Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    NATIVIDAD GEMPESAW, Petitioner, Court of Appeals Facts

    Uploaded by

    rd
    Gempensaw owned many grocery stores and paid suppliers through checks prepared by her bookkeeper, Galang. Gempensaw signed all checks without verifying amounts against invoices, trusting Galang completely. Over two years, 82 checks were issued with some amounts exceeding what should have been paid, and intended payees did not receive some checks. Gempensaw demanded the bank credit her account for forged checks, but the bank refused. The court ruled that Gempensaw was negligent in not verifying checks and invoices, which led to the forgeries, so the loss remains with Gempensaw rather than the bank.

    Copyright:

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

    NATIVIDAD GEMPESAW, Petitioner, Court of Appeals Facts

    Uploaded by

    rd
    31 views3 pages
    Gempensaw owned many grocery stores and paid suppliers through checks prepared by her bookkeeper, Galang. Gempensaw signed all checks without verifying amounts against invoices, trusting Galang completely. Over two years, 82 checks were issued with some amounts exceeding what should have been paid, and intended payees did not receive some checks. Gempensaw demanded the bank credit her account for forged checks, but the bank refused. The court ruled that Gempensaw was negligent in not verifying checks and invoices, which led to the forgeries, so the loss remains with Gempensaw rather than the bank.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    Document1 - Copy (4).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gempensaw owned many grocery stores and paid suppliers through checks prepared by her bookkeeper, Galang. Gempensaw signed all checks without verifying amounts against invoices, trusting Galang completely. Over two years, 82 checks were issued with some amounts exceeding what should have been paid, and intended payees did not receive some checks. Gempensaw demanded the bank credit her account for forged checks, but the bank refused. The court ruled that Gempensaw was negligent in not verifying checks and invoices, which led to the forgeries, so the loss remains with Gempensaw rather than the bank.

    Copyright:

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

    NATIVIDAD GEMPESAW, Petitioner, Court of Appeals Facts

    Uploaded by

    rd
    Gempensaw owned many grocery stores and paid suppliers through checks prepared by her bookkeeper, Galang. Gempensaw signed all checks without verifying amounts against invoices, trusting Galang completely. Over two years, 82 checks were issued with some amounts exceeding what should have been paid, and intended payees did not receive some checks. Gempensaw demanded the bank credit her account for forged checks, but the bank refused. The court ruled that Gempensaw was negligent in not verifying checks and invoices, which led to the forgeries, so the loss remains with Gempensaw rather than the bank.

    Copyright:

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

    NATIVIDAD GEMPESAW, petitioner,

    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS

    Facts:

    Gempensaw was the owner of many grocery stores. She paid her suppliers
    through the issuance of checks drawn against her checking account with
    respondent bank. The checks were prepared by her bookkeeper Alicia
    Galang. In the signing of the checks prepared by Galang, petitioner signed each and
    every check without bothering to verify the accuracy of the checks against the
    corresponding invoices because she reposed full and implicit trust and confidence on
    her bookkeeper. Petitioner admitted that she did not make any verification as to
    whether or not the checks were delivered to their respective payeesAlthough the
    respondent drawee Bank notified her of all checks presented to and paid by the bank,
    petitioner did not verify he correctness of the returned checks, much less check if the
    payees actually received the checks in payment for the supplies she received.

    In the course of her business operations covering a period of two years, petitioner
    issued, following her usual practice stated above, a total of eighty-two (82) checks in
    favor of several suppliers. During her two years in
    business, there were incidents shown that the amounts paid for were in excess
    of what should have been paid. It was also shown that even if the checks were
    crossed, the intended payees didn't receive the amount of the
    checks. This prompted Gempensaw to demand the bank to credit her account
    for the amount of the forged checks. The bank refused to do so and this prompted her
    to file the case against the bank.

    iSsue: Who bears the loss resulting from the forged indorsements.

    HELD:

    As a rule, a drawee bank who has paid a check on which an indorsement


    has been forged cannot debit the account of a drawer for the amount of
    said check. An exception to this rule is when the drawer is guilty of
    negligence which causes the bank to honor such checks. Petitioner in this
    case has relied solely on the honesty and loyalty of her bookkeeper and
    never bothered to verify the accuracy of the amounts of the checks she
    signed the invoices attached thereto. And though she received her bank
    statements, she didn't carefully examine the same to double-check her
    payments. Petitioner didn't exercise reasonable diligence which eventually led to the
    fruition of her bookkeeper’s fraudulent schemes. And since it was her negligence
    which caused the respondent drawee Bank to honor the forged checks or prevented it
    from recovering the amount it had already paid on the checks, petitioner cannot now
    complain should the bank refuse to recredit her account with the amount of such
    checks. 10 Under Section 23 of the NIL, she is now precluded from using the forgery to
    prevent the bank's debiting of her account.

    Associated Bank vs. CA, January 31, 1996 G.R. No. 107382/G.R. No. 107612
    Facts: Faustino Pangilinan, cashier of the Concepcion Emergency Hospital, forged
    the signature of Dr. Adena Canlas who was the Chief of the said hospital and
    endorsed 30 checks amounting to P203,300 to himself. The money was drawn from
    the account of the Province of Tarlac with PNB. Pangilinan deposited the checks to
    hispersonal savings account with Associated Bank which was cleared and paid for by
    PNB. The checks have a stamp of Associated Bankwhich reads “All prior
    endorsements guaranteed by Associated Bank”.

    The Province of Tarlac, through the Provincial Treasurer, wrote PNB to restore the
    various amounts debited from the current account of the Province. PNB on its part
    demanded reimbursement fromAssociated Bank. Both banks resisted payment which
    led to the Province of Tarlac suing PNB. PNB in turn impleaded Associated Bank in
    the suit as a third-party defendant while Associated Bankimpleaded Canlas and
    Pangilinan as fourth-party defendants.

    Issue: Who should bear the loss arising from the forgery, the Province of Tarlac,
    PNB, Associated Bank or Pangilinan?

    Held: The SC held that the Province and Associated Bank should bear losses in the
    proportion of 50-50. The Province can only recover 50% of the P203,300 from PNB
    because of the negligence they exhibited in releasing the checks to the then already
    retired Pangilinan who is an unauthorized person to handle the said checks. On the
    other hand, Associated Bank is liable to PNB only to 50% of the same amount
    because of its liability as indorser of the checks that were deposited by Pangilinan,
    and guaranteed the genuineness of the said checks. They failed to exercise due
    diligence in checking the veracity of indorsements.

    You might also like