Samsung vs FEBTC
Facts: Samsung Construction maintained a current
account with FEBTC. The sole signatory to
Samsung’s account was Jong, its Project Manager,
while the checks remained in the custody of the
company’s account Kyu.
A certain Roberto Gonzaga presented for
payment a check to FEBTC. The check, payable to
cash and drawn against Samsung’s account, was for
P999, 500. The bank teller, Justiani, first checked
the balance of Samsung. After ascertaining there
were enough funds to cover the check, she
compared the signature appearing on the check with
the specimen signature of Jong. When she was
satisfied as to the authenticity if the signature
appearing on the check, she then asked Gonzaga to
submit proof of is identity, and the latter presented 3
IDs.
Justiani forwarded the check to the branch
Senior Assistant Cashier Gemma Velez, as it was
bank policy that two branch officers approve checks
exceeding P100, 000 for payment or encashment,
Velez likewise counterchecked the signature on the
check against that on the signature card. Velez then
forwarded the check and signature card to Shirley
Syfu, another bank officer, for approval. Syfu then
noticed that Sempio, the assistant accountant of
Samsung, was also in the bank. Syfu showed the
check to Sempio who vouched for th genuineness of
Jong’s signature. Conforming the identity of
Gonzaga, Sempio said that the check was for the
purchase of equipment for Samsung. Syfu then
authorized the encashment of the check to
Gonzaga.
The following day, the accountant of
Samsung, Kyu, examined the balance of the bank
accountant and discovered that a check for
P999,500 had been encashed. As he had not
prepared such a check, Kyu perused the checkbook
and found out that the last bank check was missing.
He reported the matter to Jong, who then proceeded
to tha bank. Jong learned of the encashment of the
check, and realized that his signature had been
forged.
Scetion 23 bars a party from setting up the
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
23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law?
Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that
Samsung Construction was negligent, and invoked
the doctrines that “where a loss must be borne by
one of two innocent person, can be traced to the
neglect or fault of either, it is reasonable that it would
be borne by him, even if innocent of any intentional
fraud, through whose means it has succeeded or
who put into the power of the third person to
perpetuate the wrong.” Applying these rules, the
Court of Appeals determined that it was the
negligence of Samsung Construction that allowed
the encashment of the forged check.
Patrimonio vs. Gutierrez
Facts: The petitioner and the respondent Napoleon
Gutierrez entered into a business venture under the
name of Slam Dunk Corporation (Slam Dunk), a
production outfit that produced mini-concerts and
shows related to basketball. Petitioner was already
then a decorated professional basketball player
while Gutierrez was a wellknown sports columnist.
Patrimonio pre-signed several checks to
answer for the expenses of Slam Dunk, a business
venture with Gutierrez. These checks had no
payee’s name, date or amount. The black checks
were entrusted to Gutierrez with specific instruction
not to fill them out without previous notification to and
approval by Patrimonio but Gutierrez used it for his
personal loan taken from Marisigan. The check was
late dishonored (Account Closed). Marisigan
however has knowledge that Patrimonio is not a
party to be contract of loan, and corresponding had
no obligation or liability to him but still accepted the
check.
Issue: W/N Marasigan can expect payment on the
check?
Held: No, his inaction and failure to verify, despite
knowledge of that the petitioner was not a party to
the loan, may be construed as gross negligence
amounting to bad faith. He is then not a holder in due
course. Though the instrument is incomplete but
delivered, Marisigan is not a holder in due course
and he cannot enforce the instrument against prior
parties.
Asia Brewery vs Go
Facts: Petitioner Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI) is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the Philippines, while petitioner Charlie S. Go (Go)
was, at the time of the filing of this Petition, its
assistant vice president for finance.3Respondent is a
banking institution also organized and existing under
the laws of the Philippines.
On 23 March 2004, petitioners filed a
Complaint5 for payment, reimbursement, or
restitution against respondent before the RTC. On 7
May 2004, the latter filed its Answer (with
Counterclaims), in which it also raised the special
and/or affirmative defense of lack of cause of action,
among others.
Records show that after an exchange of
pleadings between the parties, the RTC issued the
assailed Orders without proceeding to trial. It
dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause of action,
and also denied respondent's counterclaims.
Respondent did not appeal from that ruling. Only
petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their
motion was likewise denied.
Within the period of September 1996 to July
1998, 10 checks and 16 demand drafts (collectively,
"instruments") were issued in the name of Charlie
Go.[8] The instruments, with a total value of
P3,785,257.38, bore the annotation "endorsed by
PCI Bank, Ayala Branch, All Prior Endorsement
And/Or Lack of Endorsement Guaranteed." All the
demand drafts, except those issued by the Lucena
City and Ozamis branches of Allied Bank, were
crossed.
Issue: W/N the trial court seriously erred in
dismissing their Complaint for lack of cause of
action.
Held: The Court believes that it need not delve into
the issue of whether the instruments have been
delivered, because it is a matter of defensethat
would have to be proven during trial on the merits.
In Aquino v. Quiazon, we held that if the allegations
in a complaint furnish sufficient basis on which the
suit may be maintained, the complaint should not be
dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be
raised by the defendants.] In other words, "[a]n
affirmative defense, raising the ground that there
is no cause of action as against the defendants
poses a question of fact that should be resolved after
the conduct of the trial on the merits.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order
dated 30 January 2008 issued by Judge Benjamin T.
Pozon and the Order dated 23 November 2009
issued by Judge Winlove Dumayas in Civil Case No.
04-336 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Complaint is REINSTATED, and the case is ordered
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City for further proceedings. Let the records of the
case be likewise remanded to the court a quo.
Gempesaw vs CA
Facts: Gempesaw owns and operates 4 grocery
stores. She maintain a checking account with
PBCom. To facilitate payment of debts to her
suppliers, she pays in check. He customary practice
pf issuing checks in payment of her suppliers and
was follows: The checks were prepared and filled up
as to all material particulars by her trusted
bookkeeper, Alicia Galang, then the completed
checks were submitted to Gempesaw for her
signature, together with the corresponding invoice
receipts which indicate the correct obligations due
and payable to her suppliers. She signed each check
without bothering to verify the accuracy of the
checks against corresponding invoice invoices
because she reposed full and implicit trust and
confidence on her bookkeeper. The issuance and
delivery of the checks to the payees were left to the
bookkeeper. Gempesaw did not make any
verification as to whether or not the checks were
actually delivered to their respective payees.
Although the bank notified her of all checks
presented to and paid by the bank, she did not verify
the correctness of the returned checks nor if the
payees actually received the checks.
For 2 years, Gempesaw issued a total of 82
crossed checks in favor of several suppliers. These
checks were all presented by the endorsees and
honored by the bank, and the later debited the
amounts against her account. Most of the checks
were for amounts in excess of her actual obligations
to the various payees.
The banks gives daily notice to Gempesaw
and also furnished her work with a monthly
statement of her bank transactions, attaching thereto
all the cancelled checks she had issued. It was only
after the lapse of more than 2 years that she found
out about the fraudulent manipulations of her
bookkeeper. The check woth forged signatures of
the payees were PBCom who, without authority,
accepted them for deposit at the Buendia branch for
the accounts of Alfredo Y. Romero and Benito Lam.
Boon was very close friends of Romero.
 About 30 of the payeed whose names were
written on the check testified that they did not receive
the checks and that the indorsement appearing at
the back of the checks were not theirs.
The auditors from the bank which conducted
periodical inspection of the branch operations failed
to discover the unauthorized acts of Bon. Under the
rules of the bank, only a Branch Manager may
accept a second indorsement on a check for deposit.
Here, all the deposit slips of the 82 checks were
initialed and/or appoved for the deposit by Boon.
Issue: Who should bear the loss?
Held:
Gempasaw’s negligence was the proximate
cause of her loss. And since it was her negligence
which caused the bank to honor the forged checks
or prevented it from recovering the amount it had
already paid on the checks, she cannot now
complain should the bank refuse to recredit her
account with the amount of such checks. Under
section 23, she is now forgery to prevent the banks’s
debating of her account.
The fact that the bank did not discovered the
irregularity with respect to the acceptance of checks
with second indorsement for deposit even without
the approval of the branch manager despite periodic
inspections conducted by a team of auditors
constitutes negligence on the part of the bank in
carrying out its obligations to its depositors.
Premises considered, the bank is adjudge
liable to share the loss with the petitioner on a 50/50
ratio.
Metrobank vs CA
Facts: The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.
is a commercial bank with branches throughout the
Philippines and even abroad. Golden Savings and
Loan Association was, at the time these events
happened, operating in Calapan, Mindoro, with the
other private respondents as its principal officers.
In January 1979, a certain Eduardo Gomez opened
an account with Golden Savings and deposited
over a period of two months 38 treasury warrants
with a total value of P1,755,228.37. They were all
drawn by the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority
and purportedly signed by its General Manager and
countersigned by its Auditor. Six of these were
directly payable to Gomez while the others
appeared to have been indorsed by their respective
payees, followed by Gomez as second indorser.1
On various dates between June 25 and July 16,
1979, all these warrants were subsequently
indorsed by Gloria Castillo as Cashier of Golden
Savings and deposited to its Savings Account No.
2498 in the Metrobank branch in Calapan, Mindoro.
They were then sent for clearing by the branch
office to the principal office of Metrobank, which
forwarded them to the Bureau of Treasury for
special clearing.2
More than two weeks after the deposits, Gloria
Castillo went to the Calapan branch several times
to ask whether the warrants had been cleared. She
was told to wait. Accordingly, Gomez was
meanwhile not allowed to withdraw from his
account. Later, however, "exasperated" over
Gloria's repeated inquiries and also as an
accommodation for a "valued client," the petitioner
says it finally decided to allow Golden Savings to
withdraw from the proceeds of the
warrants.3
The demand was rejected. Metrobank then sued
Golden Savings in the Regional Trial Court of
Mindoro.5 After trial, judgment was rendered in favor
of Golden Savings, which, however, filed a motion
for reconsideration even as Metrobank filed its notice
of appeal.
Issue: Whether or not treasury warrants are
negotiable instrument?
Held: No. CA decision of affirmed.
The treasury warrants were not negotiabl
e instruments. Clearly, it is
indicated that it was non-
negotiable and of equal significance is the
indication that they are payable from a particul
ar fund, Fund 501. This
indication as the source of payment to be mad
e on the treasury warrant
makes the promise to pay conditional and the
warrants themselves non-negotiable.
Metrobank then cannot contend that by indorsing the
warrants in general, GS assumed that they were
genuine and in all respects what they purport it to be,
in accordance to Section 66 of the NIL. The simple
reason is that the law isn’t applicable to the non-
negotiable treasury warrants. The
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
prior indorsements and/or lack of endorsements
guaranteed…”
Crisologo-Jose vs CA, Santos, Jr.
Facts: Ricardo Santos, Jr. was the VP of Mover
Enterprises, the President of the said corporation
was Atty. Oscar Benares. Atty Benares on
accommodation of his clients, the spouses Ong,
issued a check drawn against Traders Royal Bank
for P45, 000 payable to Crisologo Jose. Since the
check was under the account of Mover Enterprises,
the same was to be signed by its President, Atty.
Bernares, and the treasurer of the said corporation.
However, since the treasurer of Mover Enterprises
was not available, Atty. Benares prevailed upon
Santos to sign the check as an alternative signatory.
It appears that the check was issued to
Crisologo-Jose in consideration of her waiver or
quitclaim over a certain property which the GSIS
agreed to sell to the clients of Atty. Bernaes, the
spouses Ong, which the understanding that upon
approval by the GSIS of the compromise agreement
with the spouses Ong, the check will be encashed
accordingly. However, since the compromise
agreement was not approved within the expected
time, the check was replaced by Atty. Benares with
another Traders Royal Bank check in the same
amount, also payable to the defendant Jose. This
replacement check was also signed by Atty benares
and by Santos. When Crisologo-jose deposited the
replacement check, it was dishonored. The same
happened with the original check. Hence. Crisologo-
Jose filed a complaint for violation of BP 22.
During the preliminary investigation of the
criminal charge against Benares and Santos, the
latter tendered a cashier’s check to Crisologo-Jose.
The latter refused to receive the cashier’s check.
Hence, Santos encashed the check and
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?
Held: NO.
The provision which holds as
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
accommodation party, does not include nor apply to
corporation which are accommodation parties. This
is because the issue or indorsement of negotiable
paper by a corporation without consideration and for
the accommodation of another is ultra vires. Hence,
one who has taken the instrument with knowledge of
the accommodation nature thereof cannot recover
against a corporation party. If the form of the
instrument, or the nature of the transaction, is such
as to charge the indorsee with knowledge that the
issue corporation is for the accommodation of
another, he cannot recover against the corporation
thereon.
By way of exception an officer or agent of a
corporation shall have the power to execute or
indorse a negotiable paper in the name of the
corporation for the accommodation of a third person
only if specifically authorized to do so. Corporate
officers, such as the President and VP, have no
power to execute for mere accommodation a
negotiable instrument of the corporation for their
individual debts or personal transactions. Since such
accommodation paper cannot be enforced against
the corporation, the signatories thereof shall be
personally liable.
Crisologo-Jose was charged with the
knowledge that the check was issued at the instance
and for the personal account of Atty. Benares who
merely prevailed upon Santos to act as co-signatory.
That it was a personal undertaking of said corporate
officers was apparent to Crisologo-Jose by reason of
her personal involvement in the financial
arrangement and the fact, while it was the
corporation’s check was issued to her for the amount
involved, the actually had no transaction directly with
said corporation.