(The following article was written by retired Ambassador Reynaldo Arcilla. It appeared in Biz News Magazine and in Malaya.I’m posting it here so the public would be forewarned.)
Those who have dollar accounts or are planning to open one with the JP Morgan Chase Bank may find this article an interesting and useful read.
In January 1981, I was assigned as Deputy Ambassador in the Philippine Mission to the United Nations in New York. Since Foreign Service personnel posted abroad are usually paid their remuneration in US currency, it becomes necessary for them to open dollar accounts. So I opened one with the then Chemical Bank in New York, the depository bank of the Mission.
I used the same account in my subsequent foreign postings and continued to maintain it even after my retirement in 1998.
Sometime later, Chemical Bank merged with the then Chase Manhattan Bank, with the latter “inheriting” all the clients of the former, including me. The merged institution became known as JP Morgan Chase Bank.
In April 2002, I received my usual monthly statement. Two encashed checks came with it. They were not mine! They were in the name of one “Alexandra A. Lichauco with address at 137 9th Street, Balete Drive, Philippines” (obviously fictitious) but they bore my account number.
Both checks were unsigned. In the space meant for a signature was written “Verbally Authorized by Your Depositor.”
I immediately called up Chase in New York to find out what happened. I was referred from one person/department to another, only to be told that I should execute an affidavit stating what happened. I was also told to have the affidavit authenticated by the American Embassy in Manila.
Angrily, I said: “I do not know what happened, that’s why I’m calling you. You cashed the checks, you tell me what happened!”
Without further insisting on an affidavit, Chase said it will investigate the matter. (I was never advised of the results of the promised investigation.)
Fearing that further unauthorized withdrawals could be made from my account, I requested Chase to close the account and open a “new” one but with a different access code. (It was a big mistake as will become clear in the latter part of this piece.)
To open the “new” account, Chase sent me the usual signature cards for me to fill up and sign.
Thereafter, the “new” account was opened with a different number. When I tried to have access to the “new” account, I found out to my consternation and dismay that the access code to it was the same as the one for the closed account.
The purpose of asking Chase to open the “new” account was, therefore, defeated. (Chase never came up with a satisfactory explanation as to why they did not change the access code.)
True enough, I later received from Chase a “Notice of Insufficient or Uncollected Funds”, indicating the corresponding charges debited from my account. As it turned out, more bogus checks were indeed cashed by Chase, leaving my account empty and overdrawn. None of those checks were ever forwarded to me.
After threatening it with a lawsuit for damages, Chase forthwith restored the total amount “pilfered” from my account plus interest and undertook to reimburse me for my overseas calls, which it did.
Subsequently, Chase proposed an out-of-court settlement by offering me an amount purportedly equivalent to the expenses that will be incurred by its representative to come to Manila to look into the case.
I declined the offer which, to me, smacked of adding insult to injury. It also strengthened my resolve to pursue the case in court.
In time, Chase’s lawyers in Manila filed a Motion to Dismiss my complaint contending that when I signed the signature cards to open the “new” account (which in truth and in fact was the same account opened in 198l), I also agreed to abide by the terms and conditions contained in a certain voluminous document.
I was not informed of the existence of said document when I was asked to sign the aforecited signature cards.
The document also did not exist when I opened the account with Chemical Bank in 1981.
One of the provisions in that document, which was presented in court as an exhibit, states that any legal action that may be taken against Chase by a depositor must be filed in New York.
It was quite obvious there was bad faith on the part of Chase when it used this argument to have my complaint dismissed.
I was not about to go to New York and spend money for Chase’s gross negligence. Besides, Chase has a local branch doing business in the Philippines by virtue of which, it may be assumed, my complaint can be filed here.
One can, therefore, well imagine my shock when the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati ruled in favor of Chase and dismissed my complaint.
Equally shocking was the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the RTC ruling.
Financial constraints prevent me from, first, filing a complaint in New York and, second, elevating the case to the Supreme Court.
I have since closed my account with Chase.
Something similar happened to me but with a Philippine bank.
Paano ngayon yan? Just forget about it? Did you also sue?
Ellen,
I am interested in learning the “other side” of the “story” (complaint of former Deputry Ambassador Arcilla). In the interest of fair and balanced reporting (even blogging), your bloggers must be afforded the opportunity to see “both sides” of a story or an issue. Left alone, it would seem that Arcilla was “gyped” by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. I do not believe the version of Arcilla tells the complete story, because there are many questions left unanswered.
What would really be informative (help provide the complete picture) is if you can provide, (at the very least), an excerpt or a precis of the decision of the RTC and the Appellate Courts, so that we can learn and understand the basis for the dismissal by the RTC and the Appellate Courts of the complaint filed by Arcilla.
That way, we can more enlightenedly decide for ourselves if there is any valid or reasonable basis for “being alarmed” or heeding the advice to be “aware and alert” (or be extra careful in dealing with J.P. Morgan & Chase Co.)
In particular, the following declarations by Arcilla caught my attention:
1.
2.
3.
================================
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
I checked my files on “banking mergers” and noted the following:
It was sometime in 1995 when Chase Manhattan agreed to be acquired by Chemical Banking for $10 billion in the largest bank deal in history. This was three (3) years before Arcilla retired.
The combined company retained the prestigious Chase Manhattan name. Chase has a gold-plated reputation, a global customer base, and almost $300 billion in assets.
That is more than Citicorp, currently the largest bank in the U.S. It became the fourth-largest capitalized bank in the world with $20 billion in capital, as a result of the merger.
The merged company, therefore, became The Chase Manhattan Bank (although it was Chemical Bank that was the “acquiring bank”).
In 2000, the company acquired JPMorgan and again changed their name to JP Morgan Chase & Co. The company then acquired Bank One in 2004.
==================
When Arcilla first opened his bank account in 1981, the name of the bank of his choice was NO LONGER Chemical Bank New York (Trust Company) (i.e., a name it acquired in September 1, 1959); because,in February 17, 1969, the bank’s name was already changed SIMPLY to “Chemical Bank.”
When Arcilla retired in 1998, Chemical Bank had already acquired Chase but had retained its name “The Chase Manhattan Bank.”
By 2000, JP Morgan had been brought into the merger and the name of the company again changed to JP Morgan & Chase Company. So, when Arcilla first encountered his problem in April 2002, he had already been dealing with JP Morgan & Chase Company, for at least two (2) years.
=====================
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. a Delaware corporation that uses the brand name JPMorgan Chase for its corporate image advertising and communications and JPMorgan as a brand for the investment bank business, is a global financial services firm with operations in more than 50 countries.
Its “corporate dna” is from the company Chemical Bank, which took over Chase Manhattan then later JP Morgan. It retains Chemical’s bank headquarters, stock history, and most of its management.
SIDELIGHTS:
In 1934, representitives of J.P. Morgan, Goodyear, and DuPont were implicated by General Smedley Butler in the Business Plot to overthrow the U.S government and set up a fascist dictatorship.
Chase Manhattan Corporation
At the time of the merger, Chase was a worldwide banker to corporations, a national credit card provider, and a retail bank in three states. It especially was noted in its cash management, securities custody, and cash management businesses, some of which it helped invent. It was weakened by the collapse of the commercial property market and losses in international loans. This was what led it to be acquired by Chemical bank.
==================
The other statement by Arcilla that baffles me is his contention that:
———–
“I declined the offer which, to me, smacked of adding insult to injury. It also strengthened my resolve to pursue the case in court. ”
———–
By his own account, Arcilla admits, his case was dismissed by the RTC and then the Appellate Court. WHY? (i.e., if he was really completely in the right, WHY was his complaint DISMISSED)????
Without details as to the amounts involved in his complaints and/or threats to sue for damages, it is difficult to take a position as to whether to agree or at least emphatize with Arcilla as to whether the offer really constituted “an insult to injury”.
WHAT I DO KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCES IS THAT WHEN ONE SUES FOR “DAMAGES”, ONE MUST BE ABLE TO PRESENT OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES AND PROOF OF ACTUAL DAMAGES THAT ONE HAS ACTUALLY AND REALISTICALLY SUFFERED AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF ANOTHER PARTY’S TORTIOUS OR NEGLIGENT ACTS.
If you fail to do that, you get NOTHING. If there is a lesson to be learned from Arcilla’s experience, and solely based on the facts that have been presented in the posting here, it would be…that “half of something, is better than a whole of nothing.”
Pepeton
Ellen,
I’m sure Ambassador Arcilla’s former bank has people stalking for them and would issue a blog-rebuttal if the good ambassador’s letter to you is not to their liking.
Let’s wait and see.
For the enlightenment of “Pepeton”, the substance or merits of my complaint were never considered by the RTC. It only considered the Motion to Dismiss (my complaint) filed by Chase’s lawyers. The Motion to Dismiss was premised on the ground that I should have filed my complaint in New York. How this happened is clearly explained in my article.
“Pepeton” wonders if I have overwhelming evidence…. Well, I have in my possession two of the spurious checks cashed by Chase, my monthly statements showing the unauthorized withdrawals and notices of insufficient or uncollected funds.
The fact that Chase offered to settle out of court my legal complaint is a virtual admission of its gross negligence in handling my account.
I suggest to “Pepeton” to read again my piece and this time to digest it more fully.
I did not mean to offend your sensibility “Arcilla”. Your suggestion that I read again your posting is noted. As I would suggest to you also – that just because “a defendant settles out of court…does not mean a ‘virtual admission of gross negligence in handling my account’ (your words.)
What would have been a clearer admission (of gross negligence?) is if they had settled your claim to your satisfaction…and evidently, that was not the case here.
Many civil cases are settled out of court, for the most part, because the courts (in the USA and in the Philippines) do not have sufficient resources to process all complaints or even a majority of these, thru the whole judicial process of trial, etc. Therefore, for practical reasons, the courts themselves recommend and urge strongly the litigants to “settle out of court”. This does not suggest that one is guilty or at fault, more than the other. For all I know, you were satisfied with the amount offered to “make up for a clerical error”. Okey, call it “gross clerical error”, but “gross negligence” – in law -is defined as ‘tantamount to a wilful and malicious act.’ And that is a very serious offense. And if such were shown in your complaint, then the matter would have been adjudicated differently. That, I am sure of.
My counterpost, if you understood it as I meant it, requests Ellen to post the SIDE OF THE BANK….not your disclaimer about WHAT THE BANK SAID OR DID. We already know from your article which Ellen posted, YOUR SIDE. I want to read the SIDE OF THE BANK, from the BANK.
This is what you wrote:
“I immediately called up Chase in New York to find out what happened. I was referred from one person/department to another, only to be told that I should execute an affidavit stating what happened. I was also told to have the affidavit authenticated by the American Embassy in Manila.”
Comment: I am not totally surprised that you did not submit an affidavit. But I can surmise, you were probably offended that you were required to “swear a statement under oath” the veracity of your complaint. “The nerve”.
This is what I requested:
What would really be informative (help provide the complete picture) is if you can provide, (at the very least), an excerpt or a precis of the decision of the RTC and the Appellate Courts, so that we can learn and understand the basis for the dismissal by the RTC and the Appellate Courts of the complaint filed by Arcilla.
Your rebuttal “Arcilla” : “For the enlightenment of “Pepeton”, the substance or merits of my complaint were never considered by the RTC. It only considered the Motion to Dismiss (my complaint) filed by Chase’s lawyers. The Motion to Dismiss was premised on the ground that I should have filed my complaint in New York. How this happened is clearly explained in my article.”
My resolution: Of course your complaint was considered. It is misleading to state this. But it was considered UNMERITORIOUS in the court you filed it in. Because as you have explained, the court decided, according to you, that you filed the complaint in the WRONG VENUE! So, where is the court transcript that said this?
Might the outcome have been different if you just went to the American Embassy, as requested/instructed, the first time you brought the complaint to their attention in NY, VERBALLY?
Might the outcome have been different if you used DIPLOMACY, instead of HURT ARROGANCE? (which you have clearly, if sarcastically, insinuated in your response to my “pursuit of equal time and space for both sides of the story.”
I have lived in the USA for well over 37 years. If there is one thing the USA businesses are unparalleled…it is in CONSUMERISM. CONSUMER PROTECTION. But you must follow the rules and terms of engagement when you DEMAND your RIGHTS as a DISATISFIED CUSTOMER.
In the spirit of Christmas “Reynaldo Arcilla”, next time you have a similar experience, let me know…I will handle it for you…and I can assure you…the outcome will be to EVERYBODY’s mutual satisfaction. The art of compromise is most skillfully practiced when both disagreeing parties stand up from the discussion-arguing table, “half-satisfied”.
What the hell am I saying here, you’re the diplomat, not me.
By your leave therefore, noblesse oblige.
Pepeton (without the quotation, “Reynaldo Arcilla”)
Ellen,
I don’t wish to be rude but I wish to point out that ending letter or an opinion incessantly with a non-phrase followed by “noblesse oblige” is a mark of a person sans noblesse, sine nobilitate or SNob.
A person who does that sans cesse will be laughed at by the noblesse (both aristocrats and by people ‘de l’esprit ou d’un statut noble’) as one who is ‘très commun, rien qu’un vulgaire routurier’…
P.S. Either that or the noblesse will term that person ‘rien qu’une gourgandine’.
Thank you Anna de Brux! 🙂
You are most welcome Ambassador.
Bwahahhahaa…Anna…you’re funny. Or silly. Being rude, being arrogant, being feisty, sophisticated, pedantic, all these are acceptable demeanors and positioning in the cyberworld…your being rude is noted and acceptable. No need to feign regrets for being rude.It is okey to be you. You silly you. It is stupidity that is not countenanced nor tolerated in the internet. Stupidity is only tolerated and, in fact, in some branches of the government, actually encouraged. BWAHAHAHAHA. See the recent articles of Ellen on the Forrest Gump “stupid is, stupid does” grand scale stupidity that has been going on in the Department of Foreign Affairs, as for one example only.
Speaking of which….stupidity, that is…
You cross-posted one of the articles of Ellen in another forum, in an on-going thread on “social responsibility in journalism”, that undeservedly received the comment – “Sorry, Anna, this posting (referring to Ellen’s summarized/incomplete article) is NOT an example of what I call, socially responsibile journalism”. This, from a venerable and respected elderly priest, (80+++years old and who is terminally ill with cancer, by his own admission) who is well-known and respected for his social advocacies.
Since we are on the topic of “etiquette” (something which you feign to be knowledgeable and sensitive about… noblesse oblige, hehehehehe, although irrelevant to the subject posting of “Arcilla”), I noted that your “cross posting” did not include the usual protocol request for permission from the website administrator of the forum you wish to cross post. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you, at least, asked Ellen about cross-posting her article). This is basic elementary courtesy in internetting.(in case you have forgotten or are ignorant about it, noblesse oblige, hahahaha).
For another, you did not explain that at the time you posted Ellen’s article, it was “incomplete” still, as Ellen’s report was about 14+++ pages long, and was probably not finished yet, at the time you eagerly cross-posted. Third, whatever your intention was, for cross-posting I trust you now realize that the subscribers of the other website forum did not appreciate your cross-posting.
The invitation to post comments on the topic suggested to Haydee Carlos by Father Vic, was intended primarily as a topic for brainstorming of ideas and concepts that will help check the observed excesses in media reporting, that in recent weeks have been foremost in the minds of many broadsheet and broadcast journalists, also. The idea behind the topic of “Social Responsibility in Journalism” was to encourage the formulation of “checks and controls” that would serve as guides towards “fair and balanced” and socially responsible (and responsive) journalism.
Unmindful and/or uncaring, it seems, you cross-posted a decidely and purposefully controversial (anti-administration) article from Ellen in this on-going thread in that forum. Your timing was off. And the response you got explains it all. That is why Fr. Vic expressed such disappointment.
BTW, too, would you know for a fact when “Reynaldo Arcilla” served as the official Ambassador of the Philippines to the USA, (and/or other countries)and under whose presidential terms?
Now, would you and “Ambassador” “Arcilla” oblige to continue an intelligent discussion of “what really happened” to the “dishonored checks” of “Reynaldo Arcilla” and how J.P. Morgan made up for it; how to avoid getting imbroiled in a similar “hassle”; and how to ensure that if one cannot avoid being similarly situated, that one knows how to defend one’s rights intelligently and effectively?
Noblesse oblige
Pepeton
Dear Ellen,
It seems that one of your bloggers has signed his name “Noblesse Oblige”. I wonder if he understands what he is doing or saying.
The poor sod I believe wants to say something worthwhile but ends up with some gibberish hysteria. While I am inclined to think that there’s always one born every minute, it would be helpful to his family if he they committed him to an asylum illico.
I do believe the poor sod has gone mad – I mean mad as a mad hat.
Poor sod! Oh well, I agree there’s always one born every minute and becomes a tedious bore, an annoying stalker.
Dear Ellen, I shall be kind to whoever has signed his/her name “Noblesse Oblige” because I’ve always promised my Mum that I will be kind to animals and so I shall…
Chase USED to be a good bank to use. Not anymore! The customer service is no longer customer-oriented and their attitude is very corporate.
On a local level, their branch locations are severely understaffed. Their marketing does NOT reflect the personal experience!