Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Associated Bank v. CA (1996)

G.R. No. 107382/G.R. No. 107612 January 31, 1996

Lessons Applicable: Forgery (Negotiable Instruments Law)

FACTS:

The Province of Tarlac maintains a current account with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) 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

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.

January 1981:Upon post-audit by the Provincial Auditor, it was discovered that the hospital did not receive several allotment checks

February 19, 1981: After the checks were examined, they learned that 30 checks of P203,300 were encashed by Fausto Pangilinan, with the Associated Bank acting as collecting bank.

Fausto Pangilinan

administrative officer and cashier of payee hospital until his retirement on February 28, 1978, collected the questioned checks from the office of the Provincial Treasurer

sought to encash the 1st check with Associated Bank

Jesus David, 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.

PNB did not return the questioned checks within twenty-four hours, but several days later

After forging the signature of Dr. Adena Canlas who was chief of the payee hospital, Pangilinan followed the same procedure for the other checks.

All the checks bore the stamp of Associated Bank which reads "All prior endorsements guaranteed ASSOCIATED BANK.

CA affrimed RTC: Associated to reimburse PNB and ordering PNB to pay Province of Tarlac

ISSUE: W/N PNB and Associated Bank should be held liable

HELD: YES. PARTIALLY GRANTED. The collecting bank, Associated Bank, shall be liable to PNB for 50% of P203,300

Sec. 23. FORGED SIGNATURE, EFFECT OF. — When a 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.

A forged signature, whether it be that of the drawer or the payee, is wholly inoperative and no one can gain title to the instrument through it.

A person whose signature to an instrument was forged was never a party and never consented to the contract which allegedly gave rise to such instrument.

EX: where "a party against whom it is sought to enforce a right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority."

Parties who warrant or admit the genuineness of the signature in question and those who, by their acts, silence or negligence are estopped from setting up the defense of forgery, are precluded from using this defense.

Indorsers, persons negotiating by delivery and acceptors are warrantors of the genuineness of the signatures on the instrument

In bearer instruments, the signature of the payee or holder is unnecessary to pass title to the instrument. Hence, when the indorsement is a forgery, only the person whose signature is forged can raise the defense of forgery against a holder in due course

In order instruments, 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

A collecting bank where a check is deposited and which indorses the check upon presentment with the drawee bank = indorser

So even if the indorsement on the check deposited by the banks's 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 drawer's instructions are reflected on the face and by the terms of the check.

Payment under a forged indorsement is not to the drawer's order. then is that the drawee bank may not debit the drawer's account and is not entitled to indemnification from the drawer. ²⁵ The risk of loss must perforce fall on the drawee bank.

GR: drawee bank may not debit the drawer's account and is not entitled to indemnification from the drawer - risk of loss must perforce fall on the drawee bank

if the drawee bank can prove a failure by the customer/drawer to exercise ordinary care that substantially contributed to the making of the forged signature, the drawer is precluded from asserting the forgery

If at the same time the drawee bank was also negligent to the point of substantially contributing to the loss, then such loss from the forgery can be apportioned between the negligent drawer and the negligent bank

In cases involving a forged check, where the drawer's signature is forged, the drawer can recover from the drawee bank.

In cases involving checks with forged indorsements, the drawee bank canseek reimbursement or a return of the amount it paid from the presentor bank or person

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

Under Section 4(c) of CB Circular No. 580, items bearing a forged endorsement shall be returned within twenty-Sour (24) hours after discovery of the forgery but in no event beyond the period fixed or provided by law for filing of a legal action by the returning bank. Section 23 of the PCHC Rules deleted the requirement that items bearing a forged endorsement should be returned within twenty-four hours.

Since PNB did not return the questioned checks within twenty-four hours, but several days later, Associated Bank alleges that PNB should be considered negligent and not entitled to reimbursement of the amount it paid on the checks.

More importantly, by reason of the statutory warranty of a general indorser in section 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a collecting bank which indorses a check bearing a forged indorsement and presents it to the drawee bank guarantees all prior indorsements, including the forged indorsement

In this case, the checks were indorsed by the collecting bank (Associated Bank) to the drawee bank (PNB)

The stamp guaranteeing prior indorsements is not an empty rubric which a bank must fulfill for the sake of convenience

It is within the bank's discretion to receive a check for no banking institution would consciously or deliberately accept a check bearing a forged indorsement. When a check is deposited with the collecting bank, it takes a risk on its depositor.