Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    PNB v. Ca

    Uploaded by

    claire beltran
    This case involves a forged check that was deposited, cleared, and paid out. The check was initially deposited with PCIB and forwarded to PNB for clearing. PNB paid out on the check without returning it or notifying of any issue. PNB was later notified by GSIS, the drawer, that the check signatures were forged. PNB demanded refund from PCIB. The Court ruled that PCIB is not liable as the intermediate indorser because the proximate cause of loss was PNB's negligence in paying out despite notice of forgery and not returning the check. As drawee, PNB cannot recover from PCIB as the forgery was not of the indorsement but of the drawer's signature

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PNB v. Ca

    Uploaded by

    claire beltran
    73 views3 pages
    This case involves a forged check that was deposited, cleared, and paid out. The check was initially deposited with PCIB and forwarded to PNB for clearing. PNB paid out on the check without returning it or notifying of any issue. PNB was later notified by GSIS, the drawer, that the check signatures were forged. PNB demanded refund from PCIB. The Court ruled that PCIB is not liable as the intermediate indorser because the proximate cause of loss was PNB's negligence in paying out despite notice of forgery and not returning the check. As drawee, PNB cannot recover from PCIB as the forgery was not of the indorsement but of the drawer's signature

    Original Description:

    Nego

    Original Title

    PNB V. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a forged check that was deposited, cleared, and paid out. The check was initially deposited with PCIB and forwarded to PNB for clearing. PNB paid out on the check without returning it or notifying of any issue. PNB was later notified by GSIS, the drawer, that the check signatures were forged. PNB demanded refund from PCIB. The Court ruled that PCIB is not liable as the intermediate indorser because the proximate cause of loss was PNB's negligence in paying out despite notice of forgery and not returning the check. As drawee, PNB cannot recover from PCIB as the forgery was not of the indorsement but of the drawer's signature

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    73 views3 pages

    PNB v. Ca

    Uploaded by

    claire beltran
    This case involves a forged check that was deposited, cleared, and paid out. The check was initially deposited with PCIB and forwarded to PNB for clearing. PNB paid out on the check without returning it or notifying of any issue. PNB was later notified by GSIS, the drawer, that the check signatures were forged. PNB demanded refund from PCIB. The Court ruled that PCIB is not liable as the intermediate indorser because the proximate cause of loss was PNB's negligence in paying out despite notice of forgery and not returning the check. As drawee, PNB cannot recover from PCIB as the forgery was not of the indorsement but of the drawer's signature

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    PNB V.

    CA
    FACTS:
    January 15, 1962: Augusto Lim deposited in his current
    account with the PCIB branch at Padre Faura, Manila a GSIS
    Check of P57,415.00 drawn against the PNB

    PCIB stamped the following on the back of the check: "All


    prior indorsements and/or Lack of Endorsement
    Guaranteed, Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank,"
    Padre Faura Branch, Manila

    Same date: following an established banking practice in the


    Philippines, the check was forwarded for clearing through the
    Central Bank to the PNB

    did not return said check the next day, or at any other
    time, but retained it and paid its amount to the PCIB, as
    well as debited it against the account of the GSIS in the
    PNB

    PNB received a formal notice from the GSIS that the


    check had been lost, with the request that payment
    thereof be stopped

    January 31, 1962: Upon demand from the GSIS, the


    P57,415.00 was re-credited to them bec. the signatures of its
    officers on the check were forged

    signatures of the General Manager and the Auditor of the


    GSIS on the check, as drawer, are forged

    payee Mariano D. Pulido indorsed it to Manuel Go and


    then indorsed by Manuel Go to Augusto Lim

    February 2, 1962: PNB demanded from the PCIB the refund

    PNB filed against the PCIB

    CA affirmed CFI: dismissed

    ISSUE: W/N PCIB as indorser is liable despite the fact that the
    check is forged when PNB is also negligent
    HELD: NO. Affirmed
    PCIB stamped on the back of the check: "All prior
    indorsements and/or Lack of Endorsement Guaranteed,
    Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank," Padre Faura
    Branch, Manila

    indorsements falsified is immaterial to the PNB's liability


    as a drawee, or to its right to recover from the PCIB, for,
    as against the drawee, the indorsement of an
    intermediate bank does not guarantee the signature of
    the drawer, since the forgery of the indorsement is not
    the cause of the loss.

    Guaranteed not the authenticity of the signatures of the


    officers of the GSIS who signed because the GSIS is not an
    indorser of the check, but its drawer

    warranty is irrelevant to the PNB's alleged right to recover


    from the PCIB

    in general, "acceptance" is not required for checks since they


    are payable on demand

    acceptance

    promise to perform an act

    the acceptance of a bill is the signification by the


    drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer

    payment

    actual performance

    compliance with obligation

    PNB had been guilty of a greater degree of negligence,


    because it had a previous and formal notice from the GSIS
    that the check had been lost, with the request that payment
    thereof be stopped
    PNB's negligence was the main or proximate cause for
    the corresponding loss

    PNB did not return the check

    when 1 of 2 innocent persons must suffer by the wrongful act


    of a third person, the loss must be borne by the one whose
    negligence was the proximate cause of the loss or who put it
    into the power of the third person to perpetrate the wrong

    where the collecting (PCIB) and the drawee (PNB) banks are
    equally at fault, the court will leave the parties where it finds
    them

    applies in the case of a drawee who pays a bill without


    having previously accepted it

    Section 62 of Act No. 2031 provides

    The acceptor by accepting the instrument engages that he will pay


    it according to the tenor of hisacceptance; and admits:
    (a) The existence of the drawer, the genuineness of his signature,
    and his capacity and authority to
    draw the instrument; and
    (b) The existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse.

    You might also like