54) pnb v. quimpo

3/12/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME158

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014c09f5d32878074429000a0094004f00ee/p/AKJ703/?username=Guest 1/6

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPhil. National Bank vs. Quimpo

No. L53194. March 14, 1988.*

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HON.ROMULO S. QUIMPO, Presiding Judge, Court of FirstInstance of Rizal, Branch XIV, and FRANCISCO S.GOZON II, respondents.

Commercial Law Banks Checks Duty of a bank to ascertainthe genuineness of the signature of the drawer or depositor on thecheck being encashed.The prime duty of a bank is to ascertainthe genuineness of the signature of the drawer or the depositor onthe check being encashed. It is expected to use reasonablebusiness prudence in accepting and cashing a check presented toit.

Same Same Same Bank was negligent in encashing a forgedcheck without carefully examining the signature on the check fromthe genuine signature of respondent.Obviously, petitioner wasnegligent in encashing said forged check without carefullyexamining the signature which shows marked variation from thegenuine signature of private respondent.

Same Same Same Where the private respondent's check wasremoved and stolen from his checkbook without his knowledge andconsent, he cannot be considered negligent in this case.Privaterespondent trusted Ernesto Santos as a classmate and a friend.He brought him along in his car to the bank and he left hispersonal belongings in the car. Santos however removed and stolea check from his check book without the knowledge and consent ofprivate respondent. No doubt

_____________

* FIRST DIVISION.



583

VOL. 158, MARCH 14, 1988 583

Philippine National Bank vs. Quimpo

private respondent cannot be considered negligent under thecircumstances of the case.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Courtof First Instance of Rizal, Br. XIV. Quimpo, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

GANCAYCO, J.:

On July 3, 1973, Francisco S. Gozon II, who was a depositorof the Caloocan City Branch of the Philippine NationalBank, went to the bank in his car accompanied by hisfriend Ernesto Santos whom he left in the car while hetransacted business in the bank. When Santos saw thatGozon left his check book he took a check therefrom, filledit up for the amount of P5,000.00, forged the signature ofGozon, and thereafter he encashed the check in the bankon the same day. The account of Gozon was debited thesaid amount. Upon receipt of the statement of account fromthe bank, Gozon asked that the said amount of P5,000.00should be returned to his account as his signature on thecheck was forged but the bank refused.

Upon complaint of private respondent on February 1,1974 Ernesto Santos was apprehended by the policeauthorities and upon investigation he admitted that hestole the check of Gozon, forged his signature and encashedthe same with the Bank.

Hence Gozon filed the complaint for recovery of theamount of P5,000.00, plus interest, damages, attorney'sfees and costs against the bank in the Court of FirstInstance of Rizal. After the issues were joined and the trialon the merits ensued, a decision was rendered on February4,1980, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of theplaintiff. The defendant is hereby condemned to return to plaintiffthe amount of P5,000.00 which it had unlawfully withheld fromthe latter, with interest at the legal rate from September 22, 1972



until the amount is fully delivered. The defendant is furthercondemned to pay plaintiff the sum of P2,000.00 as attorney's feesand to pay the costs of this suit."

Not satisfied therewith, the bank now filed this petition for

584

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPhil. National Bank vs. Quimpo

review on certiorari in this Court raising the sole legalissue that

"THE ACT OF RESPONDENT FRANCISCO GOZON, II INPUTTING HIS CHECKBOOK CONTAINING THE CHECK INQUESTION INTO THE HANDS OF ERNESTO SANTOS WASINDEED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS, THEREBYPRECLUDING HIM FROM SETTING UP THE DEFENSE OFFORGERY OR WANT OF AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 23OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW, ACT NO. 3201"

The petition is devoid of meritThis Court reproduces with approval the disquisition of

the court a quo as follows:

"A bank is bound to know the signatures of its customers and if itpays a forged check, it must be considered as making the paymentout of its own funds, and cannot ordinarily change the amount sopaid to the account of the depositor whose name was forged' (SanCarlos Milling Co, vs. Bank of the P.I., 59 Phil. 59).

This rule is absolutely necessary to the circulation of draftsand checks, and is based upon the presumed negligence of thedrawee in failing to meet its obligation to know the signature ofits correspondent. x x x There is nothing inequitable in such arule. If the paper comes to the drawee in the regular course ofbusiness, and he, having the opportunity ascertaining itscharacter, pronounces it to be valid and pays it, it is not only aquestion of payment under mistake, but payment in neglect ofduty which the commercial law places upon him, and the result ofhis negligence must rest upon him' (12 ALR, 1901, citing manycases found in I Agbayani, supra).

Defendant, however, interposed the defense that it exerciseddiligence in accordance with the accepted norms of bankingpractice when it accepted and paid Exhibit 'A'. It presentedevidence that the check had to pass scrutiny by a signature



verifier as well as an officer of the bank.A comparison of the signature (Exhibit 'A1') on the forged

check (Exhibit 'A') with plaintiffs exemplar signatures (Exhibits'5A' and '5B) found in the PNB Form 35A would immediatelyshow the negligence of the employees of the defendant bank. Evena not too careful comparison would immediately arrest one'sattention and direct it to the graceful lines of plaintiff s exemplarsignatures found in Exhibits '5A' and '5B'. The formation of thefirst letter 'F' in the exemplars, which could be regarded asartistic, is completely different from the way the same letter isformed in Exhibit 'A1'. That alone should have alerted a morecareful and prudent signature verifier."

585

VOL. 158, MARCH 14, 1988 585Phil. National Bank vs. Quimpo

The prime duty of a bank is to ascertain the genuineness ofthe signature of the drawer or the depositor on the checkbeing encashed.

1 It is expected to use reasonable business

prudence in accepting and cashing a check presented to it.In this case the findings of facts of the court a quo are

conclusive. The trial court found that a comparison of thesignature on the forged check and the sample signatures ofprivate respondent show marked differences as the gracefullines in the sample signature which is completely differentfrom those of the signature on the forged check. Indeed theNBI handwriting expert Estelita Santiago Agnes whom thetrial court considered to be an "unbiased scientific expert"indicated the marked differences between the signature ofprivate respondent on the sample signatures and thequestioned signature. Notwithstanding the testimony ofCol. Fernandez, witness for petitioner, advancing theopinion that the questioned signature appears to begenuine, the trial court by merely examining the pictorialreport presented by said witness, found a markeddifference in the second "c" in Francisco as written on thequestioned signature as compared to the samplesignatures, and the separation between the "s" and the "c"in the questioned signature while they are connected in thesample signatures.

2

Obviously, petitioner was negligent in encashing saidforged check without carefully examining the signaturewhich shows marked variation from the genuine signature



of private respondent.In reference to the allegation of the petitioner that it is

the negligence of private respondent that is the cause of theloss which he suffered, the trial court held:

"The act of plaintiff in leaving his checkbook in the car while hewent out for a short while can not be considered negligencesufficient to excuse the defendant bank from its own negligence. Itshould be borne in mind that when defendant left his car, ErnestoSantos, a long time classmate and friend remained in the same.Defendant could not have been expected to know that the saidErnesto Santos would remove a check from his checkbook.Defendant had trust in his classmate and

_____________

1 PNB vs. National City Bank, 63 Phil. 711, 742 Banco de Oro Savings &Mortgage Bank vs. Equitable Bank Corp., G.R. No. 74917, Jan. 20,1988.

2 See Decision p. 59, Rollo.

586

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs. Cayago

friend. He had no reason to suspect that the latter would breachthat trust."

We agree.Private respondent trustee Ernesto Santos as a

classmate and a friend. He brought him along in his car tothe bank and he left his personal belongings in the car.Santos however removed and stole a check from his checkbook without the knowledge and consent of privaterespondent. No doubt private respondent cannot beconsidered negligent under the circumstances of the case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack ofmerit with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (C.J.), Narvasa, Cruz and GrioAquino,JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

Note.The evidence in this case fails to show that the



petitioner use the proceeds of the check he encash for hisown use. On the contrary, the evidence shows he used it forthe operational expenses of the company of which he isPresident (Raon vs. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 495.)

o0o

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

54) pnb v. quimpo

Documents