NEGO Title : Ilusorio vs CA
when a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature signature it purports to be, the check is wholly inoperative. G.R. No. 139130 Date: Nov. 27, 2002 Poete: Quisumbung, J.
Ramon K Ilusorio– etitioners
!" and #he $anila %anking !orporation– Respondents
&ature of the case: " petition for review seeks to reverse the decision !1" promulgated on 'anuary (), *+++ by the !ourt of "ppeals in !"-.R. ! &o. /0+/(, a1rming the decision of the then !ourt of 2irst Instance of Ri3al, %ranch 4 5now the Regional #rial !ourt of $akati, %ranch *6)7 dismissing !ivil !ase &o. /6+80, for damages. #ACT$ 9irector of $ultinational $ultinational Investment %ancorporation %ancorporation , the etitioner was the $anaging 9irector !hairman andor resident of several other corporations and also a depositor in good standing of respondent bank. etitioner then entrusted his credit cards, checkbook, blank checks, passbooks, etc to his secretary, Katherine Eugenio who was also in charge of verifying and reconciling the statements statements of his checking account. - %etween the dates ;eptember <, *+)8 and 'anuary (6, *+)*, =ugenio encashed and deposited to her personal account about *0 checks drawn against petitioner>s account at the respondent respondent bank with a total amount of **+,?6/.6/. etitioner did not bother to check his statement of account until a business partne told him that he saw =ugenio using his5petitioner7 credit card. etitioner @red =ugenio and @led a complaint against her of =stafa thru 2alsi@cation of commercial documents due to the forged signatures she made in the checks. Respondent bank ,through $r. 9ante Ra3on5employee of manila bank7,also @led a complaint against =ugenio of =stafa thru falsi@cation of commercial documents against =ugenio. etitioner then reAuested respondent bank to credit credit back and restore to its account the value of the checks Ahich was encashed by =ugenio. =#I#IB&=R>s =#I#IB&=R>s !ontention: $anila %ank is liable for damages for its negligence in failing to detect the discrepant discrepant checks. Ce adds that as a general rule a bank which has obtained possession of a check upon an unauthori3ed or forged endorsement of the payees signature and which collects the amount of the check from the drawee is liable for the proceeds thereof to the payee. R=;B&9=&#>s !ontention: points out that ;ection (6 !13" of the &egotiable Instruments Daw is inapplicable, inapplicable, considering that the fact of forgery was never proven. I$$%E&$ W/N anila !ank is liable for damages for failing to detect a forged check-N" RATIO #o be entitled to damages, $lusorio has the burden of proving that the bank was negligent in failing to detect the discrepancy in the signatures on the checks. $lusorio had to establish the fact of forgery which he failed to do by b y failing to submit his specimen signatures for N!$ to conclusively establish forgery. %urthermore, the !ank was not negligent in verifying the checks as they verified the drawer&s signatures against their specimen signatures and in doubt, referred to more e'perienced verifier for further verification.
-"n the contrary, it was $lusorio who was found to be negligent. (e accorded his secretary with an unusual degree of trust and unrestricted access to his finances. %u rthermore, despite the fact that the bank was regularly sending statements of account, he failed to ch eck them until he found out that his secretary was using his credit cards. R%'ING
()ERE#ORE, the instant petition is 9=&I=9 for lack of merit. #he assailed decision of the
!ourt of "ppeals dated 'anuary (), *+++ in !"-.R. ! &o. /0+/(, is "22IR$=9 Notes )ec. *+ of the Negotiable $nstruments law provides that a forged check is inoperative, meaning there was no right to enforce payment against any party. !ut it also provides an e'ception unless the party against whom it is sought enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority. ONG
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/139130.htm
