You are on page 1of 4

Samsung vs FEBTC 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law?

Facts: Samsung Construction maintained a current Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that
account with FEBTC. The sole signatory to Samsung Construction was negligent, and invoked
Samsung’s account was Jong, its Project Manager, the doctrines that “where a loss must be borne by
while the checks remained in the custody of the one of two innocent person, can be traced to the
company’s account Kyu. neglect or fault of either, it is reasonable that it would
be borne by him, even if innocent of any intentional
A certain Roberto Gonzaga presented for fraud, through whose means it has succeeded or
payment a check to FEBTC. The check, payable to who put into the power of the third person to
cash and drawn against Samsung’s account, was for perpetuate the wrong.” Applying these rules, the
P999, 500. The bank teller, Justiani, first checked Court of Appeals determined that it was the
the balance of Samsung. After ascertaining there negligence of Samsung Construction that allowed
were enough funds to cover the check, she the encashment of the forged check.
compared the signature appearing on the check with
the specimen signature of Jong. When she was Patrimonio vs. Gutierrez
satisfied as to the authenticity if the signature
appearing on the check, she then asked Gonzaga to Facts: The petitioner and the respondent Napoleon
submit proof of is identity, and the latter presented 3 Gutierrez entered into a business venture under the
IDs. name of Slam Dunk Corporation (Slam Dunk), a
production outfit that produced mini-concerts and
Justiani forwarded the check to the branch shows related to basketball. Petitioner was already
Senior Assistant Cashier Gemma Velez, as it was then a decorated professional basketball player
bank policy that two branch officers approve checks while Gutierrez was a wellknown sports columnist.
exceeding P100, 000 for payment or encashment,
Velez likewise counterchecked the signature on the Patrimonio pre-signed several checks to
check against that on the signature card. Velez then answer for the expenses of Slam Dunk, a business
forwarded the check and signature card to Shirley venture with Gutierrez. These checks had no
Syfu, another bank officer, for approval. Syfu then payee’s name, date or amount. The black checks
noticed that Sempio, the assistant accountant of were entrusted to Gutierrez with specific instruction
Samsung, was also in the bank. Syfu showed the not to fill them out without previous notification to and
check to Sempio who vouched for th genuineness of approval by Patrimonio but Gutierrez used it for his
Jong’s signature. Conforming the identity of personal loan taken from Marisigan. The check was
Gonzaga, Sempio said that the check was for the late dishonored (Account Closed). Marisigan
purchase of equipment for Samsung. Syfu then however has knowledge that Patrimonio is not a
authorized the encashment of the check to party to be contract of loan, and corresponding had
Gonzaga. no obligation or liability to him but still accepted the
check.
The following day, the accountant of
Samsung, Kyu, examined the balance of the bank Issue: W/N Marasigan can expect payment on the
accountant and discovered that a check for check?
P999,500 had been encashed. As he had not
prepared such a check, Kyu perused the checkbook Held: No, his inaction and failure to verify, despite
and found out that the last bank check was missing. knowledge of that the petitioner was not a party to
He reported the matter to Jong, who then proceeded the loan, may be construed as gross negligence
to tha bank. Jong learned of the encashment of the amounting to bad faith. He is then not a holder in due
check, and realized that his signature had been course. Though the instrument is incomplete but
forged. delivered, Marisigan is not a holder in due course
and he cannot enforce the instrument against prior
Scetion 23 bars a party from setting up the parties.
defense of forgery if it is guilty of negligence. Yet, we
are unable to conclude that Samsung was guilty of
negligence.

Issue: W/N Samsung Construction was precluded


from setting up the defense of forgery under Section
Asia Brewery vs Go WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order
dated 30 January 2008 issued by Judge Benjamin T.
Facts: Petitioner Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI) is a Pozon and the Order dated 23 November 2009
corporation organized and existing under the laws of issued by Judge Winlove Dumayas in Civil Case No.
the Philippines, while petitioner Charlie S. Go (Go) 04-336 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
was, at the time of the filing of this Petition, its Complaint is REINSTATED, and the case is ordered
assistant vice president for finance.3Respondent is a REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati
banking institution also organized and existing under City for further proceedings. Let the records of the
the laws of the Philippines. case be likewise remanded to the court a quo.

On 23 March 2004, petitioners filed a Gempesaw vs CA


Complaint5 for payment, reimbursement, or
restitution against respondent before the RTC. On 7 Facts: Gempesaw owns and operates 4 grocery
May 2004, the latter filed its Answer (with stores. She maintain a checking account with
Counterclaims), in which it also raised the special PBCom. To facilitate payment of debts to her
and/or affirmative defense of lack of cause of action, suppliers, she pays in check. He customary practice
among others. pf issuing checks in payment of her suppliers and
was follows: The checks were prepared and filled up
Records show that after an exchange of as to all material particulars by her trusted
pleadings between the parties, the RTC issued the bookkeeper, Alicia Galang, then the completed
assailed Orders without proceeding to trial. It checks were submitted to Gempesaw for her
dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause of action, signature, together with the corresponding invoice
and also denied respondent's counterclaims. receipts which indicate the correct obligations due
Respondent did not appeal from that ruling. Only and payable to her suppliers. She signed each check
petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their without bothering to verify the accuracy of the
motion was likewise denied. checks against corresponding invoice invoices
because she reposed full and implicit trust and
Within the period of September 1996 to July confidence on her bookkeeper. The issuance and
1998, 10 checks and 16 demand drafts (collectively, delivery of the checks to the payees were left to the
"instruments") were issued in the name of Charlie bookkeeper. Gempesaw did not make any
Go.[8] The instruments, with a total value of verification as to whether or not the checks were
P3,785,257.38, bore the annotation "endorsed by actually delivered to their respective payees.
PCI Bank, Ayala Branch, All Prior Endorsement Although the bank notified her of all checks
And/Or Lack of Endorsement Guaranteed." All the presented to and paid by the bank, she did not verify
demand drafts, except those issued by the Lucena the correctness of the returned checks nor if the
City and Ozamis branches of Allied Bank, were payees actually received the checks.
crossed.
For 2 years, Gempesaw issued a total of 82
crossed checks in favor of several suppliers. These
Issue: W/N the trial court seriously erred in
checks were all presented by the endorsees and
dismissing their Complaint for lack of cause of
honored by the bank, and the later debited the
action.
amounts against her account. Most of the checks
were for amounts in excess of her actual obligations
Held: The Court believes that it need not delve into
to the various payees.
the issue of whether the instruments have been
The banks gives daily notice to Gempesaw
delivered, because it is a matter of defensethat
and also furnished her work with a monthly
would have to be proven during trial on the merits.
statement of her bank transactions, attaching thereto
In Aquino v. Quiazon, we held that if the allegations
all the cancelled checks she had issued. It was only
in a complaint furnish sufficient basis on which the
after the lapse of more than 2 years that she found
suit may be maintained, the complaint should not be
out about the fraudulent manipulations of her
dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be
bookkeeper. The check woth forged signatures of
raised by the defendants.] In other words, "[a]n
the payees were PBCom who, without authority,
affirmative defense, raising the ground that there
accepted them for deposit at the Buendia branch for
is no cause of action as against the defendants
the accounts of Alfredo Y. Romero and Benito Lam.
poses a question of fact that should be resolved after
Boon was very close friends of Romero.
the conduct of the trial on the merits.
About 30 of the payeed whose names were appeared to have been indorsed by their respective
written on the check testified that they did not receive payees, followed by Gomez as second indorser.1
the checks and that the indorsement appearing at
the back of the checks were not theirs. On various dates between June 25 and July 16,
1979, all these warrants were subsequently
The auditors from the bank which conducted indorsed by Gloria Castillo as Cashier of Golden
periodical inspection of the branch operations failed Savings and deposited to its Savings Account No.
to discover the unauthorized acts of Bon. Under the 2498 in the Metrobank branch in Calapan, Mindoro.
rules of the bank, only a Branch Manager may They were then sent for clearing by the branch
accept a second indorsement on a check for deposit. office to the principal office of Metrobank, which
Here, all the deposit slips of the 82 checks were forwarded them to the Bureau of Treasury for
initialed and/or appoved for the deposit by Boon. special clearing.2

Issue: Who should bear the loss? More than two weeks after the deposits, Gloria
Castillo went to the Calapan branch several times
Held: to ask whether the warrants had been cleared. She
Gempasaw’s negligence was the proximate was told to wait. Accordingly, Gomez was
cause of her loss. And since it was her negligence meanwhile not allowed to withdraw from his
which caused the bank to honor the forged checks account. Later, however, "exasperated" over
or prevented it from recovering the amount it had Gloria's repeated inquiries and also as an
already paid on the checks, she cannot now accommodation for a "valued client," the petitioner
complain should the bank refuse to recredit her says it finally decided to allow Golden Savings to
account with the amount of such checks. Under withdraw from the proceeds of the
section 23, she is now forgery to prevent the banks’s warrants.3
debating of her account.
The demand was rejected. Metrobank then sued
The fact that the bank did not discovered the Golden Savings in the Regional Trial Court of
irregularity with respect to the acceptance of checks Mindoro.5 After trial, judgment was rendered in favor
with second indorsement for deposit even without of Golden Savings, which, however, filed a motion
the approval of the branch manager despite periodic for reconsideration even as Metrobank filed its notice
inspections conducted by a team of auditors of appeal.
constitutes negligence on the part of the bank in
carrying out its obligations to its depositors. Issue: Whether or not treasury warrants are
negotiable instrument?
Premises considered, the bank is adjudge
liable to share the loss with the petitioner on a 50/50 Held: No. CA decision of affirmed.
ratio.
The treasury warrants were not negotiabl
Metrobank vs CA e instruments. Clearly, it is
indicated that it was non-
Facts: The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. negotiable and of equal significance is the
is a commercial bank with branches throughout the indication that they are payable from a particul
Philippines and even abroad. Golden Savings and ar fund, Fund 501. This
Loan Association was, at the time these events indication as the source of payment to be mad
happened, operating in Calapan, Mindoro, with the e on the treasury warrant
other private respondents as its principal officers. makes the promise to pay conditional and the
warrants themselves non-negotiable.
In January 1979, a certain Eduardo Gomez opened
an account with Golden Savings and deposited Metrobank then cannot contend that by indorsing the
over a period of two months 38 treasury warrants warrants in general, GS assumed that they were
with a total value of P1,755,228.37. They were all genuine and in all respects what they purport it to be,
drawn by the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority in accordance to Section 66 of the NIL. The simple
and purportedly signed by its General Manager and reason is that the law isn’t applicable to the non-
countersigned by its Auditor. Six of these were negotiable treasury warrants. The
directly payable to Gomez while the others indorsement was made for the purpose of mer
ely depositing them with
Metrobank for clearing. It was in fact Metroba
nk which stamped on the back of the warrants: “All Held: NO.
prior indorsements and/or lack of endorsements The provision which holds as
guaranteed…” accommodation party liable on the instrument to a
holder for value, although such holder at the time of
taking the instrument knew him to be only an
Crisologo-Jose vs CA, Santos, Jr. accommodation party, does not include nor apply to
corporation which are accommodation parties. This
Facts: Ricardo Santos, Jr. was the VP of Mover is because the issue or indorsement of negotiable
Enterprises, the President of the said corporation paper by a corporation without consideration and for
was Atty. Oscar Benares. Atty Benares on the accommodation of another is ultra vires. Hence,
accommodation of his clients, the spouses Ong, one who has taken the instrument with knowledge of
issued a check drawn against Traders Royal Bank the accommodation nature thereof cannot recover
for P45, 000 payable to Crisologo Jose. Since the against a corporation party. If the form of the
check was under the account of Mover Enterprises, instrument, or the nature of the transaction, is such
the same was to be signed by its President, Atty. as to charge the indorsee with knowledge that the
Bernares, and the treasurer of the said corporation. issue corporation is for the accommodation of
However, since the treasurer of Mover Enterprises another, he cannot recover against the corporation
was not available, Atty. Benares prevailed upon thereon.
Santos to sign the check as an alternative signatory.
By way of exception an officer or agent of a
It appears that the check was issued to corporation shall have the power to execute or
Crisologo-Jose in consideration of her waiver or indorse a negotiable paper in the name of the
quitclaim over a certain property which the GSIS corporation for the accommodation of a third person
agreed to sell to the clients of Atty. Bernaes, the only if specifically authorized to do so. Corporate
spouses Ong, which the understanding that upon officers, such as the President and VP, have no
approval by the GSIS of the compromise agreement power to execute for mere accommodation a
with the spouses Ong, the check will be encashed negotiable instrument of the corporation for their
accordingly. However, since the compromise individual debts or personal transactions. Since such
agreement was not approved within the expected accommodation paper cannot be enforced against
time, the check was replaced by Atty. Benares with the corporation, the signatories thereof shall be
another Traders Royal Bank check in the same personally liable.
amount, also payable to the defendant Jose. This
replacement check was also signed by Atty benares Crisologo-Jose was charged with the
and by Santos. When Crisologo-jose deposited the knowledge that the check was issued at the instance
replacement check, it was dishonored. The same and for the personal account of Atty. Benares who
happened with the original check. Hence. Crisologo- merely prevailed upon Santos to act as co-signatory.
Jose filed a complaint for violation of BP 22. That it was a personal undertaking of said corporate
officers was apparent to Crisologo-Jose by reason of
During the preliminary investigation of the her personal involvement in the financial
criminal charge against Benares and Santos, the arrangement and the fact, while it was the
latter tendered a cashier’s check to Crisologo-Jose. corporation’s check was issued to her for the amount
The latter refused to receive the cashier’s check. involved, the actually had no transaction directly with
Hence, Santos encashed the check and said corporation.
subsequently deposited said amount with the Clerk
of Court. Incidentally, the cashier’s check was
purchased by Atty. Benares and given to Santos to
be applied in payment of the dishonored check.

Crisologo_Jose contends that the


accommodation party here is Mover Enterprises and
not Santos who merely signed the check in question
in representative capacity, that is, as VP of said
corporation, hence he is not liable thereon.

Issue: Would a corporation who acted as an


accommodation party liable on the instrument?