METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM Vs CA
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM Vs CA
COURT
OF APPEALS and THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
G.R. No. L-62943 July 14, 1986
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
FACTS:
MWSS and its’s predecessor-in-interest NWSA shared an account from
Philippine National Bank. Only MWSS’s treasurer, auditor, and General
Manager were authorized to sign checks. NWSA released 23 checks which
were cleared debited against the account of petitioner. In the same months,
another 23 checks bearing the same check numbers, were again cleared and
debited by PNB from the account of petitioner.
The amounts drawn were deposited the payees in their accounts in
Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank and Philippine Bank of Commerce. The
names in said accounts were fictitious. Petitioner requested the restoration
of the amounts debited claiming said checks were forged. PNB’s refusal led
to this complaint.
PNB, in their defense, claims that the instruments were regular on its
face.
ISSUE: Is PNB liable for the checks because they did not hold that the
signatures were forged?
HELD:
No, PNB is not liable as it was MWSS’s negligence which was the
proximate cause of the loss. There is no express and categorical that the 23
questioned checks were indeed signed by persons other than the authorized
MWSS signatories. The findings of the National Bureau of Investigation show
that the MWSS fraud was an "inside job" and that the petitioner's delay in the
reconciliation of bank statements and the laxity and loose records control in
the printing of its personalized checks facilitated the fraud.
According to Siasat, et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, forgery
cannot be presumed. It must be established by clear, positive, and
convincing evidence. This was not done in the present case.
Petitioner is barred from setting up the defense of forgery under
Section 23 of the NIL due to its negligence before and after the questioned
checks were negotiated. This paired with the petitioner’s inability to
reconcile it’s bank records displays MWSS’s gross negligence.
Petitioner cannot claim that respondent was also guilty of negligence
as PNB had taken the necessary measures in the detection of forged checks
and the prevention of their fraudulent encashment.