G.R. No. L-50373 February 15, 1990
Lessons Applicable: Liabilities of the Parties (Negotiable Instruments Law)
FACTS:
- January 29, 1960 - June 22, 1961: Augusto Perez collected from different clients of Manila Lighter Transportation Inc. (Manila) some 49 checks
- 26 - to the Manila or order
- 23 - to petitioner or bearer
- with forged/unauthorized indorsements of Manila's manager Luis Gaskell, it was negotiated by Manila's accountant and relative of Luis Gaskell with Cao Pek and Co., an electronic store, whose treasurer is Ko Lit
- Most of the checks, with a total amount of P90,500.24, were deposited by Ko Lit in his account w/ China
- 3 checks with a total amount of P1,115.05 were deposited in the account of Cao Pek & Co.
- 1 check for P2,735.19 was deposited in the accounts of Lu Siu Po, manager of Cao Pek & Co.
- These accounts have no more balances at present.
- China filed a third-party complaint against Cao Pek & Co. and Ko Lit who had deposited the checks and had thereafter withdrawn the proceeds thereof.
- lower court: both parties equally negligent (50%-50%)
- 1. Ordering defendant China Banking Corporation to pay Manila Lighter Transportation, Inc., 50%2. Ordering Manila to pay China 50%3. Ordering third-party defendant Ko Lit to pay P90,500.24 and third-party defendant Cao Pek & Co. to pay Pl,215.05, both to China Banking Corporation;4. Ordering China Banking Corporation to pay Manila 50% of any amount it may recover from Ko Lit and Cao Pek & Co.
- CA: modified complaint is dismissed freeing China from paying Manila. counterclaim of P3,453.53 is granted with interests from the date the amended counterclaim was filed. The third-party defendants are adjudged directly liable to the Manila for the checks they respectively indorsed.
ISSUE: W/N China is negligent and shall bear the loss
HELD: NO. petition for review is denied for lack of merit
- Since Manila was not a client of China Bank, i.e., did not maintain an account in said Bank, the China Bank had no way of ascertaining the authenticity of its indorsements on the checks which were deposited in the accounts of the third-party defendants in China Bank.
- It was not negligent because, in accordance with banking practice, it caused the checks to pass through the clearing house before it allowed their proceeds to be withdrawn by the depositors