G.R. No. L-26001 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-26001, October 29, 1968

Phil. National Bank

Vs. Court of Appeals and Phil. Commercial and Industrial Bank

Ponente: Conception

Facts:

January 15, 1962, Augusto Lim deposited in his account with PCIB a GSIS Check in the sum of P57,415, drawn against the PNB. The check as practiced was forwarded for clearing through the Central Bank to PNB, which did not return the said check and paid the amount to PCIB. This payment made was debited against the account of GSIS in PNB. Later on, it was found that the amount was re-credited from PNB for the reason of forged signatures of the officers. Then PNB demanded from PCIB the refund of the amount. 

The demand of PNB was dismissed by the CFI and CA. Allegedly, Mariano Pulido by forging the signatures of the General Manager and Auditor of GSIS; and later on indorsed it to Manuel Go; Go indorsed it to Augusto Lim, who in turn deposited it to PCIB. Prior to this incident, GSIS have notified PNB that the check had been lost, and requested that its payment be stopped.

Issues:

PNB maintains that the court erred in (1) not finding PCIB as negligent, not finding the signatures forged, (2) in not finding that the signatures are forged (3) not finding PCIB liable by virtue of the warranty on the check, (4) in not holding that clearing is not acceptance in contemplation of negotiable instruments law, (5) in not finding that since the PNB did not accept the check, therefore entitles PNB to reimbursement and in (6) denying the PNB’s right to recover from PCIB.

Ruling:

(2) PCIB is not negligent; There is no absolute evidence, and PNB has not even tried to prove that the indorsements are spurious. PNB refunded the amount of  the check to GSIS, on account of the forgery in signatures, not of the indorsers but, the officers of the GSIS as drawers. This is immaterial to PNB’s liability as drawee, for against the drawee, the indorsement of an immediate bank does not guarantee the signature of the drawer.

(3) PCIB thereby guarantee “all prior indorsements”, not the authenticity of the signatures because GSIS is the drawer, not an indorsor.  It is irrelevant, PNB’s alleged right to recover could have been availed by a subsequent indorsee or holder in due course subsequent to PCIB. PNB is neither, but instead after the payment of PNB, the check ceased to be a negotiable instrument and became a mere voucher or proof of payment.

(4) and (5) Acceptance is not required for checks, for the same are payable on demand. Actual payment of the amount of the check implies not only an assent to the order but also a compliance with such obligation.

(6) and (1) PNB was negligent too. PNB not returning the check implied, under the banking practice, that PNB honoured the check and paid its amount to PCIB; and that only then did PCIB allow Lim to draw said amount from his account. Thus by not returning the check, indicates that PNB had found nothing wrong with the check. PNB induced PCIB to honor the check as well. Hence, PNB is the primary or proximate cause of the loss, hence may not recover from PCIB.