PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. ROMULO S. QUIMPO Facts: Francisco 8. Gozon Il went othe PNB in his car aocompaniod by is triend Emesto Santos. When SSantos saw that Gozon lft his check book he took a check therefrom, filed it up for the amount of PS, 000.00, forge the signature of Gozon, and encashed the check on the same day. Gozon was debited the said amount. Gozon asked thatthe said amount of P5,000.00 shouldbe returned this account as his signature onthe check was forged but the bank refused. Upon complaint of Gozon, Santos was apprehended by the police authorities and upon investigation he admitted the aforementioned acts. The Court of First instance of Rizal rendered a judgment in favor of the plain. Not satisfied, the bank filed the present petition for review on certiorari. Issues: 1. WON PNB was negligent in encashing a forged check without carefully examining the signature on the check from the genuine signature of respondent. 2. WON Gazon was negligent in leaving his checkbook in the car with Santos RULING: 1. YES. Itis the prime duty of a bank is to ascertain the genuineness of the signature of the drawer or the depositor on the check being encashed. it is expected to use reasonable business prudence in ‘accepting and cashing a check presented tot. Bank was negligent in encashing a forged check without carefully examining the signature on the check from the genuine signature of respondent. Petitioner was negligent in encashing said forged check without carefully examining the signature Which shows marked variation from the genuine signature of private respondent. 2. NO. Private respondent trusted Emesto Santos as a classmate and a friend. He brought him along in his car to the bank and he left his personal belongings in the car. Santos however removed and stole a ‘check from his check book without the knowledge and consent of private respondent. No doubt private respondent cannot be considered negligent under the circumstances of the case.