Associated Bank Vs CA 1996

Associated Bank vs.
Court of Appeals [GR 107382, 31 January 1996];

also Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals [GR 107612] Second
Division, Romero (J): 3 concur
Facts: The Province of Tarlac maintains a current account with the Philippine
National Bank Tarlac Branch where the provincial funds are deposited. Checks
issued by the Province are signed by the Provincial Treasurer and countersigned by
the Provincial Auditor or the Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan. A portion of the
funds of the province is allocated to the Concepcion Emergency Hospital. The
allotment checks for said government hospital are drawn to the order of
"Concepcion Emergency Hospital, Concepcion, Tarlac" or "The Chief, Concepcion
Emergency Hospital, Concepcion, Tarlac." The checks are released by the Office of
the Provincial Treasurer and received for the hospital by its administrative officer
and cashier.
In January 1981, the books of account of the Provincial Treasurer were post-audited
by the Provincial Auditor. It was then discovered that the hospital did not receive
several allotment checks drawn by the Province. On 19 February 1981, the
Provincial Treasurer requested the manager of the PNB to return all of its cleared
checks which were issued from 1977 to 1980 in order to verify the regularity of their
encashment. After the checks were examined, the Provincial Treasurer learned that
30 checks amounting to P203,300.00 were encashed by one Fausto Pangilinan, with
the Associated Bank acting as collecting bank. It turned out that Fausto Pangilinan,
who was the administrative officer and cashier of payee hospital until his retirement
on 28 February 1978, collected the checks from the office of the Provincial
Treasurer. He claimed to be assisting or helping the hospital follow up the release of
the checks and had official receipts.
Pangilinan sought to encash the first check with Associated Bank. However, the
manager of Associated Bank refused and suggested that Pangilinan deposit the
check in his personal savings account with the same bank. Pangilinan was able to
withdraw the money when the check was cleared and paid by the drawee bank,
PNB. After forging the signature of Dr. Adena Canlas who was chief of the payee
hospital, Pangilinan followed the same procedure for the second check, in the
amount of P5,000.00 and dated 20 April 1978, as well as for 28 other checks of
various amounts and on various dates. The last check negotiated by Pangilinan was
for P8,000.00 and dated 10 February 1981. All the checks bore the stamp of
Associated Bank which reads "All prior endorsements guaranteed Associated Bank."
Jesus David, the manager of Associated Bank, alleged that Pangilinan made it
appear that the checks were paid to him for certain projects with the hospital. He
did not find as irregular the fact that the checks were not payable to Pangilinan but
to the Concepcion Emergency Hospital.
On 26 February 1981, the Provincial Treasurer wrote the manager of the PNB
seeking the restoration of the various amounts debited from the current account of
the Province. In turn, the PNB manager demanded reimbursement from the
Associated Bank on 15 May 1981. As both banks resisted payment, the Province
brought suit against PNB which, in turn, impleaded Associated Bank as third-party
defendant. The latter then filed a fourth-party complaint against Adena Canlas and
Fausto Pangilinan. After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered its decision on
21 March 1988, on the basic complaint, in favor of the Province and against PNB,
ordering the latter to pay to the former, the sum of P203,300.00 with legal interest
thereon from 20 March 1981 until fully paid; on the third-party complaint, in favor of
PNB and against Associated Bank ordering the latter to reimburse to the former the
amount of P203,300.00 with legal interests thereon from 20 March 1981 until fully
paid; on the fourth-party complaint, the same was ordered dismissed for lack of
cause of action as against Adena Canlas and lack of jurisdiction over the person of
Fausto Pangilinan as against the latter. The court also dismissed the counterclaims
on the complaint, third-party complaint and fourth-party complaint, for lack of merit.
PNB and Associated Bank appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court
affirmed the trial court's decision in toto on 30 September 1992. Hence the
consolidated petitions which seek a reversal of the appellate court's decision.
Issue: Whether PNB was at fault and should solely bear the loss because it cleared
and paid the forged checks.
Held: The present case concerns checks payable to the order of Concepcion
Emergency Hospital or its Chief. They were properly issued and bear the genuine
signatures of the drawer, the Province of Tarlac. The infirmity in the questioned
checks lies in the payee's (Concepcion Emergency Hospital) indorsements which are
forgeries. At the time of their indorsement, the checks were order instruments.
Checks having forged indorsements should be differentiated from forged checks or
checks bearing the forged signature of the drawer.
Where the instrument is payable to order at the time of the forgery, such as the
checks in the case, the signature of its rightful holder (here, the payee hospital) is
essential to transfer title to the same instrument. When the holder's indorsement is
forged, all parties prior to the forgery may raise the real defense of forgery against
all parties subsequent thereto. An indorser of an order instrument warrants "that
the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be; that he has a
good title to it; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and that the
instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and subsisting." He cannot
interpose the defense that signatures prior to him are forged. A collecting bank
where a check is deposited and which indorses the check upon presentment with
the drawee bank, is such an indorser. So even if the indorsement on the check
deposited by the banks' client is forged, the collecting bank is bound by his
warranties as an indorser and cannot set up the defense of forgery as against the
drawee bank. The bank on which a check is drawn, known as the drawee bank, is
under strict liability to pay the check to the order of the payee. The drawee bank is
not similarly situated as the collecting bank because the former makes no warranty
as to the genuineness of any indorsement. The drawee bank's duty is but to verify
the genuineness of the drawer's signature and not of the indorsement because the
drawer is its client. Moreover, the collecting bank is made liable because it is privy
to the depositor who negotiated the check. The bank knows him, his address and
history because he is a client. It has taken a risk on his deposit. The bank is also in a
better position to detect forgery, fraud or irregularity in the indorsement. Hence, the
drawee bank can recover the amount paid on the check bearing a forged
indorsement from the collecting bank. However, a drawee bank has the duty to
promptly inform the presentor of the forgery upon discovery. If the drawee bank
delays in informing the presentor of the forgery, thereby depriving said presentor of
the right to recover from the forger, the former is deemed negligent and can no
longer recover from the presentor. Herein, PNB, the drawee bank, cannot debit the
current account of the Province of Tarlac because it paid checks which bore forged
indorsements. However, if the Province of Tarlac as drawer was negligent to the
point of substantially contributing to the loss, then the drawee bank PNB can charge
its account.
If both drawee bank-PNB and drawer-Province of Tarlac were negligent, the loss
should be properly apportioned between them. The loss incurred by drawee bankPNB can be passed on to the collecting bank-Associated Bank which presented and
indorsed the checks to it. Associated Bank can, in turn, hold the forger, Fausto
Pangilinan, liable. If PNB negligently delayed in informing Associated Bank of the
forgery, thus depriving the latter of the opportunity to recover from the forger, it
forfeits its right to reimbursement and will be made to bear the loss.
The Court finds that the Province of Tarlac was equally negligent and should,
therefore, share the burden of loss from the checks bearing a forged indorsement.
The Province of Tarlac permitted Fausto Pangilinan to collect the checks when the
latter, having already retired from government service, was no longer connected
with the hospital. With the exception of the first check (dated 17 January 1978), all
the checks were issued and released after Pangilinan's retirement on 28 February
1978. After nearly three years, the Treasurer's office was still releasing the checks to
the retired cashier. In addition, some of the aid allotment checks were released to
Pangilinan and the others to Elizabeth Juco, the new cashier. The fact that there
were now two persons collecting the checks for the hospital is an unmistakable sign
of an irregularity which should have alerted employees in the Treasurer's office of
the fraud being committed.
There is also evidence indicating that the provincial employees were aware of
Pangilinan's retirement and consequent dissociation from the hospital. Hence, due
to the negligence of the Province of Tarlac in releasing the checks to an
unauthorized person (Fausto Pangilinan), the Province contributed to the loss
amounting to P203,300.00 and shall be liable to the PNB for 50% thereof. In effect,
the Province of Tarlac can only recover 50% of P203,300.00 from PNB. The collecting
bank, Associated Bank, shall be liable to PNB for 50% of P203,300.00. It is liable on
its warranties as indorser of the checks which were deposited by Fausto Pangilinan,
having guaranteed the genuineness of all prior indorsements, including that of the
chief of the payee hospital, Dr. Adena Canlas. Associated Bank was also remiss in its
duty to ascertain the genuineness of the payee's indorsement.

Associated Bank Vs CA 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Associated Bank Vs CA 1996

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Associated Bank Vs CA 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was Fausto Pangilinan's role and actions?

What were the responsibilities and liabilities of the different banks involved?

Associated Bank vs.

Court of Appeals [GR 107382, 31 January 1996];

You might also like