Scribd
Upload
20 views2 pages

Bank Liability in Forged Check Cases

1) Petitioner was a businessman who entrusted his secretary to handle his credit cards and checkbooks. The secretary embezzled money from his accounts and deposited it into her personal account. When petitioner discovered this, he fired the secretary and filed criminal charges. He then requested the bank restore the stolen funds but the bank refused. 2) The issue is whether petitioner has a cause of action against the bank. The court held that petitioner did not prove the bank was negligent in failing to detect forged signatures on the checks. It was incumbent on petitioner to prove the forgeries occurred but he failed to provide additional signature samples requested during the investigation. The bank also exercised due diligence in processing the checks.

Uploaded by

rd
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views2 pages

Bank Liability in Forged Check Cases

1) Petitioner was a businessman who entrusted his secretary to handle his credit cards and checkbooks. The secretary embezzled money from his accounts and deposited it into her personal account. When petitioner discovered this, he fired the secretary and filed criminal charges. He then requested the bank restore the stolen funds but the bank refused. 2) The issue is whether petitioner has a cause of action against the bank. The court held that petitioner did not prove the bank was negligent in failing to detect forged signatures on the checks. It was incumbent on petitioner to prove the forgeries occurred but he failed to provide additional signature samples requested during the investigation. The bank also exercised due diligence in processing the checks.

Uploaded by

rd
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

RAMON K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
Petitioner was a prominent businessman who, because of different business
commitments, entrusted to his then secretary the handling of his credit cards
and checkbooks. For a material period of time, the secretary was able to
encash and deposit in her personal account money from the account of
petitioner. Upon knowledge of her acts, she was fired immediately and
criminal actions were filed against her. Thereafter, petitioner requested the bank
to restore its money but the bank refused to do so.
Issue: whether or not petitioner has a cause of action against private respondent
HELD:
The petitioner doesn’t have a course of action against the bank. To be entitled
to damages, petitioner has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the bank
for failure to detect the discrepancy in the signatures on the checks. It is incumbent
upon petitioner to establish the fact of forgery. Curiously though, petitioner failed to
supply additional signature specimens as requested by the NBI. The bank was not
also remiss in performance of its duties, it practices due diligence in encashing
checks. The bank didn’t have any hint of the modus operandi of Eugenio as she
was a regular customer, designated by the petitioner himself to transact on his
behalf.

It was petitioner who was negligent in this case. He failed to examine his bank
statements and this was the proximate cause of his own damage. Because of
this negligence, he is precluded from setting up the defense of forgery with regard the
checks.

[G.R. No. 129015. August 13, 2004]


SAMSUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND COURT OF APPEALS,
respondents.
Facts: Samsung Construction held an account with Far East Bank. One day a check
worth 900,000, payable to cash, was presented by one Roberto Gonzaga in the Makati
Branch of Far East Bank. The check was certified to be true by Jose Sempio, the
assistant accountant of Samsung, who was also present during the time the check was
cashed. Later however it was discovered that no such check was ever approved by the
Samsung’s head accountant, the president of the company also never signed any such
check.

Issue: Whether or not Far East Bank is liable to reimburse Samsung for cashing out
the forged check, which was drawn from the account of Samsung

Held: Far East Bank is liable for reimbursement. Sec. 23 of the Negotiable Instrument
Law states that a forged signature makes the instrument “wholly inoperative”. If
payment is made the drawee (Far East) cannot charge it to the drawer’s account
(Samsung). The fact that the forgery is clever is immaterial. The forged signature may
so closely resemble the genuine as to defy detection by the depositor himself. And
yet, if the bank pays the check, it is paying out with its own money and not of the
depositor’s. This rule of liability can be stated briefly in these words: “A bank is
bound to know its depositor’s signature.” The accusation of negligence on the part of
Samsung was not clearly proven. Absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption is
that the ordinary course of business was followed.

You might also like