METROBANK VS CA G.R. No.

88866 February 18, 1991 Lessons Applicable: Forgery (Negotiable Instruments Law) FACTS: January 1979: Eduardo Gomez opened an account with Golden Savings and deposited over a period of 2 months 38 treasury warrants totalling P1,755,228.37.

all drawn by the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority and purportedly signed by its General Manager and countersigned by its Auditor: 6 - directly payable to Gomez 32 - indorsed by their respective payees, followed by Gomez as second indorser June 25 - July 16, 1979: all warrants were subsequently indorsed by Gloria Castillo as Cashier of Golden Savings and deposited to its Savings in the Metrobank branch They were then sent for clearing by the branch office to the principal office of Metrobank, which forwarded them to the Bureau of Treasury for special clearing More than 2 weeks after the deposits, Castillo asked if the warrants were cleared. She was told to wait. Gomez was also not allowed to withdraw from his account exasperated over Gloria's repeated inquiries and also as an accommodation for a "valued client," Metrobank allowed Golden Savings to make the following withdrawals:

July 9, 1979 - P508,000.00 July 13, 1979 - P310,000.00 July 16, 1979 - P150,000.00

Gomez was also allowed to withdraw a total amount of P1,167,500 (latest on July 16, 1979) July 21, 1979: Metrobank informed Golden Savings that 32 of the warrants had been dishonored by the Bureau of Treasury on July 19, 1979, and demanded the refund by Golden Savings of the amount it had previously withdrawn, to make up the deficit in its account. - refused CA affirmed RTC: favored Golden Savings

ISSUE: W/N Metrobank can claim a refund from Golden Savings

HELD: NO. Affirmed. withdrawn must be charged not to Golden Savings but to Metrobank, which must bear the consequences of its own negligence. But the balance of P586,589.00 should be debited to Golden Savings, as obviously Gomez can no longer be permitted to withdraw this amount from his deposit because of the dishonor of the warrants Metrobank was negligent in giving Golden Savings the impression that the treasury warrants had been cleared and that, consequently, it was safe to allow Gomez to withdraw

It "presumed" that the warrants had been cleared simply because of "the lapse of one week." There was no reason why it should not have waited until the treasury warrants had been cleared

Art. 1909. The agent is responsible not only for fraud, but also for negligence, which shall be judged 'with more or less rigor by the courts, according to whether the agency was or was not for a compensation. Golden Savings acted with due care and diligence

Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be established by clear, positive and convincing evidence. -here not proven treasury warrants in question are not negotiable instruments stamped on their face is the word "non-negotiable" indicated that they are payable from a particular fund

Sec. 1. Form of negotiable instruments. An instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following requirements: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and (e) Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 3. When promise is unconditional. An unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this Act though coupled with (a) An indication of a particular fund out of which reimbursement is to be made or a particular account to be debited with the amount; or (b) A statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument judgment. But an order or promise to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional.

ASTRO ELECTRONICS VS PHILEXPORT

Lessons Applicable: Promissory notes and checks (Negotiable Instruments Law) FACTS:

Astro was granted several loans by the Philippine Trust Company (Philtrust) amounting P3M w/ interest and secured by 3 promissory notes: December 14, 1981: P600,000.00 December 14, 1981: P400,000.00 August 27, 1981: P2,000,000.00 Roxas signed twice the promissory notes as President of Astro in his personal capacity Roxas also signed a Continuing Surety ship Agreement in favor of Philtrust Bank, as President of Astro and as surety Philguarantee, with the consent of Astro, guaranteed in favor of Philtrust the payment of 70% of Astros loan, subject to the condition that upon payment by Philguanrantee, it shall be proportionally subrogated to the rights of Philtrust against Astro Upon Astros failure to pay, Philguarantee paid 70% of the guaranteed loan to Philtrust. Subsequently, Philguarantee filed against Astro and Roxas a complaint for sum of money with the RTC Roxas: alleged that he merely signed the same in blank and the phrases in his personal capacity and in his official capacity were fraudulently inserted without his knowledge RTC: favored Philguarantee holding Astro and Roxas jointly and severally liable if Roxas really intended to sign the instruments merely in his capacity as President of Astro, then he should have signed only once CA affirmed RTC

ISSUE: W/N Roxas should be jointly and severally liable with Astro HELD: YES. CA affirmed Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, persons who write their names on the face of promissory notes are makers,promising that they will pay to the order of the payee or any holder according to its tenor.

even without the phrase personal capacity, Roxas will still be primarily liable as a joint and several debtor under the notes considering that his intention to be liable as such is manifested by the fact that he affixed his signature on each of the promissory notes twice which necessarily would imply that he is undertaking the obligation in 2 different capacities, official and personal. 3 promissory notes uniformly provide: FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I/We jointly, severally and solidarily, promise to pay to PHILTRUST BANK or order... begins with I, We, or Either of us promise to pay, when signed by two or more persons = solidarily liable Subrogation is the transfer of all the rights of the creditor to a third person, who substitutes him in all his rights Philguarantee has all the right to proceed against petitioner, it is subrogated to the rights of Philtrust to demand for and collect payment from both Roxas and Astro since it already paid the value of 70% of roxas and Astro Electronics Corp.s loan obligation Roxas acquiescence is not necessary for subrogation to take place because the instant case is one of the legal subrogation that occurs by operation of law, and without need of the debtors knowledge Philguarantee, as guarantor, became the transferee of all the rights of Philtrust as against Roxas and Astro because the guarantor who pays is subrogated by virtue thereof to all the rights which the creditor had against the debtor

MWSS VS CA
FACTS: Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) is a GOCC and successor-in- interest of the defunct NWSA.

The authorized signature for PNB Account No. 6 were those of MWSS treasurer Jose Sanchez, its auditor Pedro Aguilar, and its acting General Manager Victor L. Recio. Specimen signatures were submitted by the MWSS to and on file with the PNB By special arrangement with the PNB, the MWSS used personalized checks in drawing from this account. printed for MWSS by its printer, F. Mesina Enterprises March, April and May 1969: 23 checks were prepared, processed, issued and released by NWSA, all of which were paid and cleared by PNB and debited by PNB against NWSA Account No. 6

deposited by the fictitious payees Raul Dizon, Arturo Sison and Antonio Mendoza in their respective current accounts with the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) and Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC) At the time of their presentation to PNB these checks bear the standard indorsement which reads 'all prior indorsement and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed' NWSA filed against PNB before the CFI PNB also filed a 3rd party complaint against the negotiating banks PBC and PCIB on the ground that they failed to ascertain the Identity of the payees and their title to the checks which were deposited in the respective new accounts of the payees with them February 6, 1976: CFI favored MWSS CA: reversed and favored PNB applied Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law

ISSUE: W/N MWSS can can claim against PNB HELD: NO. CA reversed. Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for valuable consideration and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party thereto for value

A bank is bound to know the signatures of its customers; and if it pays a forged check itmust be considered as making the payment out of its obligation funds, and cannot ordinarily charge the amount so paid to the account of the depositor whose name was forged. NBI showed that the MWSS fraud was an "inside job" and that the MWSS' delay in the reconciliation of bank statements and the laxity and loose records control in the printing of its personalized checks facilitated the fraud. These reports did not touch on the inherent qualities of the signatures which are indispensable in the determination of the existence of forgery. There must be conclusive findings that there is a variance in the inherent characteristics of the signatures and that they were written by 2 or more different persons. Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. This was not done in the present case.

SEC. 23. FORGED SIGNATURE; EFFECT OF.- When the signature is forged or made without authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto can be acquired through or under such signature unless the party against

whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority. Gross negligence in the printing of its personalized checks - MWSS failed to 1. give its printer, Mesina Enterprises, specific instructions relative to the safekeeping and disposition of excess forms, check vouchers, and safety papers 2. retrieve from its printer all spoiled check forms 3. provide any control regarding the paper used in the printing of said checks 4. furnish the respondent drawee bank with samples of typewriting, cheek writing, and print used by its printer in the printing of its checks and of the inks and pens used in signing the same 5. send a representative to the printing office during the printing of said checks 6. to reconcile the bank statements with its own records

MWSS requested the PNB to discontinue the practice of mailing the bank statements, but instead to deliver it to Mr. Emiliano Zaporteza. However, he was unreasonably delayed in taking prompt deliveries of the bank statements and credit and debit memos. As a consequence, Mr. Zaporteza failed to reconcile the bank statements. If Mr. Zaporteza had not been remiss in his duty of taking the bank statements and reconciling them with the petitioner's records, the fraudulent encashments of the first checks should have been discovered, and further frauds prevented. This negligence was, therefore, the proximate cause of the failure to discover the fraud. One factor which facilitate this fraud was the delay in the reconciliation of PNB statements with the NAWASA bank accounts. x x x. Had the NAWASA representative come to the PNB early for the statements and had the bank been advised promptly of the reported bogus check, the negotiation of practically all of the remaining checks on May, 1969 could have been prevented. The records likewise show that the petitioner failed to provide appropriate security measures over its own records thereby laying confidential records open to unauthorized persons. The petitioner's own Fact Finding Committee, in its report submitted to their General manager underscored this laxity of records control. It observed that the "office of Mr. Ongtengco (Cashier No. VI of the Treasury Department at the NAWASA) is quite open to any person known to him or his staff members and that the check writer is merely on top of his table Even if the 23 checks in question are considered forgeries, considering the petitioner's gross negligence, it is barred from setting up the defense of forgery under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law

PNB had taken the necessary measures in the detection of forged checks and the prevention of their fraudulent encashment. In fact, long before the encashment of the 23 checks in question, the it had issued constant reminders to all Current Account Bookkeepers informing them of the activities of forgery syndicates. Under the circumstances, MWSS was in a better position to detect and prevent the fraudulent encashment of its checks.