G.R. No. L-53194 March 14, 1988, Gancayco, J. Gancayco, J. Digested by Charm Demo ! La" 1#8 $ Nego %o&ic' (orgery Gozon left his checkbook in his car. His friend then forged his signature on his check and encashed Php5,000. The court granted Gozon’s claim for the return of the said amount from the bank for it as negligent in not noticing the differences of the signatures. !lso, the court said Gozon as not negligent in lea"ing his checkbook ith his supposedl# friend ho he thought he can trust.
FACTS • • •
• •
• • •
Gozon left his checkbook in his car. Inside the car was his friend Ernesto Santos. Santos Santos then then took took one of the checks checks from Gozon’ Gozon’ss checkbo checkbook ok and forged forged Gozon’ Gozon’ss signature. Later that day, he encashed the said check for Ph!,""" from the etitioner drawee bank. #he bank encashed the check. Gozon found out about the encashment and asked the bank to return his money for his signature was forged. #he bank refused. $ence, Gozon filed a comlaint for reco%ery of the Ph!,""". &#' ruled in fa%or of Gozon $ence, P() filed this etition for re%iew, claiming that Gozon was negligent in lea%ing his checkbook in the car, and that was the ro*imate cause of his loss.
ISSUES & HOLDING • •
+hether P() was negligent in encashing the check - YES. +hether Gozon was negligent in lea%ing his checkbook in the car with Santos NO.
RATIO •
/ bank is bound to know the signatures of its customers0 and if it a ys a forged check, it must be considered as making the ayment out of its own funds, and cannot ordinarily charge the amount so aid to the account of the deositor whose name was forged1 2San 'arlos 3illing 'o. %s. )ank )an k of the P.I. P.I.
•
#he rime duty of a bank ban k is to ascertain the genuineness of the signature of the drawer or the deositor on the check being encashed. It is e*ected to use reasonable business rudence in acceting and cashing a check resented to it.
•
•
#he &#' found that a comarison of the signature on the forged check and the samle signatures of ri%ate resondent show marked differences as the graceful lines in the samle signature which is comletely different from those of the signature on the forged check. Indeed the ()I handwriting e*ert Estelita Santiago /gnes whom the trial court considered to be an 4unbiased scientific e*ert4 indicated the marked differences between the signature of ri%ate resondent on the samle signatures and the 5uestioned signature. 6b%iously, etitioner was negligent in encashing said forged check without carefully e*amining the signature which shows marked %ariation from the genuine signature of ri%ate resondent.
•
#he act of laintiff in lea%ing his checkbook in the car while he went out for a short while can not be considered negligence sufficient to e*cuse the defendant bank from its own negligence. It should be home in mind that when defendant left his car, Ernesto Santos, a long time classmate and friend remained in the same. 7efendant could not ha%e been e*ected to know that the said Ernesto Santos would remo%e a check from his checkbook. $efendant had trust in his classmate and friend . $e had no reason to susect that the latter would breach that trust .
•
Pri%ate resondent trustee Ernesto Santos as a classmate and a friend. $e brought him along in his car to the bank and he left his ersonal belongings in the car. Santos howe%er remo%ed and stole a check from his cheek book without the knowledge and consent of ri%ate resondent. (o doubt ri%ate resondent cannot be considered negligent under the circumstances of the case.
