

Agcaoili & Associates for petitioner.Valenzuela Law Center, Victor Fernandez and Ramon M. Guevara for private

respondents.SYLLABUS

1.COMMERCIAL LAW; CODE OF COMMERCE; LETTERS OF CREDITS; DEFINED AND CONSTRUED. — A letter of credit is a financial device developed by merchants as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of the goods before paying. To break the impasse, the buyer may be required to contract a bank to issue a letter of credit in favor of the seller so that, by virtue of the letter of credit, the issuing bank can authorize the seller to draw drafts and engage to pay them upon their presentment simultaneously with the tender of documents required by the letter of credit. The buyer and the seller agree on what documents are to be presented for payment, but ordinarily they are documents of title evidencing or attesting to the shipment of the goods to the buyer. Once the credit is established, the seller ships the goods to the buyer and in the process secures the required shipping documents or documents of title. To get paid, the seller executes a draft and presents it together with the required documents to the issuing bank. The issuing bank redeems the draft and pays cash to the seller if it finds that the documents submitted by the seller conform with what the letter of credit requires. The bank then obtains possession of the documents upon paying the seller. The transaction is completed when the buyer reimburses the issuing bank and acquires the documents entitling him to the goods. Under this arrangement, the seller gets paid only if he delivers the documents of title over the goods, while the buyer acquires the said documents and control over the goods only after reimbursing the bank.2.ID.; ID.; ID.; DISTINGUISHED. — What characterizes letters of credit, as distinguished from other accessory contracts, is the engagement of the issuing bank to pay the seller once the draft and the required shipping documents are presented to it. In turn, this arrangement assures the seller of prompt payment, independent of any breach of the main sales contract. By this so-called "independence principle," the bank determines compliance with the letter of credit only by examining the shipping documents presented; it is precluded from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not.3.ID.; ID.; ID.; PARTIES THERETO. — There would at least be three (3) parties: (a) the buyer, who procures the letter of credit and obliges himself to reimburse the issuing bank upon receipt of the documents of title; (b) the bank issuing the letter of credit, which undertakes to pay the seller upon receipt of the draft and proper documents of titles and to surrender the documents to the buyer upon reimbursement; and, (c) the seller, who in compliance with the contract of sale ships the goods to the buyer and delivers the documents of title and draft to the issuing bank to recover payment. The number of the parties, not infrequently and almost invariably in international trade practice, may be increased. Thus, the services of an advising (notifying) bank may be utilized to convey to the seller the existence of the credit; or, of a confirming bank which will lend credence to the letter of credit issued by a lesser known issuing bank; or, of a paying bank which undertakes to encash the drafts drawn by the exporter. Further, instead of going to the place of the issuing bank to claim payment, the buyer may approach another bank, termed the negotiating bank, to have the draft discounted.4.ID.; ID.; ID.; UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS (U.C.P.);

APPLICATION TO PHILIPPINE CODE OF COMMERCE. — Being a product of international commerce, the impact of this commercial instrument transcends national boundaries, and it is thus not uncommon to find a dearth of national law that can adequately provide for its governance. This country is no exception. Our own Code of Commerce basically introduces only its concept under Articles 567-572, inclusive, thereof. It is no wonder then why great reliance has been placed on commercial usage and practice, which, in any case, can be justified by the universal acceptance of the autonomy of contracts rule. The rules were later developed into what is now known as the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits ("U.C.P.") issued by the International Chamber of Commerce. It is by no means a complete text by itself, for, to be sure, there are other principles, which, although part of lex mercatoria, are not dealt with in the U.C.P. In FEATI Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 94209, prom. 30 April 1991; 196 SCRA 576) the Supreme Court have accepted, to the extent of their pertinency, the application in our jurisdiction of this international commercial credit regulatory set of rules. In Bank of Phil. Islands v. De Nery, (G.R. No. L-24821, 16 October 1970; 35 SCRA 256) the Court has said that the observance of the U.C.P. is justified by Article 2 of the Code of Commerce which expresses that, in the absence of any particular provision in the Code of Commerce, commercial transactions shall be governed by usages and customs generally observed. The Court have further observed that there being no specific provisions which govern the legal complexities arising from transactions involving letters of credit not only between or among banks themselves but also between banks and the seller or the buyer, as the case may be, the applicability of the U.C.P. is undeniable.5.ID.; ID.; ID.; ADVISING OR NOTIFYING BANK; CONSTRUED; CASE AT BAR. — The crucial point of dispute in this case is whether under the "letter of credit," Bank of America has incurred any liability to the "beneficiary" thereof, an issue that largely is dependent on the bank's participation in that transaction; as a mere advising or notifying bank, it would not be liable, but as a confirming bank, had this been the case, it could be considered as having incurred that liability. Bank of America has, only been an advising, not confirming, bank, and this much is clearly evident, among other things, by the provisions of the letter of credit itself, the petitioner bank's letter of advice, its request for payment of advising fee, and the admission of Inter-Resin that it has paid the same. That Bank of America has asked Inter-Resin to submit documents required by the letter of credit and eventually has paid the proceeds thereof, did not obviously make it a confirming bank. The fact, too, that the draft required by the letter of credit is to be drawn under the account of General Chemicals (buyer) only means that the same had to be presented to Bank of Ayudhya (issuing bank) for payment. It may be significant to recall that the letter of credit is an engagement of the issuing bank, not the advising bank, to pay the draft. No less important is that Bank of America's letter of 11 March 1981 has expressly stated that "[t]he enclosure is solely an advise of credit opened by the abovementioned correspondent and conveys no engagement by us." This written reservation by Bank of America in limiting its obligation only to being an advising bank is in consonance with the provisions of U.C.P. As an advising or notifying bank, Bank of America did not incur any obligation more than just notifying Inter-Resin of the letter of credit issued in its favor, let alone to confirm the letter of credit. Bringing the letter of credit to the attention of the seller is the primordial obligation of an advising bank. The view that Bank of America should have first checked the authenticity of the letter of credit with Bank of Ayudhya, by using advanced mode of business communications, before dispatching the same to Inter-Resin finds no real support in U.C.P. Article 18 of the U.C.P. states that: "Banks assume no liability or responsibility for the consequences arising out of the delay and/or loss in

transit of any messages, letters or documents, or for delay, mutilation or other errors arising in the transmission of any telecommunication . . ." As advising bank, Bank of America is bound only to check the "apparent authenticity" of the letter of credit, which it did.6.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF RECOURSE, WHEN AVAILABLE. — May Bank of America then recover what it has paid under the letter of credit when the corresponding draft for partial availment thereunder and the required documents therefor were later negotiated with it by Inter-Resin? The answer is yes. This kind of transaction is what is commonly referred to as a discounting arrangement. This time, Bank of America, has acted independently as a negotiating bank, thus saving Inter-Resin from the hardship of presenting the documents directly to Bank of Ayudhya to recover payment. (Inter-Resin, of course, could have chosen other banks with which to negotiate the draft and the documents.) As a negotiating bank, Bank of America has a right of recourse against the issuer bank and until reimbursement is obtained, Inter-Resin, as the drawer of the draft, continues to assume a contingent liability thereon.7.ID.; ID.; ID.; NATURE OF OPERATION. — In the operation of a letter of credit, the involved banks deal only with documents and not on goods described in those documents.

D E C I S I O N

VITUG, J p:

A "fiasco," involving an irrevocable letter of credit, has found the distressed parties coming to court as adversaries in seeking a definition of their respective rights or liabilities thereunder.On 05 March 1981, petitioner Bank of America, NT & SA, Manila, received by registered mail an Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 20272/81 purportedly issued by Bank of Ayudhya, Samyaek Branch, for the account of General Chemicals, Ltd., of Thailand in the amount of US$2,782,000.00 to cover the sale of plastic ropes and "agricultural files," with the petitioner as advising bank and private respondent Inter-Resin Industrial Corporation as beneficiary. prcd On 11 March 1981, Bank of America wrote Inter-Resin informing the latter of the foregoing and transmitting, along with the bank's communication, the letter of credit. Upon receipt of the letter-advice with the letter of credit, Inter-Resin sent Atty. Emiliano Tanay to Bank of America to have the letter of credit confirmed. The bank did not. Reynaldo Dueñas, bank employee in charge of letters of credit, however, explained to Atty. Tanay that there was no need for confirmation because the letter of credit would not have been transmitted if it were not genuine.Between 26 March to 10 April 1981, Inter-Resin sought to make a partial availment under the letter of credit by submitting to Bank of America invoices, covering the shipment of 24,000 bales of polyethylene rope to General Chemicals valued at US$1,320,600.00, the corresponding packing list, export declaration and bill of lading. Finally, after being satisfied that Inter-Resin's documents conformed with the conditions

expressed in the letter of credit, Bank of America issued in favor of Inter-Resin a Cashier's Check for P10,219,093.20, "the Peso equivalent of the draft (for) US$1,320,600.00 drawn by Inter-Resin, after deducting the costs for documentary stamps, postage and mail insurance." 1 The check was picked up by Inter-Resin's Executive Vice-President Barcelina Tio. On 10 April 1981, Bank of America wrote Bank of Ayudhya advising the latter of the availment under the letter of credit and sought the corresponding reimbursement therefor.Meanwhile, Inter-Resin, through Ms. Tio, presented to Bank of America the documents for the second availment under the same letter of credit consisting of a packing list, bill of lading, invoices, export declaration and bills in set, evidencing the second shipment of goods. Immediately upon receipt of a telex from Bank of Ayudhya declaring the letter of credit fraudulent, 2 Bank of America stopped the processing of Inter-Resin's documents and sent a telex to its branch office in Bangkok, Thailand, requesting assistance in determining the authenticity of the letter of credit. 3 Bank of America kept Inter-Resin informed of the developments. Sensing a fraud, Bank of America sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). With the help of the staff of the Philippine Embassy at Bangkok, as well as the police and customs personnel of Thailand, the NBI agents, who were sent to Thailand, discovered that the vans exported by Inter-Resin did not contain ropes but plastic strips, wrappers, rags and waste materials. Here at home, the NBI also investigated Inter-Resin's President Francisco Trajano and Executive Vice President Barcelina Tio, who, thereafter, were criminally charged for estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The case, however, was eventually dismissed by the Rizal Provincial Fiscal who found no prima facie evidence to warrant prosecution. LLprBank of America sued Inter-Resin for the recovery of P10,219,093.20 the peso equivalent of the draft for US$320,600.00 on the partial availment of the now disowned letter of credit. On the other hand, Inter-Resin claimed that not only was it entitled to retain P10,219,093.20 on its first shipment but also to the balance US$1,461,400.00 covering the second shipment.On 28 June 1989, the trial court ruled for Inter-Resin, 4 holding that: (a) Bank of America made assurances that enticed Inter-Resin to send the merchandise to Thailand; (b) the telex declaring the letter of credit fraudulent was unverified and self-serving, hence hearsay, but even assuming that the letter of credit was fake, "the fault should be borne by the BA which was careless and negligent" 5 for failing to utilize its modern means of communication to verify with Bank of Ayudhya in Thailand the authenticity of the letter of credit before sending the same to Inter-Resin; (c) the loading of plastic products into the vans were under strict supervision, inspection and verification of government officers who have in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions; and (d) Bank of America failed to prove the participation of Inter-Resin or its employees in the alleged fraud as, in fact, the complaint for estafa through falsification of documents was dismissed by the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. 6On appeal, the Court of Appeals 7 sustained the trial court; hence, this present recourse by petitioner Bank of America.The following issues are raised by Bank of America: (a) whether it has warranted the genuineness and authenticity of the letter of credit and, corollarily, whether it has acted merely as an advising bank or as a confirming bank; (b) whether Inter-Resin has actually shipped the ropes specified by the letter of credit; and, (c) following the dishonor of the

letter of credit by Bank of Ayudhya, whether Bank of America may recover against Inter-Resin under the draft executed in its partial availment of the letter of credit. 8 llcdIn rebuttal, Inter-Resin holds that: (a) Bank of America cannot, on appeal, belatedly raise the issue of being only an advising bank; (b) the findings of the trial court that the ropes have actually been shipped is binding on the Court; and, (c) Bank of America cannot recover from Inter-Resin because the drawer of the letter of credit is the Bank of Ayudhya and not Inter-Resin.If only to understand how the parties, in the first place, got themselves into the mess, it may be well to start by recalling how, in its modern use, a letter of credit is employed in trade transactions.A letter of credit is a financial device developed by merchants as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of the goods before paying. 9 To break the impasse, the buyer may be required to contract a bank to issue a letter of credit in favor of the seller so that, by virtue of the letter of credit, the issuing bank can authorize the seller to draw drafts and engage to pay them upon their presentment simultaneously with the tender of documents required by the letter of credit. 10 The buyer and the seller agree on what documents are to be presented for payment, but ordinarily they are documents of title evidencing or attesting to the shipment of the goods to the buyer.Once the credit is established, the seller ships the goods to the buyer and in the process secures the required shipping documents or documents of title. To get paid, the seller executes a draft and presents it together with the required documents to the issuing bank. The issuing bank redeems the draft and pays cash to the seller if it finds that the documents submitted by the seller conform with what the letter of credit requires. The bank then obtains possession of the documents upon paying the seller. The transaction is completed when the buyer reimburses the issuing bank and acquires the documents entitling him to the goods. Under this arrangement, the seller gets paid only if he delivers the documents of title over the goods, while the buyer acquires the said documents and control over the goods only after reimbursing the bank. LexLibWhat characterizes letters of credit, as distinguished from other accessory contracts, is the engagement of the issuing bank to pay the seller once the draft and the required shipping documents are presented to it. In turn, this arrangement assures the seller of prompt payment, independent of any breach of the main sales contract. By this so-called "independence principle," the bank determines compliance with the letter of credit only by examining the shipping documents presented; it is precluded from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not. 11

There would at least be three (3) parties: (a) the buyer, 12 who procures the letter of credit and obliges himself to reimburse the issuing bank upon receipt of the documents of title; (b) the bank issuing the letter of credit, 13 which undertakes to pay the seller upon receipt of the draft and proper documents of titles and to surrender the documents to the buyer upon reimbursement; and, (c) the seller, 14 who in compliance with the contract of sale ships the goods to the buyer and delivers the documents of title and draft to the issuing bank to recover payment.The number of the parties, not infrequently and almost invariably in international trade practice, may be increased. Thus, the services of an advising (notifying) bank 15 may be

utilized to convey to the seller the existence of the credit; or, of a confirming bank 16 which will lend credence to the letter of credit issued by a lesser known issuing bank; or, of a paying bank 17 which undertakes to encash the drafts drawn by the exporter. Further, instead of going to the place of the issuing bank to claim payment, the buyer may approach another bank, termed the negotiating bank, 18 to have the draft discounted. llcdBeing a product of international commerce, the impact of this commercial instrument transcends national boundaries, and it is thus not uncommon to find a dearth of national law that can adequately provide for its governance. This country is no exception. Our own Code of Commerce basically introduces only its concept under Articles 567-572, inclusive, thereof. It is no wonder then why great reliance has been placed on commercial usage and practice, which, in any case, can be justified by the universal acceptance of the autonomy of contracts rule. The rules were later developed into what is now known as the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits ("U.C.P.") issued by the International Chamber of Commerce. It is by no means a complete text by itself, for, to be sure, there are other principles, which, although part of lex mercatoria, are not dealt with in the U.C.P. 

In FEATI Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, 19 we have accepted, to the extent of their pertinency, the application in our jurisdiction of this international commercial credit regulatory set of rules. 20 In Bank of Phil. Islands v. De Nery, 21 we have said that the observance of the U.C.P. is justified by Article 2 of the Code of Commerce which expresses that, in the absence of any particular provision in the Code of Commerce, commercial transactions shall be governed by usages and customs generally observed. We have further observed that there being no specific provisions which govern the legal complexities arising from transactions involving letters of credit not only between or among banks themselves but also between banks and the seller or the buyer, as the case may be, the applicability of the U.C.P. is undeniable.

The first issue raised by the petitioner, i.e., that it has in this instance merely been an advising bank, is outrightly rejected by Inter-Resin and is thus sought to be discarded for having been raised only on appeal. We cannot agree. The crucial point of dispute in this case is whether under the "letter of credit," Bank of America has incurred any liability to the "beneficiary" thereof, an issue that largely is dependent on the bank's participation in that transaction; as a mere advising or notifying bank, it would not be liable, but as a confirming bank, had this been the case, it could be considered as having incurred that liability. 22 LexLibIn Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees Association- Natu vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., 23 the Court said: Where the issues already raised also rest on other issues not specifically presented, as long as the latter issues bear relevance and close relation to the former and as long as they arise from matters on record, the court has the authority to include them in its discussion of the controversy and to pass upon them just as well. In brief, in those cases where questions not particularly raised by the parties surface as necessary for the complete adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties, and such questions fall within the issues already framed by the parties, the interests of justice dictate that the court should consider and resolve them. The rule that only issues or theories raised in the initial proceedings may be taken up by a party thereto on appeal should only refer to independent, not concomitant matters, to support or oppose

the cause of action or defense. The evil that is sought to be avoided, i.e., surprise to the adverse party, is in reality not existent on matters that are properly litigated in the lower court and appear on record.It cannot seriously be disputed, looking at this case, that Bank of America has, in fact, only been an advising, not confirming, bank, and this much is clearly evident, among other things, by the provisions of the letter of credit itself, the petitioner bank's letter of advice, its request for payment of advising fee, and the admission of Inter-Resin that it has paid the same. That Bank of America has asked Inter-Resin to submit documents required by the letter of credit and eventually has paid the proceeds thereof, did not obviously make it a confirming bank. The fact, too, that the draft required by the letter of credit is to be drawn under the account of General Chemicals (buyer) only means that the same had to be presented to Bank of Ayudhya (issuing bank) for payment. It may be significant to recall that the letter of credit is an engagement of the issuing bank, not the advising bank, to pay the draft. LLjurNo less important is that Bank of America's letter of 11 March 1981 has expressly stated that "[t]he enclosure is solely an advise of credit opened by the abovementioned correspondent and conveys no engagement by us." 24 This written reservation by Bank of America in limiting its obligation only to being an advising bank is in consonance with the provisions of U.C.P.As an advising or notifying bank, Bank of America did not incur any obligation more than just notifying Inter-Resin of the letter of credit issued in its favor, let alone to confirm the letter of credit. 25 The bare statement of the bank employee, aforementioned, in responding to the inquiry made by Atty. Tanay, Inter-Resin's representative, on the authenticity of the letter of credit certainly did not have the effect of novating the letter of credit and Bank of America's letter of advise, 26 nor can it justify the conclusion that the bank must now assume total liability on the letter of credit. Indeed, Inter-Resin itself cannot claim to have been all that free from fault. As the seller, the issuance of the letter of credit should have obviously been a great concern to it. 27 It would have, in fact, been strange if it did not, prior to the letter of credit, enter into a contract, or negotiated at the very least, with General Chemicals. 28 In the ordinary course of business, the perfection of contract precedes the issuance of a letter of credit.Bringing the letter of credit to the attention of the seller is the primordial obligation of an advising bank. The view that Bank of America should have first checked the authenticity of the letter of credit with Bank of Ayudhya, by using advanced mode of business communications, before dispatching the same to Inter-Resin finds no real support in U.C.P. Article 18 of the U.C.P. states that: "Banks assume no liability or responsibility for the consequences arising out of the delay and/or loss in transit of any messages, letters or documents, or for delay, mutilation or other errors arising in the transmission of any telecommunication . . ." As advising bank, Bank of America is bound only to check the "apparent authenticity" of the letter of credit, which it did. 29 Clarifying its meaning, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 30 explains that the word "APPARENT suggests appearance to unaided senses that is not or may not be borne out by more rigorous examination or greater knowledge." prcdMay Bank of America then recover what it has paid under the letter of credit when the corresponding draft for partial availment thereunder and the required documents therefor were later negotiated with it by Inter-Resin? The answer is yes. This kind of transaction is what is commonly referred to as a discounting arrangement. This time,

Bank of America, has acted independently as a negotiating bank, thus saving Inter-Resin from the hardship of presenting the documents directly to Bank of Ayudhya to recover payment. (Inter-Resin, of course, could have chosen other banks with which to negotiate the draft and the documents.) As a negotiating bank, Bank of America has a right of recourse against the issuer bank and until reimbursement is obtained, Inter-Resin, as the drawer of the draft, continues to assume a contingent liability thereon. 31

While Bank of America has indeed failed to allege material facts in its complaint that might have likewise warranted the application of the Negotiable Instruments Law and possibly then allowed it to even go after the indorsers of the draft, this failure, 32 nonetheless, does not preclude petitioner bank's right (as a negotiating bank) of recovery from Inter-Resin itself. Inter-Resin admits having received P10,219.093.20 from Bank of America on the letter of credit transaction and in having executed the corresponding draft. That payment to Inter-Resin has given, as aforesaid, Bank of America the right of reimbursement from the issuing bank, Bank of Ayudhya which, in turn, could then seek indemnification from the buyer (the General Chemicals of Thailand). Since Bank of Ayudhya disowned the letter of credit, however, Bank of America may now turn to Inter-Resin for restitution.

"Between the seller and the negotiating bank there is the usual relationship existing between a drawer and purchaser of drafts. Unless drafts drawn in pursuance of the credit are indicated to be without recourse therefore, the negotiating bank has the ordinary right of recourse against the seller in the event of dishonor by the issuing bank . . . The fact that the correspondent and the negotiating bank may be one and the same does not affect its rights and obligations in either capacity, although a special agreement is always a possibility . . ." 33 LLpr

The additional ground raised by the petitioner, i.e., that Inter-Resin sent waste instead of its products, is really of no consequence. In the operation of a letter of credit, the involved banks deal only with documents and not on goods described in those documents. 34

The other issues raised in the instant petition, for instance, whether or not Bank of Ayudhya did issue the letter of credit and whether or not the main contract of sale that has given rise to the letter of credit has been breached, are not relevant to this controversy. They are matters, instead, that can only be of concern to the herein parties in an appropriate recourse against those who, unfortunately, are not impleaded in these proceedings.In fine, we hold that —First, given the factual findings of the courts below, we conclude that petitioner Bank of America has acted merely as a notifying bank and did not assume the responsibility of a confirming bank; andSecond, petitioner bank, as a negotiating bank, is entitled to recover on Inter-Resin's partial availment as beneficiary of the letter of credit which has been disowned by the alleged issuer bank.No judgment of civil liability against the other defendants, Francisco Trajano and other unidentified parties, can be made, in this instance, there being no sufficient evidence to

warrant any such finding.WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is SET ASIDE, and respondent Inter-Resin Industrial Corporation is ordered to refund to petitioner Bank of America NT & SA the amount of P10,219,093.20 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid. LibLex No costs.SO ORDERED.Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ ., concur.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 146717. November 22, 2004.]TRANSFIELD PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION, AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND BANKING

GROUP LIMITED and SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J p:

Subject of this case is the letter of credit which has evolved as the ubiquitous and most important device in international trade. A creation of commerce and businessmen, the letter of credit is also unique in the number of parties involved and its supranational character.Petitioner has appealed from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61901 entitled "Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Hon. Oscar Pimentel, et al.," promulgated on 31 January 2001. 2On 26 March 1997, petitioner and respondent Luzon Hydro Corporation (hereinafter, LHC) entered into a Turnkey Contract 3 whereby petitioner, as Turnkey Contractor, undertook to construct, on a turnkey basis, a seventy (70)-Megawatt hydro-electric power station at the Bakun River in the provinces of Benguet and Ilocos Sur (hereinafter, the Project). Petitioner was given the sole responsibility for the design, construction, commissioning, testing and completion of the Project. 4The Turnkey Contract provides that: (1) the target completion date of the Project shall be on 1 June 2000, or such later date as may be agreed upon between petitioner and respondent LHC or otherwise determined in accordance with the Turnkey Contract; and (2) petitioner is entitled to claim extensions of time (EOT) for reasons enumerated in the Turnkey Contract, among which are variations, force majeure, and delays caused by LHC itself. 5 Further, in case of dispute, the parties are bound to settle their differences through mediation, conciliation and such other means enumerated under Clause 20.3 of the Turnkey Contract. 6To secure performance of petitioner's obligation on or before the target completion date, or such time for completion as may be determined by the parties' agreement, petitioner opened in favor of LHC two (2) standby letters of credit both dated 20 March 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securities"), to wit: Standby Letter of Credit No. E001126/8400 with the local branch of respondent Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ Bank) 7 and Standby Letter of Credit No. IBDIDSB-00/4 with respondent Security Bank Corporation (SBC) 8 each in the amount of US$8,988,907.00. 9

In the course of the construction of the project, petitioner sought various EOT to complete the Project. The extensions were requested allegedly due to several factors which prevented the completion of the Project on target date, such as force majeure occasioned by typhoon Zeb, barricades and demonstrations. LHC denied the requests, however. This gave rise to a series of legal actions between the parties which culminated in the instant petition.The first of the actions was a Request for Arbitration which LHC filed before the

Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) on 1 June 1999. 10 This was followed by another Request for Arbitration, this time filed by petitioner before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 11 on 3 November 2000. In both arbitration proceedings, the common issues presented were: [1] whether typhoon Zeb and any of its associated events constituted force majeure to justify the extension of time sought by petitioner; and [2] whether LHC had the right to terminate the Turnkey Contract for failure of petitioner to complete the Project on target date. CcHDSAMeanwhile, foreseeing that LHC would call on the Securities pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Turnkey Contract, 12 petitioner — in two separate letters 13 both dated 10 August 2000 — advised respondent banks of the arbitration proceedings already pending before the CIAC and ICC in connection with its alleged default in the performance of its obligations. Asserting that LHC had no right to call on the Securities until the resolution of disputes before the arbitral tribunals, petitioner warned respondent banks that any transfer, release, or disposition of the Securities in favor of LHC or any person claiming under LHC would constrain it to hold respondent banks liable for liquidated damages.As petitioner had anticipated, on 27 June 2000, LHC sent notice to petitioner that pursuant to Clause 8.2 14 of the Turnkey Contract, it failed to comply with its obligation to complete the Project. Despite the letters of petitioner, however, both banks informed petitioner that they would pay on the Securities if and when LHC calls on them. 15

LHC asserted that additional extension of time would not be warranted; accordingly it declared petitioner in default/delay in the performance of its obligations under the Turnkey Contract and demanded from petitioner the payment of US$75,000.00 for each day of delay beginning 28 June 2000 until actual completion of the Project pursuant to Clause 8.7.1 of the Turnkey Contract. At the same time, LHC served notice that it would call on the securities for the payment of liquidated damages for the delay. 16

On 5 November 2000, petitioner as plaintiff filed a Complaint for Injunction, with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, against herein respondents as defendants before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. 17 Petitioner sought to restrain respondent LHC from calling on the Securities and respondent banks from transferring, paying on, or in any manner disposing of the Securities or any renewals or substitutes thereof. The RTC issued a seventy-two (72)-hour temporary restraining order on the same day. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-1312 and raffled to Branch 148 of the RTC of Makati.After appropriate proceedings, the trial court issued an Order on 9 November 2000, extending the temporary restraining order for a period of seventeen (17) days or until 26 November 2000. 18

The RTC, in its Order 19 dated 24 November 2000, denied petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction. It ruled that petitioner had no legal right and suffered no irreparable injury to justify the issuance of the writ. Employing the principle of "independent contract" in letters of credit, the trial court ruled that LHC should be allowed to draw on the Securities for liquidated damages. It debunked petitioner's contention that the principle of "independent contract" could be invoked only by respondent banks since according to it respondent LHC is the ultimate beneficiary of the Securities. The trial court further ruled that the banks were mere custodians of the funds and as such they were obligated to transfer the same to the beneficiary for as long as the latter could submit the required certification of its claims.

Dissatisfied with the trial court's denial of its application for a writ of preliminary injunction, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. 20 Petitioner submitted to the appellate court that LHC's call on the Securities was premature considering that the issue of its default had not yet been resolved with finality by the CIAC and/or the ICC. It asserted that until the fact of delay could be established, LHC had no right to draw on the Securities for liquidated damages.Refuting petitioner's contentions, LHC claimed that petitioner had no right to restrain its call on and use of the Securities as payment for liquidated damages. It averred that the Securities are independent of the main contract between them as shown on the face of the two Standby Letters of Credit which both provide that the banks have no responsibility to investigate the authenticity or accuracy of the certificates or the declarant's capacity or entitlement to so certify.In its Resolution dated 28 November 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining LHC from calling on the Securities or any renewals or substitutes thereof and ordering respondent banks to cease and desist from transferring, paying or in any manner disposing of the Securities.However, the appellate court failed to act on the application for preliminary injunction until the temporary restraining order expired on 27 January 2001. Immediately thereafter, representatives of LHC trooped to ANZ Bank and withdrew the total amount of US$4,950,000.00, thereby reducing the balance in ANZ Bank to US$1,852,814.00.On 2 February 2001, the appellate court dismissed the petition for certiorari. The appellate court expressed conformity with the trial court's decision that LHC could call on the Securities pursuant to the first principle in credit law that the credit itself is independent of the underlying transaction and that as long as the beneficiary complied with the credit, it was of no moment that he had not complied with the underlying contract. Further, the appellate court held that even assuming that the trial court's denial of petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction was erroneous, it constituted only an error of judgment which is not correctible by certiorari, unlike error of jurisdiction.Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review raising the following issues for resolution:

WHETHER THE "INDEPENDENCE PRINCIPLE" ON LETTERS OF CREDIT MAY BE INVOKED BY A BENEFICIARY THEREOF WHERE THE BENEFICIARY'S CALL THEREON IS WRONGFUL OR FRAUDULENT.WHETHER LHC HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL AND DRAW ON THE SECURITIES BEFORE THE RESOLUTION OF PETITIONER'S AND LHC'S DISPUTES BY THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUNAL. HAaScTWHETHER ANZ BANK AND SECURITY BANK ARE JUSTIFIED IN RELEASING THE AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THE SECURITIES DESPITE BEING NOTIFIED THAT LHC'S CALL THEREON IS WRONGFUL.WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WILL SUFFER GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IN THE EVENT THAT:

 A. LHC IS ALLOWED TO CALL AND DRAW ON, AND ANZ BANK

AND SECURITY BANK ARE ALLOWED TO RELEASE, THE REMAINING BALANCE OF THE SECURITIES PRIOR TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN PETITIONER AND LHC.

B. LHC DOES NOT RETURN THE AMOUNTS IT HAD WRONGFULLY DRAWN FROM THE SECURITIES. 21

Petitioner contends that the courts below improperly relied on the "independence principle" on letters of credit when this case falls squarely within the "fraud exception rule." Respondent LHC deliberately misrepresented the supposed existence of delay despite its knowledge that the issue was still pending arbitration, petitioner continues.Petitioner asserts that LHC should be ordered to return the proceeds of the Securities pursuant to the principle against unjust enrichment and that, under the premises, injunction was the appropriate remedy obtainable from the competent local courts.On 25 August 2003, petitioner filed a Supplement to the Petition 22 and Supplemental Memorandum, 23 alleging that in the course of the proceedings in the ICC Arbitration, a number of documentary and testimonial evidence came out through the use of different modes of discovery available in the ICC Arbitration. It contends that after the filing of the petition facts and admissions were discovered which demonstrate that LHC knowingly misrepresented that petitioner had incurred delays — notwithstanding its knowledge and admission that delays were excused under the Turnkey Contract — to be able to draw against the Securities. Reiterating that fraud constitutes an exception to the independence principle, petitioner urges that this warrants a ruling from this Court that the call on the Securities was wrongful, as well as contrary to law and basic principles of equity. It avers that it would suffer grave irreparable damage if LHC would be allowed to use the proceeds of the Securities and not ordered to return the amounts it had wrongfully drawn thereon.In its Manifestationdated 8 September 2003, 24 LHC contends that the supplemental pleadings filed by petitioner present erroneous and misleading information which would change petitioner's theory on appeal.In yet another Manifestation dated 12 April 2004, 25 petitioner alleges that on 18 February 2004, the ICC handed down its Third Partial Award, declaring that LHC wrongfully drew upon the Securities and that petitioner was entitled to the return of the sums wrongfully taken by LHC for liquidated damages.LHC filed a Counter-Manifestation dated 29 June 2004, 26 stating that petitioner's Manifestation dated 12 April 2004 enlarges the scope of its Petition for Review of the 31 January 2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals. LHC notes that the Petition for Review essentially dealt only with the issue of whether injunction could issue to restrain the beneficiary of an irrevocable letter of credit from drawing thereon. It adds that petitioner has filed two other proceedings, to wit: (1) ICC Case No. 11264/TE/MW, entitled "Transfield Philippines Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation," in which the parties made claims and counterclaims arising from petitioner's performance/misperformance of its obligations as contractor for LHC; and (2) Civil Case No. 04-332, entitled "Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation" before Branch 56 of the RTC of Makati,

which is an action to enforce and obtain execution of the ICC's partial award mentioned in petitioner's Manifestation of 12 April 2004.In its Comment to petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Addendum to Petitioner's Memorandum, LHC stresses that the question of whether the funds it drew on the subject letters of credit should be returned is outside the issue in this appeal. At any rate, LHC adds that the action to enforce the ICC's partial award is now fully within the Makati RTC's jurisdiction in Civil Case No. 04-332. LHC asserts that petitioner is engaged in forum-shopping by keeping this appeal and at the same time seeking the suit for enforcement of the arbitral award before the Makati court.Respondent SBC in its Memorandum, dated 10 March 2003 27 contends that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari. Invoking the independence principle, SBC argues that it was under no obligation to look into the validity or accuracy of the certification submitted by respondent LHC or into the latter's capacity or entitlement to so certify. It adds that the act sought to be enjoined by petitioner was already fait accompli and the present petition would no longer serve any remedial purpose.In a similar fashion, respondent ANZ Bank in its Memorandum dated 13 March 2003 28 posits that its actions could not be regarded as unjustified in view of the prevailing independence principle under which it had no obligation to ascertain the truth of LHC's allegations that petitioner defaulted in its obligations. Moreover, it points out that since the Standby Letter of Credit No. E001126/8400 had been fully drawn, petitioner's prayer for preliminary injunction had been rendered moot and academic.At the core of the present controversy is the applicability of the "independence principle" and "fraud exception rule" in letters of credit. Thus, a discussion of the nature and use of letters of credit, also referred to simply as "credits," would provide a better perspective of the case.The letter of credit evolved as a mercantile specialty, and the only way to understand all its facets is to recognize that it is an entity unto itself. The relationship between the beneficiary and the issuer of a letter of credit is not strictly contractual, because both privity and a meeting of the minds are lacking, yet strict compliance with its terms is an enforceable right. Nor is it a third-party beneficiary contract, because the issuer must honor drafts drawn against a letter regardless of problems subsequently arising in the underlying contract. Since the bank's customer cannot draw on the letter, it does not function as an assignment by the customer to the beneficiary. Nor, if properly used, is it a contract of suretyship or guarantee, because it entails a primary liability following a default. Finally, it is not in itself a negotiable instrument, because it is not payable to order or bearer and is generally conditional, yet the draft presented under it is often negotiable. 29

In commercial transactions, a letter of credit is a financial device developed by merchants as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of the goods before paying. 30 The use of credits in commercial transactions serves to reduce the risk of nonpayment of the purchase price under the contract for the sale of goods. However, credits are also used in non-sale settings where they serve to reduce the risk of nonperformance. Generally, credits in the non-sale settings have come to be known as standby credits. 31

There are three significant differences between commercial and standby credits. First, commercial credits involve the payment of money under a contract of sale. Such credits become payable upon the presentation by the seller-beneficiary of documents that show he has taken affirmative steps to comply with the sales agreement. In the standby type, the credit is payable upon certification of a party's nonperformance of the agreement. The documents that accompany the beneficiary's draft tend to show that the applicant has not performed. The beneficiary of a commercial credit must demonstrate by documents that he has performed his contract. The beneficiary of the standby credit must certify that his obligor has not performed the contract. 32

By definition, a letter of credit is a written instrument whereby the writer requests or authorizes the addressee to pay money or deliver goods to a third person and assumes responsibility for payment of debt therefor to the addressee. 33 A letter of credit, however, changes its nature as different transactions occur and if carried through to completion ends up as a binding contract between the issuing and honoring banks without any regard or relation to the underlying contract or disputes between the parties thereto. 34

Since letters of credit have gained general acceptability in international trade transactions, the ICC has published from time to time updates on the Uniform Customs and Practice (UCP) for Documentary Credits to standardize practices in the letter of credit area. The vast majority of letters of credit incorporate the UCP. 35 First published in 1933, the UCP for Documentary Credits has undergone several revisions, the latest of which was in 1993. 36

In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. De Reny Fabric Industries, Inc., 37 this Court ruled that the observance of the UCP is justified by Article 2 of the Code of Commerce which provides that in the absence of any particular provision in the Code of Commerce, commercial transactions shall be governed by usages and customs generally observed. More recently, in Bank of America, NT & SA v. Court of Appeals, 38 this Court ruled that there being no specific provisions which govern the legal complexities arising from transactions involving letters of credit, not only between or among banks themselves but also between banks and the seller or the buyer, as the case may be, the applicability of the UCP is undeniable. IaSAHCArticle 3 of the UCP provides that credits, by their nature, are separate transactions from the sales or other contract(s) on which they may be based and banks are in no way concerned with or bound by such contract(s), even if any reference whatsoever to such contract(s) is included in the credit. Consequently, the undertaking of a bank to pay, accept and pay draft(s) or negotiate and/or fulfill any other obligation under the credit is not subject to claims or defenses by the applicant resulting from his relationships with the issuing bank or the beneficiary. A beneficiary can in no case avail himself of the contractual relationships existing between the banks or between the applicant and the issuing bank. Thus, the engagement of the issuing bank is to pay the seller or beneficiary of the credit once the draft and the required documents are presented to it. The so-called "independence principle" assures the seller or the beneficiary of prompt payment independent of any breach of the main contract and precludes the issuing bank from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not. Under this principle, banks assume no liability or responsibility for the form, sufficiency, accuracy,

genuineness, falsification or legal effect of any documents, or for the general and/or particular conditions stipulated in the documents or superimposed thereon, nor do they assume any liability or responsibility for the description, quantity, weight, quality, condition, packing, delivery, value or existence of the goods represented by any documents, or for the good faith or acts and/or omissions, solvency, performance or standing of the consignor, the carriers, or the insurers of the goods, or any other person whomsoever. 39

The independent nature of the letter of credit may be: (a) independence in toto where the credit is independent from the justification aspect and is a separate obligation from the underlying agreement like for instance a typical standby; or (b) independence may be only as to the justification aspect like in a commercial letter of credit or repayment standby, which is identical with the same obligations under the underlying agreement. In both cases the payment may be enjoined if in the light of the purpose of the credit the payment of the credit would constitute fraudulent abuse of the credit. 40

Can the beneficiary invoke the independence principle?Petitioner insists that the independence principle does not apply to the instant case and assuming it is so, it is a defense available only to respondent banks. LHC, on the other hand, contends that it would be contrary to common sense to deny the benefit of an independent contract to the very party for whom the benefit is intended. As beneficiary of the letter of credit, LHC asserts it is entitled to invoke the principle.As discussed above, in a letter of credit transaction, such as in this case, where the credit is stipulated as irrevocable, there is a definite undertaking by the issuing bank to pay the beneficiary provided that the stipulated documents are presented and the conditions of the credit are complied with. 41 Precisely, the independence principle liberates the issuing bank from the duty of ascertaining compliance by the parties in the main contract. As the principle's nomenclature clearly suggests, the obligation under the letter of credit is independent of the related and originating contract. In brief, the letter of credit is separate and distinct from the underlying transaction.Given the nature of letters of credit, petitioner's argument — that it is only the issuing bank that may invoke the independence principle on letters of credit — does not impress this Court. To say that the independence principle may only be invoked by the issuing banks would render nugatory the purpose for which the letters of credit are used in commercial transactions. As it is, the independence doctrine works to the benefit of both the issuing bank and the beneficiary.Letters of credit are employed by the parties desiring to enter into commercial transactions, not for the benefit of the issuing bank but mainly for the benefit of the parties to the original transactions. With the letter of credit from the issuing bank, the party who applied for and obtained it may confidently present the letter of credit to the beneficiary as a security to convince the beneficiary to enter into the business transaction. On the other hand, the other party to the business transaction, i.e., the beneficiary of the letter of credit, can be rest assured of being empowered to call on the letter of credit as a security in case the commercial transaction does not push through, or the applicant fails to perform his part of the transaction. It is for this reason that the party who is entitled to the proceeds of the letter of credit is appropriately called "beneficiary."Petitioner's argument that any dispute must first be resolved by the parties, whether

through negotiations or arbitration, before the beneficiary is entitled to call on the letter of credit in essence would convert the letter of credit into a mere guarantee. Jurisprudence has laid down a clear distinction between a letter of credit and a guarantee in that the settlement of a dispute between the parties is not a pre-requisite for the release of funds under a letter of credit. In other words, the argument is incompatible with the very nature of the letter of credit. If a letter of credit is drawable only after settlement of the dispute on the contract entered into by the applicant and the beneficiary, there would be no practical and beneficial use for letters of credit in commercial transactions.Professor John F. Dolan, the noted authority on letters of credit, sheds more light on the issue:

The standby credit is an attractive commercial device for many of the same reasons that commercial credits are attractive. Essentially, these credits are inexpensive and efficient. Often they replace surety contracts, which tend to generate higher costs than credits do and are usually triggered by a factual determination rather than by the examination of documents. HTCISEBecause parties and courts should not confuse the different functions of the surety contract on the one hand and the standby credit on the other, the distinction between surety contracts and credits merits some reflection. The two commercial devices share a common purpose. Both ensure against the obligor's nonperformance. They function, however, in distinctly different ways.Traditionally, upon the obligor's default, the surety undertakes to complete the obligor's performance, usually by hiring someone to complete that performance. Surety contracts, then, often involve costs of determining whether the obligor defaulted (a matter over which the surety and the beneficiary often litigate) plus the cost of performance. The benefit of the surety contract to the beneficiary is obvious. He knows that the surety, often an insurance company, is a strong financial institution that will perform if the obligor does not. The beneficiary also should understand that such performance must await the sometimes lengthy and costly determination that the obligor has defaulted. In addition, the surety's performance takes time.The standby credit has different expectations. He reasonably expects that he will receive cash in the event of nonperformance, that he will receive it promptly, and that he will receive it before any litigation with the obligor (the applicant) over the nature of the applicant's performance takes place. The standby credit has this opposite effect of the surety contract: it reverses the financial burden of parties during litigation.In the surety contract setting, there is no duty to indemnify the beneficiary until the beneficiary establishes the fact of the obligor's performance. The beneficiary may have to establish that fact in litigation. During the litigation, the surety holds the money and the beneficiary bears most of the cost of delay in performance.

In the standby credit case, however, the beneficiary avoids that litigation burden and receives his money promptly upon presentation of the required documents. It may be that the applicant has, in fact, performed and that the beneficiary's presentation of those documents is not rightful. In that case, the applicant may sue the beneficiary in tort, in contract, or in breach of warranty; but, during the litigation to determine whether the applicant has in fact breached the obligation to perform, the beneficiary, not the applicant, holds the money. Parties that use a standby credit and courts construing such a credit should understand this allocation of burdens. There is a tendency in some quarters to overlook this distinction between surety contracts and standby credits and to reallocate burdens by permitting the obligor or the issuer to litigate the performance question before payment to the beneficiary. 42

While it is the bank which is bound to honor the credit, it is the beneficiary who has the right to ask the bank to honor the credit by allowing him to draw thereon. The situation itself emasculates petitioner's posture that LHC cannot invoke the independence principle and highlights its puerility, more so in this case where the banks concerned were impleaded as parties by petitioner itself.Respondent banks had squarely raised the independence principle to justify their releases of the amounts due under the Securities. Owing to the nature and purpose of the standby letters of credit, this Court rules that the respondent banks were left with little or no alternative but to honor the credit and both of them in fact submitted that it was "ministerial" for them to honor the call for payment. 43

Furthermore, LHC has a right rooted in the Contract to call on the Securities. The relevant provisions of the Contract read, thus:

4.2.1. In order to secure the performance of its obligations under this Contract, the Contractor at its cost shall on the Commencement Date provide security to the Employer in the form of two irrevocable and confirmed standby letters of credit (the "Securities"), each in the amount of US$8,988,907, issued and confirmed by banks or financial institutions acceptable to the Employer. Each of the Securities must be in form and substance acceptable to the Employer and may be provided on an annually renewable basis. 44

8.7.1 If the Contractor fails to comply with Clause 8.2, the Contractor shall pay to the Employer by way of liquidated damages ("Liquidated Damages for Delay") the amount of US$75,000 for each and every day or part of a day that shall elapse between the Target Completion Date and the Completion Date, provided that Liquidated Damages for Delay payable by the Contractor shall in the aggregate not exceed 20% of the Contract Price. The Contractor shall pay Liquidated Damages for Delay for each day of the delay on the following day without need of demand from the Employer. 8.7.2 The Employer may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, deduct the amount of such damages from any monies due,

or to become due to the Contractor and/or by drawing on the Security." 45

A contract once perfected, binds the parties not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage, and law. 46 A careful perusal of the Turnkey Contract reveals the intention of the parties to make the Securities answerable for the liquidated damages occasioned by any delay on the part of petitioner. The call upon the Securities, while not an exclusive remedy on the part of LHC, is certainly an alternative recourse available to it upon the happening of the contingency for which the Securities have been proffered. Thus, even without the use of the "independence principle," the Turnkey Contract itself bestows upon LHC the right to call on the Securities in the event of default.Next, petitioner invokes the "fraud exception" principle. It avers that LHC's call on the Securities is wrongful because it fraudulently misrepresented to ANZ Bank and SBC that there is already a breach in the Turnkey Contract knowing fully well that this is yet to be determined by the arbitral tribunals. It asserts that the "fraud exception" exists when the beneficiary, for the purpose of drawing on the credit, fraudulently presents to the confirming bank, documents that contain, expressly or by implication, material representations of fact that to his knowledge are untrue. In such a situation, petitioner insists, injunction is recognized as a remedy available to it. ICTHDECiting Dolan's treatise on letters of credit, petitioner argues that the independence principle is not without limits and it is important to fashion those limits in light of the principle's purpose, which is to serve the commercial function of the credit. If it does not serve those functions, application of the principle is not warranted, and the commonlaw principles of contract should apply.It is worthy of note that the propriety of LHC's call on the Securities is largely intertwined with the fact of default which is the self-same issue pending resolution before the arbitral tribunals. To be able to declare the call on the Securities wrongful or fraudulent, it is imperative to resolve, among others, whether petitioner was in fact guilty of delay in the performance of its obligation. Unfortunately for petitioner, this Court is not called upon to rule upon the issue of default — such issue having been submitted by the parties to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals pursuant to the terms embodied in their agreement. 47

Would injunction then be the proper remedy to restrain the alleged wrongful draws on the Securities?Most writers agree that fraud is an exception to the independence principle. Professor Dolan opines that the untruthfulness of a certificate accompanying a demand for payment under a standby credit may qualify as fraud sufficient to support an injunction against payment. 48 The remedy for fraudulent abuse is an injunction. However, injunction should not be granted unless: (a) there is clear proof of fraud; (b) the fraud constitutes fraudulent abuse of the independent purpose of the letter of credit and not only fraud under the main agreement; and (c) irreparable injury might follow if injunction is not granted or the recovery of damages would be seriously damaged. 49

In its complaint for injunction before the trial court, petitioner alleged that it is entitled to a total extension of two hundred fifty-three (253) days which would move the target completion date. It argued that if its claims for extension would be found meritorious by

the ICC, then LHC would not be entitled to any liquidated damages. 50

Generally, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive right or interest; it is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. The issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the rights of a party in a pending case is entirely within the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, the only limitation being that this discretion should be exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law. 51

Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. 52 It must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. 53 Moreover, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. 54

In the instant case, petitioner failed to show that it has a clear and unmistakable right to restrain LHC's call on the Securities which would justify the issuance of preliminary injunction. By petitioner's own admission, the right of LHC to call on the Securities was contractually rooted and subject to the express stipulations in the Turnkey Contract. 55 Indeed, the Turnkey Contract is plain and unequivocal in that it conferred upon LHC the right to draw upon the Securities in case of default, as provided in Clause 4.2.5, in relation to Clause 8.7.2, thus:

4.2.5 The Employer shall give the Contractor seven days' notice of calling upon any of the Securities, stating the nature of the default for which the claim on any of the Securities is to be made, provided that no notice will be required if the Employer calls upon any of the Securities for the payment of Liquidated Damages for Delay or for failure by the Contractor to renew or extend the Securities within 14 days of their expiration in accordance with Clause 4.2.2. 56

8.7.2 The Employer may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, deduct the amount of such damages from any monies due, or to become due, to the Contractor and/or by drawing on the Security. 57

The pendency of the arbitration proceedings would not per se make LHC's draws on the Securities wrongful or fraudulent for there was nothing in the Contract which would indicate that the parties intended that all disputes regarding delay should first be settled through arbitration before LHC would be allowed to call upon the Securities. It is therefore premature and absurd to conclude that the draws on the Securities were outright fraudulent given the fact that the ICC and CIAC have not ruled with finality on the existence of default.Nowhere in its complaint before the trial court or in its pleadings filed before the appellate court, did petitioner invoke the fraud exception rule as a ground to justify the issuance of an injunction. 58 What petitioner did assert before the courts below was the fact that LHC's draws on the Securities would be premature and without basis in view of the pending disputes between them. Petitioner should not be allowed in this instance to

bring into play the fraud exception rule to sustain its claim for the issuance of an injunctive relief. Matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below will ordinarily not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 59 The lower courts could thus not be faulted for not applying the fraud exception rule not only because the existence of fraud was fundamentally interwoven with the issue of default still pending before the arbitral tribunals, but more so, because petitioner never raised it as an issue in its pleadings filed in the courts below. At any rate, petitioner utterly failed to show that it had a clear and unmistakable right to prevent LHC's call upon the Securities.Of course, prudence should have impelled LHC to await resolution of the pending issues before the arbitral tribunals prior to taking action to enforce the Securities. But, as earlier stated, the Turnkey Contract did not require LHC to do so and, therefore, it was merely enforcing its rights in accordance with the tenor thereof. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. 60 More importantly, pursuant to the principle of autonomy of contracts embodied in Article 1306 of the Civil Code, 61 petitioner could have incorporated in its Contract with LHC, a proviso that only the final determination by the arbitral tribunals that default had occurred would justify the enforcement of the Securities. However, the fact is petitioner did not do so; hence, it would have to live with its inaction.With respect to the issue of whether the respondent banks were justified in releasing the amounts due under the Securities, this Court reiterates that pursuant to the independence principle the banks were under no obligation to determine the veracity of LHC's certification that default has occurred. Neither were they bound by petitioner's declaration that LHC's call thereon was wrongful. To repeat, respondent banks' undertaking was simply to pay once the required documents are presented by the beneficiary.At any rate, should petitioner finally prove in the pending arbitration proceedings that LHC's draws upon the Securities were wrongful due to the non-existence of the fact of default, its right to seek indemnification for damages it suffered would not normally be foreclosed pursuant to general principles of law.Moreover, in a Manifestation, 62 dated 30 March 2001, LHC informed this Court that the subject letters of credit had been fully drawn. This fact alone would have been sufficient reason to dismiss the instant petition. HAICTD Settled is the rule that injunction would not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined have already become fait accompli or an accomplished or consummated act. 63 In Ticzon v. Video Post Manila, Inc. 64 this Court ruled that where the period within which the former employees were prohibited from engaging in or working for an enterprise that competed with their former employer — the very purpose of the preliminary injunction — has expired, any declaration upholding the propriety of the writ would be entirely useless as there would be no actual case or controversy between the parties insofar as the preliminary injunction is concerned.In the instant case, the consummation of the act sought to be restrained had rendered the instant petition moot — for any declaration by this Court as to propriety or impropriety of the non-issuance of injunctive relief could have no practical effect on the

existing controversy. 65 The other issues raised by petitioner particularly with respect to its right to recover the amounts wrongfully drawn on the Securities, according to it, could properly be threshed out in a separate proceeding.One final point. LHC has charged petitioner of forum-shopping. It raised the charge on two occasions. First, in its Counter-Manifestation dated 29 June 2004 66 LHC alleges that petitioner presented before this Court the same claim for money which it has filed in two other proceedings, to wit: ICC Case No. 11264/TE/MW and Civil Case No. 04-332 before the RTC of Makati. LHC argues that petitioner's acts constitutes forum-shopping which should be punished by the dismissal of the claim in both forums. Second, in its Comment to Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Addendum to Petitioner's Memorandum dated 8 October 2004, LHC alleges that by maintaining the present appeal and at the same time pursuing Civil Case No. 04-332 — wherein petitioner pressed for judgment on the issue of whether the funds LHC drew on the Securities should be returned — petitioner resorted to forum-shopping. In both instances, however, petitioner has apparently opted not to respond to the charge.Forum-shopping is a very serious charge. It exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court. 67 It may also consist in the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court might look with favor upon the other party. 68 To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum-shopping, the test applied is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. 69 Forum-shopping constitutes improper conduct and may be punished with summary dismissal of the multiple petitions and direct contempt of court. 70

Considering the seriousness of the charge of forum-shopping and the severity of the sanctions for its violation, the Court will refrain from making any definitive ruling on this issue until after petitioner has been given ample opportunity to respond to the charge.WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED, with costs against petitioner.Petitioner is hereby required to answer the charge of forum-shopping within fifteen (15) days from notice.SO ORDERED.Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ ., concur.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21979. September 29, 1967.]NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ATLAS TRADING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and the ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendants-appellees.

Tomas P. Matic, Jr. for plaintiff-appellant.Domingo T. Zavalla for defendants-appellees.

SYLLABUS

1.CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; LETTER OF CREDIT; EFFECT OF VARIANCE BETWEEN LETTER OF CREDIT AND SALES AGREEMENT. — A discrepancy between what was agreed upon the contract and the letter of credit, the effectivity of which requires that it be strictly complied with would excuse non-performance by the seller.2.ID.; ID.; ID.; NATURE OF LEGAL RELATIONS ARISING FROM LETTER OF CREDIT. — A letter of credit contains the entire contract of the party and constitutes the complete agreement between them. It is independent of the contract of sale between the buyer and the seller.

D E C I S I O N

FERNANDO, J p:

What is to be determined in this appeal is the correctness of a lower court decision absolving from liability defendants Atlas Trading Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Atlas) and Alto Surety & Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Alto), the former under a contract for the sale of galvanized steel sheets and the latter under a performance bond.While the plaintiff-appellant is the National Marketing Corporation, the action was originally started by its predecessor Philippine Relief and Trade Rehabilitation Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Pratra). In its complaint dated June 14, 1950, it alleged: On July 21, 1948, defendant Atlas offered to sell to the plaintiff 8,000 metric tons of galvanized sheets at the price of U.S. $247 per ton of 1,000 kilos, CIF Manila, to be shipped beginning August, 1948; 1 on July 24, 1948, the plaintiff made an order and agreed to purchase the galvanized sheets offered by defendant Atlas with the condition that the seller should furnish a performance bond in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of P100,000.00; 2 on August 5, 1948, the plaintiff and defendant Atlas as sales brokers for West India Commercial Corp. of New York City, N.Y., U.S.A., executed a contract of purchase and sale wherein the said defendant obligated itself to sell 8,000 metric tons of galvanized steel sheets, at the price of U.S. $247 per ton of 1,000 kilos CIF Manila; 3 under the aforementioned contract, defendant Atlas obligated itself to furnish in favor of Pratra a performance bond in the sum of P100,000.00 to guarantee the faithful compliance of all the terms and conditions of the said contract, with defendant Alto as surety; 4 in compliance with its undertakings in the contract, the plaintiff on August 26, 1948, opened a letter of credit with the Philippine National Bank for the amount of U.S. $1,976,000.00 in favor of the West India Commercial Corp. of New York, United States. 5Neither defendant Atlas nor its supposed principal the West India Commercial Corp. of New York delivered the 8,000 metric tons of galvanized steel sheets involved in the contract. 6 The aforementioned contract having provided that in case of violation of any of its terms and conditions, the buyer will be entitled to recover liquidated damages in the amount of 20% of the total contractual value of the merchandise therein described, U.S. $1,976,000.00, 20% of which is U.S. $395,200.00 or P790,400.00, 7 plaintiff sought to recover the same from Atlas. It likewise prayed that defendant Alto be condemned to pay the plaintiff the amount of P100,000.00, the amount of the performance bond.In the answer of defendant Atlas, filed on July 15, 1950, it admitted making the offer, adding however that plaintiff was duly informed that it was acting in its representative capacity; 8 that an order to purchase the galvanized steel sheets was in fact made by plaintiff; 9 10 It further set up five special defenses and a counterclaim for P100,000.00.Defendant Alto denied the allegations of the complaint on the ground that it had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what was therein contained except the execution of the bond for and on behalf of the West India Commercial Corporation of New York to guarantee the latter's performance of its obligation, if any, under the contract which, having been executed and acknowledged on August 21, 1948 and not on August 5, 1948 as alleged, could not be the basis of any obligation. On the assumption however that the latter contract could be the one referred to in the bond, it alleged that it did so for and on behalf of the West India Commercial Corporation of New York to guarantee the performance of its obligation, if any, and that it never incurred any obligation at all under the contract which was the basis of the complaint "as it was never

a party to it, nor did it authorize any one to obligate it in any manner whatsoever," and that plaintiff "having discharged the West India Commercial Corporation of New York from liability on said contract, [defendant Alto] is and must likewise be discharged, the obligation of the surety being merely accessory to that of the principal."After trial, the lower court promulgated a decision on July 29, 1962 dismissing the complaint. In absolving defendant Atlas, it held that it "was duly authorized to act as agent or broker of the West India Commercial Company in entering into the contract of purchase and sale." 11 Even if its liability could be held to be direct, the Pratra. having demanded payment of damages from West India Commercial Corporation and not from it, waived whatever claim it might have against Atlas. The above circumstances taken in connection with what the lower court found to be a discrepancy in the letter of credit in favor of the West India Commercial Corporation, which it held to be a condition precedent for the obligation of the latter under such contract to arise, such discrepancy consisting of no period of grace of 60 days for delivery having been provided for, although subsequently corrected but only after the first delivery was "already impossible physically for the West India Commercial Company to make on time" led it to conclude that for all legal intents and purposes, such contract of purchase and sale "had not been operative up to the time it was rescinded by the Pratra on September 23, 1948, due to the failure of the latter to perform the condition precedent of establishing a sufficient letter of credit." 12 No liability could therefore attach to defendant Atlas.The same conclusion was reached as far as defendant Alto was concerned. Thus: "As to the defendant Alto Surety, we hold that judgment cannot be rendered against it. Alto Surety posted its bond for the West India Commercial Corporation and not for the defendant Atlas. And as the West India Commercial Corporation is not a party in this suit, there is nothing for the Alto Surety to answer. The case against the Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., is also dismissed." 13

The facts as found by the lower court are in accordance with the evidence. The law as applied cannot be characterized as erroneous. The judgment must be affirmed.It being undisputed that no such delivery of the 8,000 metric tons of galvanized steel sheets contracted for was ever made, the decisive question is whether liability could be deemed to have arisen. If the answer were in the affirmative, the next question would be, who is to be held accountable? Defendant Atlas was absolved from any responsibility by the lower court. It justified the non-delivery because of the discrepancy between what was provided for in the contract of the purchase and sale 14 and the letter of credit, 15 which under the contract had to be opened. As noted in the Brief submitted by Atty. Domingo Zavalla for defendant Atlas, distinguished for its clarity and lucidity, the failure of the letter of credit to comply with what was agreed upon is "very apparent and noticeable." Under the contract, the shipment of the galvanized steel sheets could be made during a period from August, 1948 to February, 1949 with a grace of 60 days, i.e., "all shipments within 60 days of the above schedule would be accepted as good delivery." 16 The letter of credit on the other hand did not provide for such a period of grace of 60 days for late shipment. The corrected letter of credit was received by the West India Commercial Corporation only on September 7, 1948. As the first shipment was supposed to have been made in August, it was impossible for the West India Commercial Corporation to make it on time. Under the above circumstances the correctness of the assertion in a radiogram of West India Commercial Corporation sent to defendant Atlas stating that serious discrepancy "from contract" would prevent it from "using letter of credit in present form" cannot be denied.

 In a decision of this Court, 17 it was held that the failure to open a letter of credit within a period agreed upon suffices to prevent a binding juridical tie from being created. That case, dealing with offer and acceptance, reiterated the principle that to bind the offeror, "the offeree must comply with the conditions of the offer." the situation before us deals with a perfected contract. Here the time element does not enter into the failure of one party to live up to the terms of the contract. What was manifest was the discrepancy between what was agreed upon in the contract and the letter of credit, the effectivity of which requires that "all conditions contained [in it] be strictly complied with, however onerous they may be." 18 The above principle is deemed "absolutely necessary for the protection of the banking and mercantile community." There is a New York Supreme Court decision to the effect that a "material variance between the letter of credit and the sales agreement would excuse non-performance by the seller." 19

Plaintiff-appellant must have been mindful of the force and applicability of the above controlling principle. In its Brief, it sought to avoid its application by alleging that by its very nature "a letter of credit cannot contain all the particulars nor can it embody all the agreements previously entered into by the parties for the terms and conditions of their agreement are already contained in separate documents." 20 Plaintiff-appellant would then allege that no such period of allowance or grace for the late shipment was provided for because the same was already embodied in the contract of purchase and sale, Exhibit C. 21 Such an argument is far from persuasive. An authoritative excerpt from Zollman on Banks and Banking argues to the contrary. Thus: "Where, therefore, legal relations arise from a letter of credit, such letter contains the entire contract of the parties, and their resulting obligations should be measured by its provisions. It constitutes the complete agreement, and is independent of the contract of sale between the buyer and the seller, and is unaffected by any breach of contract on the part of the seller or the buyer or by any controversy which may arise between the buyer and seller or by any other transaction between the buyer and seller." 22

It follows then that the lower court was correct in holding that no liability was incurred under the contract of purchase and sale because of such failure to make the delivery. Such being the case, the question of whether or not defendant Atlas, which acted as a sales broker, could be held liable for the alleged breach need not be passed upon.As for the surety, defendant Alto, the judgment must likewise be affirmed for the obvious reason that as no accountability of the principal arose from the failure to make the delivery of the galvanized steel sheets, it was equally exempt from liability.WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Without pronouncement as to costs.Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.Bengzon, J.P., J., is on leave.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 94209. April 30, 1991.]FEATI BANK & TRUST COMPANY (now CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION), petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, and BERNARDO E. VILLALUZ, respondents.

Pelaez, Adriano & Gregorio for petitioner.Ezequiel S. Consulta for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1.COMMERCIAL LAW; BANKING LAWS; LETTER OF CREDIT; DOCUMENTS TENDERED MUST STRICTLY CONFORM TO THE TERMS OF LETTER OF CREDIT. — It is a settled rule in commercial transactions involving letters of credit that the documents tendered must strictly conform to the terms of the letter of credit. The tender of documents by the beneficiary (seller) must include all documents required by the letter. A correspondent bank which departs from what has been stipulated under the letter of credit, as when it accepts a faulty tender, acts on its own risks and it may not thereafter be able to recover from the buyer or the issuing bank, as the case may be, the money thus paid to the beneficiary. Thus the rule of strict compliance.2.ID.; ID.; ID.; UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDIT (U.C.P.); APPLICABILITY JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 2 OF THE CODE OF COMMERCE. — Moreover, the incorporation of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit (U.C.P. for short) in the letter of credit resulted in the applicability of the said rules in the governance of the relations between the parties. And even if the U.C.P. was not incorporated in the letter of credit, we have already ruled in the affirmative as to the applicability of the U.C.P. in cases before us. In Bank of P.I. v. De Nery (35 SCRA 256 [1970]), we pronounced that the observance of the U.C.P. in this jurisdiction is justified by Article 2 of the Code of Commerce. Article 2 of the Code of Commerce enunciates that in the absence of any particular provision in the Code of commerce, commercial transactions shall be governed by the usages and customs generally observed. There being no specific provision which governs the legal complexities arising from transactions involving letters of credit not only between the banks themselves but also between banks and seller and/or buyer, the applicability of the U.C.P. is undeniable.3.ID.; ID.; ID.; IRREVOCABLE CREDIT AND CONFIRMED LETTER OF CREDIT, DIFFERENTIATED.— An irrevocable credits refers to the duration of the letter of credit. What it simply means is that the issuing bank may not without the consent of the beneficiary (seller) and the applicant (buyer) revoke his undertaking under the letter. The issuing bank does not reserve the right to revoke the credit. On the other hand, a confirmed letter of credit pertains to the kind of obligation assumed by the correspondent bank. In this case, the correspondent bank gives an absolute assurance of the beneficiary that it will undertake the issuing bank's obligation as its own according to the terms and conditions of the credit. (Agbayani, Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 1, pp. 81-83) Hence, the mere fact that a letter of credit is irrevocable does not necessarily imply that the correspondent bank in accepting the instructions of the issuing bank has also confirmed the letter of credit.4.ID.; ID.; ID.; CLASSIFICATIONS OF CORRESPONDENT BANK'S FUNCTIONS. — In commercial transactions involving letters of credit, the functions assumed by a correspondent bank are classified according to the obligations taken up by it. The correspondent bank may be called a notifying bank, a negotiating bank, or a confirming bank. In case of a notifying bank, the correspondent bank assumes no liability except to notify and/or transmit to the beneficiary the existence of the letter of credit. (Kronman and Co., Inc. v. Public National Bank of New York, 218 N.Y.S. 616 [1926]; Shaterian, Export-Import Banking, p. 292, cited in Agbayani, Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 76) A negotiating bank, on the other hand, is a correspondent bank which buys or discounts a draft under the letter of credit. Its liability is dependent upon the stage of the negotiation. If before negotiation, it has no liability with respect to the seller but after

negotiation, a contractual relationship will then prevail between the negotiating bank and the seller. (Scanlon v. First National Bank of Mexico, 162 N.E. 567 [1928]; Shaterian, Export-Import Banking, p. 293, cited in Agbayani, Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 76) In the case of a confirming bank, the correspondent bank assumes a direct obligation to the seller and its liability is a primary one as if the correspondent bank itself had issued the letter of credit. (Shaterian, Export-Import Banking, p. 294, cited in Agbayani, Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 77)5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOTIFYING BANK; CASE AT BAR. — In this case, the letter merely provided that the petitioner "forward the enclosed original credit to the beneficiary." Considering the aforesaid instruction to the petitioner by the issuing bank, the Security Pacific National Bank, it is indubitable that the petitioner is only a notifying bank and not a confirming bank as ruled by the courts below. A notifying bank is not privy to the contract of sale between the buyer and the seller, its relationship is only with that of the issuing bank and not with the beneficiary to whom he assumes no liability. It follows therefore that when the petitioner refused to negotiate with the private respondent, the latter has no cause of action against the petitioner for the enforcement of his rights under the letter. (See Kronman and Co., Inc. v. Public National Bank of New York, supra)6.CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACT; TRUST; EXPLAINED. — A trust has been defined as the "right, enforceable solely in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of property the legal title to which is vested to another." The concept of a trust presupposes the existence of a specific property which has been conferred upon the person for the benefit of another. In order therefore for the trust theory of the private respondent to be sustained, the petitioner should have had in its possession a sum of money as specific fund advanced to it by the issuing bank and to be held in trust by it in favor of the private respondent. This does not obtain in this case.7.ID.; ID.; ID.; A LETTER OF CREDIT DOES NOT CONVEY THAT A SUM OF MONEY IS BEING HELD IN TRUST. — The mere opening of a letter of credit, it is to be noted, does not involve a specific appropriation of a sum of money in favor of the beneficiary. It only signifies that the beneficiary may be able to draw funds upon the letter of credit up to the designated amount specified in the letter. It does not convey the notion that a particular sum of money has been specifically reserved or has been held in trust.8.ID.; ID.; GUARANTY; INCONSISTENT WITH AN IRREVOCABLE CREDIT. — The theory of guarantee relied upon the by the Court of Appeals has to necessarily fail. The concept of guarantee vis-a-vis the concept of an irrevocable credit are inconsistent with each other. In the first place, the guarantee theory destroys the independence of the bank's responsibility from the contract upon which it was opened. In the second place, the nature of both contracts is mutually in conflict with each other. In contracts of guarantee, the guarantor's obligation is merely collateral and it arises only upon the default of the person primarily liable. On the other hand, in an irrevocable credit the bank undertakes a primary obligation. (See National Bank of Eagle Pass, Tex. v. American National Bank of San Francisco, 282 F. 73 [1922])9.ID.; ID.; AGENCY; RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ISSUING BANK AND NOTIFYING BANK IS SIMILAR TO AGENCY. — The relationship between the issuing bank and the notifying bank, on the contrary, is more similar to that of an agency and not that of a guarantee. It may be observed that the notifying bank is merely to follow the instructions of the issuing bank which is to notify or to transmit the letter of credit to the beneficiary. (See Kronman v. Public National Bank of New York, supra). Its commitment is only to notify

the beneficiary. It does not undertake any assurance that the issuing bank will perform what has been mandated to or expected of it. As an agent of the issuing bank, it has only to follow the instructions of the issuing bank and to it alone is it obligated and not to the buyer with whom it has no contractual relationship.10.STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; CONTROVERSY IS DECIDED ON WHAT THE LAW IS; LAW IS ALSO TO GOVERN FUTURE RELATIONS AMONG PEOPLE. — We are aware of the injustice committed by Christiansen on the private respondent but we are deciding the controversy on the basis of what the law is, for the law is not meant to favor only those who have been oppressed, the law is to govern future relations among people as well. Its commitment is to all and not to a single individual. The faith of the people in our justice system may be eroded if we are to decide not what the law states but what we believe it should declare. Dura lex sed lex.

D E C I S I O N

GUTIERREZ, JR., J p:

This is a petition for review seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 29, 1990 which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal dated October 20, 1986 ordering the defendants Christiansen and the petitioner, to pay various sums to respondent Villaluz, jointly and severally.The facts of the case are as follows:On June 3, 1971, Bernardo E. Villaluz agreed to sell to the then defendant Axel Christiansen 2,000 cubic meters of lauan logs at $27.00 per cubic meter FOB.After inspecting the logs, Christiansen issued purchase order No. 76171.On the arrangements made and upon the instructions of the consignee, Hanmi Trade Development, Ltd., de Santa Ana, California, the Security Pacific National Bank of Los Angeles, California issued Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. IC-46268 available at sight in favor of Villaluz for the sum of $54,000.00, the total purchase price of the lauan logs. The letter of credit was mailed to the Feati Bank and Trust Company (now Citytrust) with the instruction to the latter that it "forward the enclosed letter of credit to the beneficiary." (Records, Vol. I, p. 11)The letter of credit further provided that the draft to be drawn is on Security Pacific National Bank and that it be accompanied by the following documents:

"1.Signed Commercial Invoice in four copies showing the number of the purchase order and certifying that —

a.All terms and conditions of the purchase order have been complied with and that all logs are fresh cut and quality equal to or better than that described in H.A. Christiansen's telex #201 of May 1, 1970, and that all logs have been marked "BEV-EX".

b.One complete set of documents, including 1/3 original bills of lading was airmailed to Consignee and Parties to be advised by Hans-Axel Christiansen, Ship and Merchandise Broker. cdll

c.One set of non-negotiable documents was airmailed to Han Mi Trade Development Company and one set to Consignee and Parties to be advised by Hans-Axel Christiansen, Ship and Merchandise Broker.

2.Tally sheets in quadruplicate.3.2/3 Original Clean on Board Ocean Bills of Lading with Consignee and Parties to be advised by Hans Axel Christiansen, showing Freight Prepaid and marked Notify:Han Mi Trade Development Company, Ltd., Santa Ana, California.Letter of Credit No. 46268 dated June 7, 1971.Han Mi Trade Development Company, Ltd., P.O. Box 10480, Santa Ana, California 92711 and Han Mi Trade Development Company, Ltd., Seoul, Korea.4.Certification from Han-Axel Christiansen, Ship and Merchandise Broker, stating that logs have been approved prior to shipment in accordance with terms and conditions of corresponding purchase Order. (Record, Vol. 1 pp. 11-12)

Also incorporated by reference in the letter of credit is the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1962 Revision).The logs were thereafter loaded on the vessel "Zenlin Glory" which was chartered by Christiansen. Before its loading, the logs were inspected by custom inspectors Nelo Laurente, Alejandro Cabiao, Estanislao Edera from the Bureau of Customs (Records, Vol. I, p. 124) and representatives Rogelio Cantuba and Jesus Tadena of the Bureau of Forestry (Records, Vol. I, pp. 16-17) all of whom certified to the good condition and exportability of the logs.After the loading of the logs was completed, the Chief Mate, Shao Shu Wang issued a mate receipt of the cargo which stated the same are in good condition (Records, Vol. I, p. 363). However, Christiansen refused to issue the certification as required in paragraph 4 of the letter of credit, despite several requests made by the private respondent.Because of the absence of the certification by Christiansen, the Feati Bank and Trust Company refused to advance the payment on the letter of credit.The letter of credit lapsed on June 30, 1971, (extended, however up to July 31, 1971) without the private respondent receiving any certification from Christiansen. LLprThe persistent refusal of Christiansen to issue the certification prompted the private respondent to bring the matter before the Central Bank. In a memorandum dated August 16, 1971, the Central Bank ruled that:

". . . pursuant to the Monetary Board Resolution No. 1230 dated August

3, 1971, in all log exports, the certification of the lumber inspectors of the Bureau of Forestry . . . shall be considered final for purposes of negotiating documents. Any provision in any letter of credit covering log exports requiring certification of buyer's agent or representative that said logs have been approved for shipment as a condition precedent to negotiation of shipping documents shall not be allowed." (Records, Vol. I, p. 367)

Meanwhile, the logs arrived at Inchon, Korea and were received by the consignee, Hamni Trade Development Company, to whom Christiansen sold the logs for the amount of $37.50 per cubic meter, for a net profit of $10 per cubic meter. Hanmi Trade Development Company, on the other hand sold the logs to Taisung Lumber Company at Inchon, Korea. (Rollo, p. 39)Since the demands by the private respondent for Christiansen to execute the certification proved futile, Villaluz, on September 1, 1971, instituted an action for mandamus and specific performance against Christiansen and the Feati Bank and Trust Company (now Citytrust) before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal. The petitioner was impleaded as defendant before the lower court only to afford complete relief should the court a quo order Christiansen to execute the required certification.The complaint prayed for the following:

1.Christiansen be ordered to issue the certification required of him under the Letter of Credit;2.Upon issuance of such certification, or, if the court should find it unnecessary, FEATI BANK be ordered to accept negotiation of the Letter of Credit and make payment thereon to Villaluz;3.Order Christiansen to pay damages to the plaintiff. (Rollo, p. 39)

On or about 1979, while the case was still pending trial, Christiansen left the Philippines without informing the Court and his counsel. Hence, Villaluz, filed an amended complaint to make the petitioner solidarily liable with Christiansen.The trial court, in its order dated August 29, 1979, admitted the amended complaint.After trial, the lower court found:

"The liability of the defendant CHRISTIANSEN is beyond dispute, and the plaintiff's right to demand payment is absolute. Defendant CHRISTIANSEN having accepted delivery of the logs by having them loaded in his chartered vessel the 'Zenlin Glory' and shipping them to the consignee, his buyer Han Mi Trade in Inchon, South Korea (Art. 1585, Civil Code), his obligation to pay the purchase order had clearly arisen and the plaintiff may sue and recover the price of the goods (Art. 1595, id). prLL"The Court believes that the defendant CHRISTIANSEN acted in bad faith and deceit and with intent to defraud the plaintiff, reflected in and aggravated by, not only his refusal to issue the certification that would have enabled without question the plaintiff to negotiate the letter of credit, but his accusing the plaintiff in his answer of fraud, intimidation,

violence and deceit. These accusations said defendant did not attempt to prove, as in fact he left the country without ever notifying his own lawyer. It was to the Court's mind a pure swindle."The defendant Feati Bank and Trust Company, on the other hand, must be held liable together with his (sic) co-defendant for having, by its wrongful act, i.e., its refusal to negotiate the letter of credit in the absence of CHRISTIANSEN's certification (in spite of the Central Bank's ruling that the requirement was illegal), prevented payment to the plaintiff. The said letter of credit, as may be seen on its face, is irrevocable and the issuing bank, the Security Pacific National Bank in Los Angeles, California, undertook by its terms that the same shall be honored upon its presentment. On the other hand, the notifying bank, the defendant Feati Bank and Trust Company, by accepting the instructions from the issuing bank, itself assumed the very same undertaking as the issuing bank under the terms of the letter of credit.

xxx xxx xxx"The Court likewise agrees with the plaintiff that the defendant BANK may also be held liable under the principles and laws on both trust and estoppel. When the defendant BANK accepted its role as the notifying and negotiating bank for and in behalf of the issuing bank, it in effect accepted a trust reposed on it, and became a trustee in relation to plaintiff as the beneficiary of the letter of credit. As trustee, it was then duty bound to protect the interests of the plaintiff under the terms of the letter of credit, and must be held liable for damage and loss resulting to the plaintiff from its failure to perform that obligation."Furthermore, when the defendant BANK assumed the role of a notifying and negotiating BANK it in effect represented to the plaintiff that, if the plaintiff complied with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit and presents the same to the BANK together with the documents mentioned therein the said BANK will pay the plaintiff the amount of the letter of credit. The Court is convinced that it was upon the strength of this letter of credit and this implied representation of the defendant BANK that the plaintiff delivered the logs to defendant CHRISTIANSEN, considering that the issuing bank is a foreign bank with whom plaintiff had no business connections and CHRISTIANSEN had not offered any other Security for the payment of the logs. Defendant BANK cannot now be allowed to deny its commitment and liability under the letter of credit: Cdpr

'A holder of a promissory note given because of gambling who indorses the same to an innocent holder for value and who assures said party that the note has no legal defect, is in estoppel from asserting that there had been an illegal consideration for the note, and so, he has to pay its value.' (Rodriguez v. Martinez, 5 Phil. 67).'

"The defendant BANK, in insisting upon the certification of defendant CHRISTIANSEN as a condition precedent to negotiating the letter of credit, likewise in the Court's opinion acted in bad faith, not only

because of the clear declaration of the Central Bank that such a requirement was illegal, but because the BANK with all the legal counsel available to it, must have known that the condition was void since it depended on the sole will of the debtor, the defendant CHRISTIANSEN. (Art. 1182, Civil Code)" (Rollo, pp. 29-31)

On the basis of the foregoing the trial court on October 20, 1986, ruled in favor of the private respondent. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

'WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the following sums:

"a)$54,000.00 (US), or its peso equivalent at the prevailing rate as of the time payment is actually made, representing the purchase price of the logs;

 "b)P17,340.00, representing government fees and

charges paid by plaintiff in connection with the logs shipment in question;

"c)P10,000.00 as temperate damages (for trips made to Bacolod and Korea).

"All three foregoing sums shall be with interest thereon at 12% per annum from September 1, 1971, when the complaint was filed, until fully paid:

"d)P70,000.00 as moral damages;"e)P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and"f)P30,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation

expense." (Rollo, p. 28)The petitioner received a copy of the decision on November 3, 1986. Two days thereafter, or on November 5, 1986, it filed a notice of appeal.On November 10, 1986, the private respondent filed a motion for the immediate execution of the judgment on the ground that the appeal of the petitioner was frivolous and dilatory.The trial court ordered the immediate execution of its judgment upon the private respondent's filing of a bond.The petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to suspend the implementation of the writ of execution. Both motions were, however, denied. Thus, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin the immediate execution of the judgment. LibLexThe Court of Appeals in a decision dated April 9, 1987 granted the petition and nullified the order of execution, the dispositive portion of the decision states:

"WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is granted. Respondent Judge's

order of execution dated December 29, 1986, as well as his order dated January 14, 1987 denying the petitioner's urgent motion to suspend the writ of execution against its properties are hereby annulled and set aside insofar as they are sought to be enforced and implemented against the petitioner Feati Bank & Trust Company, now Citytrust Banking Corporation, during the pendency of its appeal from the adverse decision in Civil Case No. 15121. However, the execution of the same decision against defendant Axel Christiansen who did not appeal said decision may proceed unimpeded. The Sheriff's levy on the petitioner's properties, and the notice of sale dated January 13, 1987 (Annex M), are hereby annulled and set aside. (Rollo, p. 44)

A motion for reconsideration was thereafter filed by the private respondent. The Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated June 29, 1987 denied the motion for reconsideration.In the meantime, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Court of Appeals was given due course. In its decision dated June 29, 1990, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court dated October 20, 1986 and ruled that:

1.Feati Bank admitted in the "special and negative defenses" section of its answer that it was the bank to negotiate the letter of credit issued by the Security Pacific National Bank of Los Angeles, California. (Record, pp. 156, 157). Feati Bank did notify Villaluz of such letter of credit. In fact, as such negotiating bank, even before the letter of credit was presented for payment, Feati Bank had already made an advance payment of P75,000.00 to Villaluz in anticipation of such presentment. As the negotiating bank, Feati Bank, by notifying Villaluz of the letter of credit in behalf of the issuing bank (Security Pacific), confirmed such letter of credit and made the same also its own obligation. This ruling finds support in the authority cited by Villaluz:"A confirmed letter of credit is one in which the notifying bank gives its assurance also that the opening bank's obligation will be performed. In such a case, the notifying bank will not simply transmit but will confirm the opening bank's obligation by making it also its own undertaking, or commitment, or guaranty or obligation." (Ward & Harfield, 28-29, cited in Agbayani, Commercial Laws, 1978 edition, p. 77). LLphilFeati Bank argues further that it would be considered as the negotiating bank only upon negotiation of the letter of credit. This stance is untenable. Assurance, commitments or guaranties supposed to be made by notifying banks to the beneficiary of a letter of credit, as defined above, can be relevant or meaningful only with respect to a future transaction, that is, negotiation. Hence, even before actual negotiation, the notifying bank, by the mere act of notifying the beneficiary of the letter of credit, assumes as of that moment the obligation of the issuing bank.2.Since Feati Bank acted as guarantor of the issuing bank and in effect also of the latter's principal or client, i.e. Hans Axel-Christiansen. (sic) Such being the case, when Christiansen refused to issue the certification, it was as though refusal was made by Feati Bank Itself Feati Bank should have taken steps to secure the certification from

Christiansen; and, if the latter should still refuse to comply, to hale him to court. In short, Feati Bank should have honored Villaluz's demand for payment of his logs by virtue of the irrevocable letter of credit issued in Villaluz's favor and guaranteed by Feati Bank.3.The decision promulgated by this Court in CA-G.R. Sp No. 11051, which contained the statement "Since Villaluz' draft was not drawn strictly in compliance with the terms of the letter of credit, Feati Bank's refusal to negotiate it was justified," did not dispose of this question on the merits. In that case, the question involved was jurisdiction or discretion, and not judgment. The quoted pronouncement should not be taken as a preemptive judgment on the merits of the present case on appeal.4.The original action was for "mandamus and/ or specific performance." Feati Bank may not be a party to the transaction between Christiansen and Security Pacific National Bank on the one hand, and Villaluz on the other hand; still, being guarantor or agent of Christiansen and or Security Pacific National Bank which had directly dealt with Villaluz, Feati Bank may be sued properly on specific performance as a procedural means by which the relief sought by Villaluz may be entertained. (Rollo, pp. 32-33)

The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads:WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed; and accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs against the petitioner. (Rollo. p. 33)

Hence, this petition for review.The petitioner interposes the following reasons for the allowance of the petition.

First ReasonTHE RESPONDENT COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED FROM THE ESTABLISHED FACTS AND INDEED, WENT AGAINST THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT, THAT PETITIONER BANK IS LIABLE ON THE LETTER OF CREDIT DESPITE PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS THEREOF.

Second ReasonTHE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER BANK, BY NOTIFYING PRIVATE RESPONDENT OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT, CONFIRMED SUCH CREDIT AND MADE THE SAME ALSO ITS OBLIGATION AS GUARANTOR OF THE ISSUING BANK.

Third ReasonTHE RESPONDENT COURT LIKEWISE COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION. (Rollo, p. 12)

The principal issue in this case is whether or not a correspondent bank is to be held liable under the letter of credit despite non-compliance by the beneficiary with the terms

thereof? llcdThe petition is impressed with merit.It is a settled rule in commercial transactions involving letters of credit that the documents tendered must strictly conform to the terms of the letter of credit. The tender of documents by the beneficiary (seller) must include all documents required by the letter. A correspondent bank which departs from what has been stipulated under the letter of credit, as when it accepts a faulty tender, acts on its own risks and it may not thereafter be able to recover from the buyer or the issuing bank, as the case may be, the money thus paid to the beneficiary. Thus the rule of strict compliance.In the United States, commercial transactions involving letters of credit are governed by the rule of strict compliance. In the Philippines, the same holds true. The same rule must also be followed.The case of Anglo-South American Trust Co. v. Uhe et al. (184 N.E. 741 [1933]) expounded clearly on the rule of strict compliance.

"We have heretofore held that these letters of credit are to be strictly complied with, which documents, and shipping documents must be followed as stated in the letter. There is no discretion in the bank or trust company to waive any requirements. The terms of the letter constitutes an agreement between the purchaser and the bank." (p. 743)

Although in some American decisions, banks are granted a little discretion to accept a faulty tender as when the other documents may be considered immaterial or superfluous, this theory could lead to dangerous precedents. Since a bank deals only with documents, it is not in a position to determine whether or not the documents required by the letter of credit are material or superfluous. The mere fact that the document was specified therein readily means that the document is of vital importance to the buyer.Moreover, the incorporation of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit (U.C.P. for short) in the letter of credit resulted in the applicability of the said rules in the governance of the relations between the parties.And even if the U.C.P. was not incorporated in the letter of credit, we have already ruled in the affirmative as to the applicability of the U.C.P. in cases before us.In Bank of P.I. v. De Nery (35 SCRA 256 [1970]), we pronounced that the observance of the U.C.P. in this jurisdiction is justified by Article 2 of the Code of Commerce. Article 2 of the Code of Commerce enunciates that in the absence of any particular provision in the Code of Commerce, commercial transactions shall be governed by the usages and customs generally observed.There being no specific provision which governs the legal complexities arising from transactions involving letters of credit not only between the banks themselves but also between banks and seller and or buyer, the applicability of the U.C.P. is undeniable. LibLex 

The pertinent provisions of the U.C.P. (1962 Revision) are:Article 3."An irrevocable credit is a definite undertaking on the part of the issuing bank and constitutes the engagement of that bank to the beneficiary and bona fide holders of drafts drawn and or documents presented thereunder, that the provisions for payment, acceptance or negotiation contained in the credit will be duly fulfilled, provided that all the terms and conditions of the credit are complied with."An irrevocable credit may be advised to a beneficiary through another bank (the advising bank) without engagement on the part of that bank, but when an issuing bank authorizes or requests another bank to confirm its irrevocable credit and the latter does so, such confirmation constitutes a definite undertaking of the confirming bank . . ."Article 7."Banks must examine all documents with reasonable care to ascertain that they appear on their face to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit."Article 8."Payment, acceptance or negotiation against documents which appear on their face to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of a credit by a bank authorized to do so, binds the party giving the authorization to take up documents and reimburse the bank which has effected the payment, acceptance or negotiation." (Emphasis Supplied)

Under the foregoing provisions of the U.C.P., the bank may only negotiate, accept or pay, if the documents tendered to it are on their face in accordance with the terms and conditions of the documentary credit. And since a correspondent bank, like the petitioner, principally deals only with documents, the absence of any document required in the documentary credit justifies the refusal by the correspondent bank to negotiate, accept or pay the beneficiary, as it is not its obligation to look beyond the documents. It merely has to rely on the completeness of the documents tendered by the beneficiary.In regard to the ruling of the lower court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals that the petitioner is not a notifying bank but a confirming bank, we find the same erroneous.The trial court wrongly mixed up the meaning of an irrevocable credit with that of a confirmed credit. In its decision, the trial court ruled that the petitioner, in accepting the obligation to notify the respondent that the irrevocable credit has been transmitted to the petitioner on behalf of the private respondent, has confirmed the letter.The trial court appears to have overlooked the fact that an irrevocable credit is not synonymous with a confirmed credit. These types of letters have different meanings and the legal relations arising from there varies. A credit may be an irrevocable credit and at the same time a confirmed credit or vice-versa. cdphilAn irrevocable credit refers to the duration of the letter of credit. What is simply means is that the issuing bank may not without the consent of the beneficiary (seller) and the

applicant (buyer) revoke his undertaking under the letter. The issuing bank does not reserve the right to revoke the credit. On the other hand, a confirmed letter of credit pertains to the kind of obligation assumed by the correspondent bank. In this case, the correspondent bank gives an absolute assurance to the beneficiary that it will undertake the issuing bank's obligation as its own according to the terms and conditions of the credit. (Agbayani, Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 1, pp. 81-83)Hence, the mere fact that a letter of credit is irrevocable does not necessarily imply that the correspondent bank in accepting the instructions of the issuing bank has also confirmed the letter of credit. Another error which the lower court and the Court of Appeals made was to confuse the obligation assumed by the petitioner.In commercial transactions involving letters of credit, the functions assumed by a correspondent bank are classified according to the obligations taken up by it. The correspondent bank may be called a notifying bank, a negotiating bank, or a confirming bank.In case of a notifying bank, the correspondent bank assumes no liability except to notify and or transmit to the beneficiary the existence of the letter of credit. (Kronman and Co., Inc. v. Public National Bank of New York, 218 N.Y.S. 616 [1926]; Shaterian, Export-Import Banking, p. 292, cited in Agbayani, Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 76) A negotiating bank, on the other hand, is a correspondent bank which buys or discounts a draft under the letter of credit. Its liability is dependent upon the stage of the negotiation. If before negotiation, it has no liability with respect to the seller but after negotiation, a contractual relationship will then prevail between the negotiating bank and the seller. (Scanlon v. First National Bank of Mexico, 162 N.E. 667 [1928]; Shaterian, Export-Import Banking, p. 293, cited in Agbayani, Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 76)In the case of a confirming bank, the correspondent bank assumes a direct obligation to the seller and its liability is a primary one as if the correspondent bank itself had issued the letter of credit. (Shaterian, Export-Import Banking, p. 294, cited in Agbayani Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 77)In this case, the letter merely provided that the petitioner "forward the enclosed original credit to the beneficiary." (Records, Vol. I, p. 11) Considering the aforesaid instruction to the petitioner by the issuing bank, the Security Pacific National Bank, it is indubitable that the petitioner is only a notifying bank and not a confirming bank as ruled by the courts below. cdphilIf the petitioner was a confirming bank, then a categorical declaration should have been stated in the letter of credit that the petitioner is to honor all drafts drawn in conformity with the letter of credit. What was simply stated therein was the instruction that the petitioner forward the original letter of credit to the beneficiary.Since the petitioner was only a notifying bank, its responsibility was solely to notify and or transmit the documentary of credit to the private respondent and its obligation ends there.The notifying bank may suggest to the seller its willingness to negotiate, but this fact alone does not imply that the notifying bank promises to accept the draft drawn under the documentary credit.A notifying bank is not a privy to the contract of sale between the buyer and the seller,

its relationship is only with that of the issuing bank and not with the beneficiary to whom he assumes no liability. It follows therefore that when the petitioner refused to negotiate with the private respondent, the latter has no cause of action against the petitioner for the enforcement of his rights under the letter. (See Kronman and Co., Inc. v. Public National Bank of New York, supra)In order that the petitioner may be held liable under the letter, there should be proof that the petitioner confirmed the letter of credit.The records are, however, bereft of any evidence which will disclose that the petitioner has confirmed the letter of credit The only evidence in this case, and upon which the private respondent premised his argument, is the P75,000.00 loan extended by the petitioner to him.The private respondent relies on this loan to advance his contention that the letter of credit was confirmed by the petitioner. He claims that the loan was granted by the petitioner to him, "in anticipation of the presentment of the letter of credit."The proposition advanced by the private respondent has no basis in fact or law. That the loan agreement between them be construed as an act of confirmation is rather far-fetched, for it depends principally on speculative reasoning.As earlier stated, there must have been an absolute assurance on the part of the petitioner that it will undertake the issuing bank's obligation as its own. Verily, the loan agreement it entered into cannot be categorized as an emphatic assurance that it will carry out the issuing bank's obligation as its own.The loan agreement is more reasonably classified as an isolated transaction independent of the documentary credit.Of course, it may be presumed that the petitioner loaned the money to the private respondent in anticipation that it would later be paid by the latter upon the receipt of the letter. Yet, we would have no basis to rule definitively that such "act" should be construed as an act of confirmation.The private respondent no doubt was in need of money in loading the logs on the ship "Zenlin Glory" and the only way to satisfy this need was to borrow money from the petitioner which the latter granted. From these circumstances, a logical conclusion that can be gathered is that the letter of credit was merely to serve as a collateral.At the most, when the petitioner extended the loan to the private respondent, it assumed the character of a negotiating bank. Even then, the petitioner will still not be liable, for a negotiating bank before negotiation has no contractual relationship with the seller.The case of Scanlon v. First National Bank (supra) perspicuously explained the relationship between the seller and the negotiating bank, viz:

"It may buy or refuse to buy as it chooses. Equally, it must be true that it owes no contractual duty toward the person for whose benefit the letter is written to discount or purchase any draft drawn against the credit. No relationship of agent and principal, or of trustee and cestui, between the receiving bank and the beneficiary of the letter is established." (P. 568)

Whether therefore the petitioner is a notifying bank or a negotiating bank, it cannot be held liable. Absent any definitive proof that it has confirmed the letter of credit or has actually negotiated with the private respondent, the refusal by the petitioner to accept the tender of the private respondent is justified.In regard to the finding that the petitioner became a "trustee in relation to the plaintiff (private respondent) as the beneficiary of the letter of credit," the same has no legal basis. A trust has been defined as the "right, enforceable solely in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of property the legal title to which is vested to another." (89 C.J.S. 712)The concept of a trust presupposes the existence of a specific property which has been conferred upon the person for the benefit of another. In order therefore for the trust theory of the private respondent to be sustained, the petitioner should have had in its possession a sum of money as specific fund advanced to it by the issuing bank and to be held in trust by it in favor of the private respondent. This does not obtain in this case. LibLexThe mere opening of a letter of credit, it is to be noted, does not involve a specific appropriation of a sum of money in favor of the beneficiary. It only signifies that the beneficiary may be able to draw funds upon the letter of credit up to the designated amount specified in the letter. It does not convey the notion that a particular sum of money has been specifically reserved or has been held in trust.What actually transpires in an irrevocable credit is that the correspondent bank does not receive in advance the sum of money from the buyer or the issuing bank. On the contrary, when the correspondent bank accepts the tender and pays the amount stated in the letter, the money that it doles out comes not from any particular fund that has been advanced by the Issuing bank, rather it gets the money from its own funds and then later seeks reimbursement from the issuing bank.Granting that a trust has been created, still, the petitioner may not be considered a trustee. As the petitioner is only a notifying bank, its acceptance of the instructions of the issuing bank will not create estoppel on its part resulting in the acceptance of the trust. Precisely, as a notifying bank, its only obligation is to notify the private respondent of the existence of the letter of credit. How then can such create estoppel when that is its only duty under the law?We also find erroneous the statement of the Court of Appeals that the petitioner "acted as a guarantor of the issuing bank and in effect also of the latter's principal or client, i.e., Hans Axel Christiansen."It is a fundamental rule that an irrevocable credit is independent not only of the contract between the buyer and the seller but also of the credit agreement between the issuing bank and the buyer. (See Kingdom of Sweden v. New York Trust Co., 96 N.Y.S. 2d 779 [1949]) The relationship between the buyer (Christiansen) and the issuing bank (Security Pacific National Bank) is entirely independent from the letter of credit issued by the latter.The contract between the two has no bearing as to the noncompliance by the buyer with the agreement between the latter and the seller. Their contract is similar to that of a

contract of services (to open the letter of credit) and not that of agency as was intimated by the Court of Appeals. The unjustified refusal therefore by Christiansen to issue the certification under the letter of credit should not likewise be charged to the issuing bank.As a mere notifying bank, not only does the petitioner not have any contractual relationship with the buyer, it has also nothing to do with the contract between the issuing bank and the buyer regarding the issuance of the letter of credit. LibLexThe theory of guarantee relied upon by the Court of Appeals has to necessarily fail. The concept of guarantee vis-a-vis the concept of an irrevocable credit are inconsistent with each other.In the first place, the guarantee theory destroys the independence of the bank's responsibility from the contract upon which it was opened. In the second place, the nature of both contracts is mutually in conflict with each other. In contracts of guarantee, the guarantor's obligation is merely collateral and it arises only upon the default of the person primarily liable. On the other hand, in an irrevocable credit the bank undertakes a primary obligation. (See National Bank of Eagle Pass, Tex v. American National Bank of San Francisco, 282 F. 73 [1922])The relationship between the issuing bank and the notifying bank, on the contrary, is more similar to that of an agency and not that of a guarantee. It may be observed that the notifying bank is merely to follow the instructions of the issuing bank which is to notify or to transmit the letter of credit to the beneficiary. (See Kronman v. Public National Bank of New York, supra). Its commitment is only to notify the beneficiary. It does not undertake any assurance that the issuing bank will perform what has been mandated to or expected of it. As an agent of the issuing bank, it has only to follow the instructions of the issuing bank and to it alone is it obligated and not to buyer with whom it has no contractual relationship.In fact the notifying bank, even if the seller tenders all the documents required under the letter of credit, may refuse to negotiate or accept the drafts drawn thereunder and it will still not be held liable for its only engagement is to notify and or transmit to the seller the letter of credit.Finally, even if we assume that the petitioner is a confirming bank, the petitioner cannot be forced to pay the amount under the letter. As we have previously explained, there was a failure on the part of the private respondent to comply with the terms of the letter of credit.The failure by him to submit the certification was fatal to his case. The U.C.P. which is incorporated in the letter of credit ordains that the bank may only pay the amount specified under the letter if all the documents tendered are on their face in compliance with the credit. It is not tasked with the duty of ascertaining the reason or reasons why certain documents have not been submitted, as it is only concerned with the documents. Thus, whether or not the buyer has performed his responsibility towards the seller is not the bank's problem.We are aware of the injustice committed by Christiansen on the private respondent but we are deciding the controversy on the basis of what the law is, for the law is not meant to favor only those who have been oppressed, the law is to govern future relations among people as well. Its commitment is to all and not to a single individual. The faith of the people in our justice system may be eroded if we are to decide not what the law

states but what we believe it should declare. Dura lex sed lex. llcdConsidering the foregoing, the materiality of ruling upon the validity of the certificate of approval required of the private respondent to submit under the letter of credit, has become insignificant.In any event, we affirm the earlier ruling of the Court of Appeals dated April 9, 1987 in regard to the petition before it for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, to wit:

"There is no merit in the respondent's contention that the certification required in condition No. 4 of the letter of credit was "patently illegal." At the time the letter of credit was issued there was no Central Bank regulation prohibiting such a condition in the letter of credit. The letter of credit (Exh. C) was issued on June 7, 1971, more than two months before the issuance of the Central Bank Memorandum on August 16, 1971 disallowing such a condition in a letter of credit. In fact the letter of credit had already expired on July 30, 1971 when the Central Bank memorandum was issued. In any event, it is difficult to see how such a condition could be categorized as illegal or unreasonable since all that plaintiff Villaluz, as seller of the logs, could and should have done was to refuse to load the logs on the vessel "Zenlin Glory", unless Christiansen first issued the required certification that the logs had been approved by him to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of his purchase order. Apparently, Villaluz was in too much haste to ship his logs without taking all due precautions to assure that all the terms and conditions of the letter of credit had been strictly complied with, so that there would be no hitch in its negotiation." (Rollo, p. 8)

WHEREFORE, the COURT RESOLVED to GRANT the petition and hereby NULLIFIES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 29, 1990. The amended complaint in Civil Case No. 15121 is DISMISSED.SO ORDERED.Feliciano, Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.Fernan, C.J., took no part.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-24821. October 16, 1970.]BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DE RENY FABRIC INDUSTRIES, INC., AURORA T. TUYO and AURORA CARCERENY alias AURORA C. GONZALES, defendants-appellants.

Aviado & Aranda for plaintiff-appellee.S. Emiliano Calma for defendants-appellants.

SYLLABUS

1. COMMERCIAL LAW; LETTERS OF CREDIT; TERMS OF COMMERCIAL LETTER OF CREDIT AGREEMENTS, BINDING. — Where appellants agreed, under the terms of the Commercial Letter of Credit Agreements, that the Bank shall not be responsible for the existence, character, quality, quantity, conditions, packing, value or delivery of the property purporting to be represented by the documents; nor, for any difference in character, quality, quantity, condition, or value of the property from that expressed in documents, or for partial or incomplete shipment, etc., said appellants have no recourse but to comply with the covenant.2. ID.; ID.; CUSTOMS AND USAGES IN INTERNATIONAL BANKING AND FINANCIAL CIRCLES. — Where it is proven as a fact that a custom exists to the effect that a bank is not duty bound to verify whether what has been described in the letters of credit or drafts or shipping documents actually tallies with what was loaded aboard the ship, appellants cannot shift the burden of loss to the bank arising from the violation by their vendor of

its presentation. Article 10 of the Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits Fixed for the Thirteenth Congress of International Chamber of Commerce to which the Philippines is a signatory nation provides that, "in documentary credit operations, all parties concerned deal in documents and not in goods. Payment, negotiation or acceptance against documents in accordance with the terms and conditions of a credit by a Bank authorized to do so binds the party giving the authorization to-take up the documents and reimburse the Bank making the payment, negotiation or acceptance."

D E C I S I O N

CASTRO, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering the defendants-appellants to pay to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), jointly and severally, the value of the credit it extended to them in several letters of credit which the Bank opened at the behest of the defendants-appellants to finance their importation of dyestuffs from the United States, which however turned out to be mere colored chalk upon arrival and inspection thereof at the port of Manila.The record shows that on four (4) different occasions in 1961, the De Reny Fabric Industries, Inc., a Philippine corporation through its co-defendants-appellants, Aurora Carcereny, alias Aurora C. Gonzales, and Aurora T. Tuyo, president and secretary, respectively of the corporation, applied to the Bank for four (4) irrevocable commercial letters of credit to cover the purchase by the corporation of goods described in the covering L/C applications as "dyestuffs of various colors" from its American supplier, the J.B. Distributing Company. All the applications of the corporation were approved, and the corresponding Commercial L/C Agreements were executed pursuant to banking procedures. Under these agreements, the aforementioned officers of the corporation bound themselves personally as joint and solidary debtors with the corporation. Pursuant to banking regulations then in force, the corporation delivered to the Bank peso marginal deposits as each letter of credit was opened.The dates and amounts of the L/Cs applied for and approved as well as the peso marginal deposits made were, respectively, as follows:

Date Application Amount Marginal& L/C No DepositOct. 10, 1961 61/1413 $57,658.38 P 43,407.33Oct. 23, 1961 61/1483 $25,867.34 19,473.64Oct. 30, 1961 61/1495 $19,408.39 14,610.88Nov. 10, 1961 61/1564 $26,687.64 20,090.90TOTAL $129,621.75 P97,582.75

By virtue of the foregoing transactions, the Bank issued irrevocable commercial letters of credit addressed to its correspondent banks in the United States, with uniform

instructions for them to notify the beneficiary thereof, the J.B. Distributing Company, that they have been authorized to negotiate the latter's sight drafts up to the amounts mentioned therein, respectively, if accompanied, upon presentation, by a full set of negotiable clean "on board" ocean bills of lading, covering the merchandise appearing in the L/Cs, that is, dyestuffs of various colors. Consequently, the J.B. Distributing Company drew upon, presented to and negotiated with these banks, its sight drafts covering the amounts of the merchandise ostensibly being exported by it, together with clean bills of lading, and collected the full value of the drafts up to the amounts appearing in the L/Cs as above indicated. These correspondent banks then debited the account of the Bank of the Philippine Islands with them up to the full value of the drafts presented by the J.B. Distributing Company, plus commission thereon, and, thereafter, endorsed and forwarded all documents to the Bank of the Philippine Islands.In the meantime, as each shipment (covered by the abovementioned letters of credit) arrived in the Philippines, the De Reny Fabric Industries, Inc. made partial payments to the Bank amounting, in the aggregate, to P90,000. Further payments were, however, subsequently discontinued by the corporation when it became established, as a result of a chemical test conducted by the National Science Development Board, that the goods that arrived in Manila were colored chalks instead of dyestuffs.The corporation also refused to take possession of these goods, and for this reason, the Bank caused them to be deposited with a bonded warehouse paying therefor the amount of P12,609.64 up to the filing of its complaint with the court below on December 10, 1962.On October 24, 1963 the lower court rendered its decision ordering the corporation and its co-defendants (the herein appellants) to pay to the plaintiff-appellee the amount of P291,807.46, with interest thereon, as provided for in the L/C Agreements, at the rate of 7% per annum from October 31, 1962 until fully paid, plus costs.It is the submission of the defendants-appellants that it was the duty of the foreign correspondent banks of the Bank of the Philippine Islands to take the necessary precaution to insure that the goods shipped under the covering L/Cs conformed with the item appearing therein, and, that the foregoing banks having failed to perform this duty, no claim for recoupment against the defendants-appellants, arising from the losses incurred for the non-delivery or defective delivery of the articles ordered, could accrue.We can appreciate the sweep of the appellants' argument, but we also find that it is nestled hopelessly inside a salient where the valid contract between the parties and the internationally accepted customs of the banking trade must prevail. 1Under the terms of their Commercial Letter of Credit Agreements with the Bank, the appellants agreed that the Bank shall not be responsible for the "existence, character, quality, quantity, conditions, packing, value, or delivery of the property purporting to be represented by documents; for any difference in character, quality, quantity, condition, or value of the property from that expressed in documents," or for "partial or incomplete shipment, or failure or omission to ship any or all of the property referred to in the Credit," as well as "for any deviation from instructions, delay, default or fraud by the shipper or anyone else in connection with the property the shippers or vendors and ourselves [purchasers] or any of us." Having agreed to these terms, the appellants have, therefore, no recourse but to comply with their covenant. 2But even without the stipulation recited above, the appellants cannot shift the burden of

loss to the Bank on account of the violation by their vendor of its prestation.It was uncontrovertibly proven by the Bank during the trial below that banks, in providing financing in international business transactions such as those entered into by the appellants, do not deal with the property to be exported or shipped to the importer, but deal only with documents. The Bank introduced in evidence a provision contained in the "Uniform Customs and Practices for Commercial Documentary Credits Fixed for the Thirteenth Congress of International Chamber of Commerce," to which the Philippines is a signatory nation. Article 10 thereof provides:

"In documentary credit operations, all parties concerned deal in documents and not in goods.—Payment, negotiation or acceptance against documents in accordance with the terms and conditions of a credit by a Bank authorized to do so binds the party giving the authorization to take up the documents and reimburse the Bank making the payment, negotiation or acceptance."

The existence of a custom in international banking and financing circles negating any duty on the part of a bank to verify whether what has been described in letters of credits or drafts or shipping documents actually tallies with what was loaded aboard ship, having been positively proven as a fact, the appellants are bound by this established usage. They were, after all, the ones who tapped the facilities afforded by the Bank in order to engage in international business.ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is affirmed, at defendants-appellants' cost. This is without prejudice to the Bank, in proper proceedings in the court below in this same case, proving and being reimbursed additional expenses, if any, it has incurred by virtue of the continued storage of the goods in question up to the time this decision becomes final and executory.Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.Concepcion, C.J., is on official leave.