Philippine National Bank vs. Quimpo
G.R. No. L-53194, March 14, 1988;
FACTS:
Francisco S. Gozon II, went to PNB – Caloocan Branch in his car accompanied by his friend Ernesto Santos. He left Santos and transacted his business in the Bank.
Santos saw that Gozon left his check book he took a check therefrom, filled it up for the amount of P5,000.00, forged the signature of Gozon, and thereafter he encashed the check in the bank on the same day.
Upon receipt of the statement of account from the bank, Gozon asked that the said amount of P5,000.00 should be returned to his account as his signature on the check was forged but the bank refused.
Gozon filed the complaint for recovery of the amount of P5,000.00, plus interest, damages, attorney’s fees and costs against PNB. RTC ruled in favor of Gozon.
PNB filed for petition for review alleging that Gozon’s negligence was the proximate cause of his loss, thus, precludes him in setting up the defense of forgery or want of authority under Sec. 23 of NIL.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Gozon is precluded to set up the defense of forgery because he is negligent.
RULING:
No. The Court found that it was PNB that was negligent. 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 to it. Thus, the Court held that Gozon cannot be considered negligent under the circumstances of the case.
Obviously, petitioner was negligent in encashing said forged check without carefully examining the signature which shows marked variation from the genuine signature of private respondent.
