Gempesaw vs.

CA
G.R. No. 92244. February 9, 1993.
Facts:
Natividad O. Gempesaw owns and
operates four groery stores and t!at
s!e maintains a !e"ing aount
wit! t!e #!i$ippine %an" of
&ommuniations 'drawee %an"( for
easier payment of debts to !er
supp$iers.
)er ustomary pratie were as
fo$$ows*
&!e"s were prepared by !er trusted
boo""eeper, +$iia Ga$ang, &!e"s,
toget!er wit! t!e invoie reeipts
ref$eting !er ob$igations wit! t!e
supp$iers, were submitted to !er for
signature, -!at s!e signs a$$ t!e
!e"s wit!out bot!ering to verify t!e
auray of t!e !e"s against t!e
orresponding invoies onsidering
t!e trust and onfidene s!e reposed
upon !er boo""eeper, .ssuane and
de$ivery of t!e !e"s to t!e payees
were $eft to t!e boo""eeper, t!at s!e
did not verify w!et!er !e"s were
atua$$y de$ivered to t!eir respetive
payees.
+$t!oug! t!e drawee %an" notified
!er of a$$ !e"s presented to and
paid by t!e ban", Gempesaw did not
verify t!e orretness of t!e returned
!e"s nor if t!e payees atua$$y
reeived t!e !e"s in payment for
t!e supp$ies s!e reeived.
Gempesaw issued /2 !e"s in
favor of severa$ supp$iers for t!e
span of 2 years and t!e drawee ban"
debited t!e tota$ amount of
#1,20/,101./9 against !er !e"ing
aount sine a$$ of t!e issued
!e"s were !onored by t!e drawee
ban". -!ese !e"s were a$$ rossed
!e"s.
.t was on$y after t!e $apse of more
t!an 2 years t!at Gempesaw found
out about t!e fraudu$ent
manipu$ations of !er boo""eeper.
Gempesaw made a written demand
on respondent drawee %an" to redit
!er aount wit! t!e money va$ue of
t!e /2 !e"s tota$$ing
#1,20/,101./9 for !aving been
wrongfu$$y !arged against !er
aount. 2rawee %an" refused to
grant !er demand.
+bout 30 of t!e payees w!ose
names were speifia$$y written on
t!e !e"s testified t!at t!ey did not
reeive nor even see t!e sub3et
!e"s and t!at t!e indorsements
appearing at t!e ba" of t!e !e"s
were not t!eirs.
.t was $earned t!at a$$ t!e /2 !e"s
wit! forged signatures of t!e payees
were broug!t to 4rnest 5. %oon,
&!ief +ountant of drawee w!o,
wit!out aut!ority t!erefor, aepted
t!em a$$ for deposit to t!e redit
and6or in t!e aounts of +$fredo 7.
Romero and %enito 5am.
-!e Regiona$ -ria$ &ourt, tried t!e
ase and rendered a deision
dismissing t!e omp$aint as we$$ as
t!e drawee %an"8s ounter$aim. On
appea$, t!e &ourt of +ppea$s in a
deision affirmed t!e deision of t!e
R-& on two grounds, name$y '1( t!at
Gempesaw9s gross neg$igene in
issuing t!e !e"s was t!e
pro:imate ause of t!e $oss and '2(
assuming t!at t!e ban" was a$so
neg$igent, t!e $oss must nevert!e$ess
be borne by t!e party w!ose
neg$igene was t!e pro:imate ause
of t!e $oss. )ene, a petition for
review was fi$ed before ;&.
Issue: <!et!er or not t!e petitioner
an raise t!e defense of forgery,
t!erefore t!e drawee ban" a$one
s!a$$ bear t!e $oss.
Ruling:
Gempesaw precluded from using
forgery as a defense; Gempesaws
negligence was proximate cause
of er loss.
)ad Gempesaw e:amined !er
reords more arefu$$y, s!e wou$d
!ave notied disrepanies. )ad
Gempesaw been more vigi$ant in
going over !er urrent aount by
ta"ing arefu$ note of t!e dai$y
reports made by t!e drawee %an" on
!er issued !e"s, or at $east made
random srutiny of !er ane$$ed
!e"s returned by drawee %an" at
t!e $ose of ea! mont!, s!e ou$d
!ave easi$y disovered t!e fraud
being perpetrated by +$iia Ga$ang,
and ou$d !ave reported t!e matter
to t!e drawee %an".
-!e drawee %an" t!en ou$d !ave
ta"en immediate steps to prevent
furt!er ommission of su! fraud.
-!us, Gempesaw8s neg$igene was
t!e pro:imate ause of !er $oss. +nd
sine it was !er neg$igene w!i!
aused t!e drawee %an" to !onor
t!e forged !e"s or prevented it
from reovering t!e amount it !ad
a$ready paid on t!e !e"s,
Gempesaw annot now omp$ain
s!ou$d t!e ban" refuse to reredit
!er aount wit! t!e amount of su!
!e"s. =nder ;etion 23 of t!e N.5,
s!e is now pre$uded from using t!e
forgery to prevent t!e ban"8s debiting
of !er aount.
;etion 23 of t!e N.5 provides t!at
>w!en a signature is forged or made
wit!out t!e aut!ority of t!e person
w!ose signature it purports to be, it
is w!o$$y inoperative, and no rig!t to
retain t!e instrument, or to give a
dis!arge t!erefor, or to enfore
payment t!ereof against any party
t!ereto, an be a?uired t!roug! or
under su! signature, un$ess t!e
party against w!om it is soug!t to
enfore su! rig!t is pre$uded from
setting up t!e forgery or want of
aut!ority.>
!wo types of cases of pro"lems
arising from forged indorsements
of cec#s
#rob$ems arising from forged
indorsements of !e"s may
genera$$y be bro"en into two types of
ases* '1( w!ere forgery was
aomp$is!ed by a person not
assoiated wit! t!e drawer @for
e:amp$e a mai$ robberyA, and '2(
w!ere t!e indorsement was forged
by an agent of t!e drawer. -!is
differene in situations wou$d
determine t!e effet of t!e drawer8s
neg$igene wit! respet to forged
indorsements.
$uty of drawer; %ffect of
negligence
+ depositor is under a duty to set up
an aounting system and a
business proedure as are
reasonab$y a$u$ated to prevent or
render diffiu$t t!e forgery of
indorsements, partiu$ar$y by t!e
depositor8s own emp$oyees. +nd if
t!e drawer 'depositor( $earns t!at a
!e" drawn by !im !as been paid
under a forged indorsement, t!e
drawer is under duty prompt$y to
report su! fat to t!e drawee ban".
For !is neg$igene or fai$ure eit!er to
disover or to report prompt$y t!e
fat of su! forgery to t!e drawee,
t!e drawer $oses !is rig!t against t!e
drawee w!o !as debited !is aount
under t!e forged indorsement. .n
ot!er words, !e is pre$uded from
using forgery as a basis for !is $aim
for rerediting of !is aount.
&an#ing "usiness impressed wit
pu"lic interest; 'tmost diligence
re(uired
-!e ban"ing business is so
impressed wit! pub$i interest w!ere
t!e trust and onfidene of t!e pub$i
in genera$ is of paramount
importane su! t!at t!e appropriate
standard of di$igene must be a !ig!
degree of di$igene, if not t!e utmost
di$igene. ;ure$y, drawee %an"
annot $aim it e:erised su! a
degree of di$igene t!at is re?uired of
it. -!ere is no way t!at it be a$$owed
to esape $iabi$ity for su!
neg$igene. .ts $iabi$ity as ob$igor is
not mere$y viarious but primary
w!erein t!e defense of e:erise of
due di$igene in t!e se$etion and
supervision of its emp$oyees is of no
moment.
#remises onsidered, respondent
drawee %an" is ad3udged $iab$e to
s!are t!e $oss wit! t!e petitioner on
a fiftyBfifty ratio in aordane wit!
+rti$e 1C2 w!i! provides*
Responsibi$ity arising from
neg$igene in t!e
performane of every "ind
of ob$igation is a$so
demandab$e, but su!
$iabi$ity may be regu$ated by
t!e ourts aording to t!e
irumstanes.