Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

PHIL. EDUC.

CO V SORIANO ET AL In March 1982, Angel de la Cruz advised Security Bank that


he lost the CTDs. He executed an affidavit of loss and
39 SCRA 587, 30 JUN 1971 submitted it to the bank. The bank then issued another set
of CTDs. In the same month, Angel de la Cruz acquired a
FACTS: In April 1958, a certain Enrique Montinola was loan of P875,000.00 and he used his time deposits as
purchasing ten money orders from the Manila Post Office. collateral.
Each money order was worth P200.00. Montinola offered
In November 1982, a representative from Caltex went to
to pay the money orders via a private check but the
Security Bank to present the CTDs (delivered by de la Cruz)
cashier told him he cannot pay via a private check. But still
for verification. Caltex advised Security Bank that de la
somehow, Montinola was able to leave the post office
Cruz delivered Caltex the CTDs as security for purchases he
with the money orders without him paying for them.
made with the latter. Security Bank refused to accept the
Days later, the missing money orders were discovered. CTDs and instead required Caltex to present documents
Meanwhile, the Philippine Education Co., Inc. (PECI) proving the agreement made by de la Cruz with Caltex.
presented one of the missing postal money orders before Caltex however failed to produce said documents.
the Bank of America. The money order was initially
In April 1983, de la Cruz loan with Security bank matured
credited and so P200.00 was deposited in PECIs account
and no payment was made by de la Cruz. Security Bank
with the bank. But then later the post office, through
eventually set-off the time deposit to pay off the loan.
Mauricio Soriano (Chief of the Money Order Division of the
Post Office), advised the bank that the money order was Caltex sued Security Bank to compel the bank to pay off
irregularly issued hence the P200.00 was debited back the CTDs. Security Bank argued that the CTDs are not
from PECIs account. negotiable instruments even though the word bearer is
written on their face because the word bearer contained
PECI is now invoking that the money order was duly
therein refer to depositor and only the depositor can
negotiated to them and thus they are entitled to the
encash the CTDs and no one else.
amount it represents.
ISSUE: Whether or not the certificates of time deposit are
ISSUE: Whether or not postal money orders are negotiable
negotiable.
instruments.
HELD: Yes. The CTDs indicate that they are payable to the
HELD: No. Postal money orders are not negotiable
bearer; that there is an implication that the depositor is
instruments. The rationale behind this rule is the fact that
the bearer but as to who the depositor is, no one knows. It
in establishing and operating a postal money order system,
does not say on its face that the depositor is Angel de la
the government is not engaging in commercial
Cruz. If it was really the intention of respondent bank to
transactions but merely exercises a governmental power
pay the amount to Angel de la Cruz only, it could have with
for the public benefit. In fact, postal money orders are
facility so expressed that fact in clear and categorical
subject to a lot of restrictions limiting their negotiability.
terms in the documents, instead of having the word
Particularly in this case, as far back as 1948, there was
BEARER stamped on the space provided for the name of
already an agreement between Bank of America and the
the depositor in each CTD. On the wordings of the
Manila Post Office, that in case the post office would have
documents, therefore, the amounts deposited are
an adverse claim against any Bank of America depositor
repayable to whoever may be the bearer thereof.
involving postal money orders issued by the post office, all
amounts cleared in relation thereto shall be refunded back Thus, de la Cruz is the depositor insofar as the bank is
to the post offices account with the bank this in itself is concerned, but obviously other parties not privy to the
already a limitation in the negotiability and nature of the transaction between them would not be in a position to
postal money orders issued by the post office because of know that the depositor is not the bearer stated in the
the special conditions attached. CTDs.
However, Caltex may not encash the CTDs because
although the CTDs are bearer instruments, a valid
CALTEX V CA
negotiation thereof for the true purpose and agreement
between Caltex and De la Cruz, requires both delivery and
indorsement. As discerned from the testimony of Caltex
In 1982, Angel de la Cruz obtained certificates of time representative, the CTDs were delivered to them by de la
deposit (CTDs) from Security Bank and Trust Company for Cruz merely for guarantee or security and not as payment.
the formers deposit with the said bank amounting to
P1,120,000.00. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88866 February, 18, 1991
Angel de la Cruz subsequently delivered the CTDs to Caltex Cruz, J.:
in connection with the purchase of fuel products from
Caltex. Facts:
Eduardo Gomez opened an account with Golden Petitioner Sesbreno made a money market placement in
Savings and deposited 38 treasury warrants. All warrants the amount of P300,000 with the Philippine Underwriters
were subsequently indorsed by Gloria Castillo as Cashier of Finance Corporation (PhilFinance), with a term of 32
Golden Savings and deposited to its Savings account in days. PhilFinance issued to Sesbreno the Certificate of
Metrobank branch in Calapan, Mindoro. They were sent Confirmation of Sale of a Delta Motor Corporation
for clearance. Meanwhile, Gomez is not allowed to Promissory Note, the Certificate of Securities Delivery
withdraw from his account, later, however, exasperated Receipt indicating the sale of the note with notation that
over Floria repeated inquiries and also as an said security was in the custody of Pilipinas Bank, and
accommodation for a valued client Metrobank decided postdated checks drawn against the Insular Bank of Asia
to allow Golden Savings to withdraw from proceeds of the and America for P304,533.33 payable on March 13,
warrants. In turn, Golden Savings subsequently allowed 1981. The checks were dishonored for having been drawn
Gomez to make withdrawals from his own account. against insufficient funds. Pilipinas Bank never released
Metrobank informed Golden Savings that 32 of the the note, nor any instrument related thereto, to Sesbreno;
warrants had been dishonored by the Bureau of Treasury but Sesbreno learned that the security which was issued
and demanded the refund by Golden Savings of the on April 10, 1980, maturing on 6 April 1981, has a face
amount it had previously withdrawn, to make up the value of P2,300,833.33 with PhilFinance as payee and
deficit in its account. The demand was rejected. Delta Motors as maker; and was stamped non-
Metrobank then sued Golden Savings. negotiable on its face. As Sesbreno was unable to collect
his investment and interest thereon, he filed an action for
Issue: damages against Delta Motors and Pilipinas Bank. Delta
1. Whether or not Metrobank can demand refund Motors contents that said promissory note was not
agaist Golden Savings with regard to the amount intended to be negotiated or otherwise transferred by
withdraws to make up with the deficit as a result of the Philfinance as manifested by the word "non-negotiable"
dishonored treasury warrants. stamped across the face of the Note.
2. Whether or not treasury warrants are negotiable
instruments ISSUE:
Whether the non-negotiability of a promissory note
Held: prevents its assignment.
No. Metrobank is negligent in giving Golden Savings
the impression that the treasury warrants had been RULING:
cleared and that, consequently, it was safe to allow Gomez A negotiable instrument, instead of being negotiated, may
to withdraw. Without such assurance, Golden Savings also be assigned or transferred. The legal consequences of
would not have allowed the withdrawals. Indeed, Golden negotiation and assignment of the instrument are
Savings might even have incurred liability for its refusal to different. A non-negotiable instrument may not be
return the money that all appearances belonged to the negotiated but may be assigned or transferred, absent an
depositor, who could therefore withdraw it anytime and express prohibition against assignment or transfer written
for any reason he saw fit. in the face of the instrument. The subject promissory
No. The treasury warrants are not negotiable note, while marked "non-negotiable," was not at the same
instruments. Clearly stamped on their face is the word: time stamped "non-transferable" or "non-assignable." It
non negotiable. Moreover, and this is equal significance, contained no stipulation which prohibited Philfinance from
it is indicated that they are payable from a particular fund, assigning or transferring such note, in whole or in part.
to wit, Fund 501. An instrument to be negotiable
instrument must contain an unconditional promise or Firestone Tire & rubber Co. vs. Court of Appeals
orders to pay a sum certain in money. As provided by Sec 3 GR No. 113236 March 5, 2001
of NIL an unqualified order or promise to pay is Quisumbing, J.:
unconditional though coupled with: 1st, an indication of a
particular fund out of which reimbursement is to be made Facts:
or a particular account to be debited with the amount; or Forjas-Arca Enterprise Company is maintaining a
2nd, a statement of the transaction which give rise to the special savings account with Luzon Development Bank, the
instrument. But an order to promise to pay out of latter authorized and allowed withdrawals of funds though
particular fund is not unconditional. The indication of Fund the medium of special withdrawal slips. These are supplied
501 as the source of the payment to be made on the by Fojas-Arca. Fojas-Arca purchased on credit with
treasury warrants makes the order or promise to pay not FirestoneTire & Rubber Company, in payment Fojas-Arca
conditional and the warrants themselves non-negotiable. delivered a 6 special withdrawal slips. In turn, these were
There should be no question that the exception on Section deposited by the Firsestone to its bank account in Citibank.
3 of NIL is applicable in the case at bar. With this, relying on such confidence and belief Firestone
extended to Fojas-Arca other purchase on credit of its
products but several withdrawal slips were dishonored
FACTS:
and not paid. As a consequence, Citibank debited the G.R. No. 85419 March 9, 1993
plaintiffs account representing the aggregate amount of --complete undelivered
the two dishonored special withdrawal slips. Fojas-Arca
averred that the pecuniary losses it suffered are a caused FACTS:
by and directly attributes to defendants gross negligence Respondent Sima Wei executed and delivered to
as a result Fojas-Arca filed a complaint. petitioner Bank a promissory note engaging to pay the
petitioner Bank or order the amount of
Issue: P1,820,000.00. Sima Wei subsequently issued two crossed
Whether or not the acceptance and payment of the checks payable to petitioner Bank drawn against China
special withdrawal slips without the presentation of the Banking Corporation in full settlement of the drawer's
depositors passbook thereby giving the impression that it account evidenced by the promissory note. These two
is a negotiable instrument like a check. checks however were not delivered to the petitioner-
payee or to any of its authorized representatives but
Held: instead came into the possession of respondent Lee Kian
No. Withdrawal slips in question were non Huat, who deposited the checks without the petitioner-
negotiable instrument. Hence, the rules governing the payee's indorsement to the account of respondent Plastic
giving immediate notice of dishonor of negotiable Corporation with Producers Bank. Inspite of the fact that
instrument do not apply. The essence of negotiability the checks were crossed and payable to petitioner Bank
which characterizes a negotiable paper as a credit and bore no indorsement of the latter, the Branch
instrument lies in its freedom to circulate freely as a Manager of Producers Bank authorized the acceptance of
substitute for money. The withdrawal slips in question the checks for deposit and credited them to the account of
lacked this character. said Plastic Corporation.

Ang Tek Lian vs. Court of Appeals ISSUE:


L-2516 September, 1950 Whether petitioner Bank has a cause of action against
Bengzon, J.: Sima Wei for the undelivered checks.

Facts: RULING:
Ang Tek Lian knowing that he had no funds No. A negotiable instrument must be delivered to the
therefor, drew a check upon China Banking Corporation payee in order to evidence its existence as a binding
payable to the order of cash. He delivered it toLee Hua contract. Section 16 of the NIL provides that every
Hong in exchange for money. The check was presented by contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and
Lee Hua hong to the drawee bank for payment, but it w3as revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. With this, Ang Tek of giving effect thereto. Thus, the payee of a negotiable
Lian was convicted of estafa. instrument acquires no interest with respect thereto until
its delivery to him. Without the initial delivery of the
Issue: instrument from the drawer to the payee, there can be no
Whether or not the check issued by Ang Tek Lian liability on the instrument. Petitioner however has a right
that is payable to the order to cash and not have been of action against Sima Wei for the balance due on the
indorsed by Ang Tek Lian, making him not guilty for the promissory note.
crime of estafa.

Held:
No.Under Sec. 9 of NIL a check drawn payable to Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Aruego
the order of cash is a check payable to bearer and the GR L-25836-37, 31 January 1981, 102 scra 530
bank may pay it to the person presenting it for payment --agents
without the drawers indorsement. However, if the bank is
not sure of the bearers identity or financial solvency, it FACTS:
has the right to demand identification or assurance against To facilitate payment of the printing of a periodical called
possible complication, such as forgery of drawers World Current Events., Aruego, its publisher, obtained a
signature, loss of the check by the rightful owner, raising credit accommodation from the Philippine Bank of
of the amount payable, etc. But where the bank is satisfied Commerce. For every printing of the periodical, the printer
of the identity or economic standing of the bearer who collected the cost of printing by drawing a draft against
tenders the check for collection, it will pay the instrument the bank, said draft being sent later to Aruego for
without further question; and it would incur no liability to acceptance. As an added security for the payment of the
the drawer in thus acting. amounts advanced to the printer, the bank also required
Aruego to execute a trust receipt in favor of the bank
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL vs. SIMA WEI, ET AL. wherein Aruego undertook to hold in trust for the bank
the periodicals and to sell the same with the promise to receivables of HCCC from the GSIS, including the
turn over to the bank the proceeds of the sale to answer questioned checks.
for the payment of all obligations arising from the draft.
The bank instituted an action against Aruego to recover ISSUE:
the cost of printing of the latters periodical. Aruego Whether petitioner cannot be held liable on the
however argues that he signed the supposed bills of questioned checks by virtue of the Certification executed
exchange only as an agent of the Philippine Education by Ong giving her the authority to collect such checks from
Foundation Company where he is president. the GSIS.

ISSUES: RULING:
Whether Aruego can be held liable by the petitioner Petitioner is liable. The Negotiable Instruments Law
although he signed the supposed bills of exchange only as provides that where any person is under obligation to
an agent of Philippine Education Foundation Company. indorse in a representative capacity, he may indorse in
such terms as to negative personal liability. An agent,
RULING: when so signing, should indicate that he is merely signing
Aruego did not disclose in any of the drafts that he in behalf of the principal and must disclose the name of his
accepted that he was signing as representative of the principal; otherwise he shall be held personally
Philippine Education Foundation Company. For failure to liable. Even assuming that Francisco was authorized by
disclose his principal, Aruego is personally liable for the HCCC to sign Ong's name, still, Francisco did not indorse
drafts he accepted, pursuant to Section 20 of the NIL the instrument in accordance with law. Instead of signing
which provides that when a person adds to his signature Ong's name, Francisco should have signed her own name
words indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a and expressly indicated that she was signing as an agent of
principal or in a representative capacity, he is not liable on HCCC. Thus, the Certification cannot be used by Francisco
the instrument if he was duly authorized; but the mere to validate her act of forgery
addition of words describing him as an agent or as filing a
representative character, without disclosing his principal,
Jai-Alai Corp. of the Phil. vs. Bank of the Phil. Islands
does not exempt him from personal liability.
G.R. No. L-29432 August 6, 1975 66 SCRA 29
-forgery

ADALIA FRANCISCO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. FACTS:


G.R. No. 116320 November 29, 1999 Petitioner deposited 10 checks in its current account with
--agents BPI. The checks which were acquired by petitioner from
Ramirez, a sales agent of the Inter-Island Gas were all
FACTS: payable to Inter-Island Gas Service, Inc. or order. After the
A. Francisco Realty & Development Corporation (AFRDC), checks had been submitted to Inter-bank clearing, Inter-
of which petitioner Francisco is the president, entered into Island Gas discovered that all the indorsements made on
a Land Development and Construction Contract with the checks purportedly by its cashiers were forgeries. BPI
private respondent Herby Commercial & Construction thus debited the value of the checks against petitioner's
Corporation (HCCC), represented by its President and current account and forwarded to the latter the checks
General Manager private respondent Ong. Under the containing the forged indorsements which petitioner
contract, HCCC was to be paid on the basis of the refused to accept.
completed houses and developed lands delivered to and
accepted by AFRDC and the GSIS. Sometime in 1979, Ong ISSUE:
discovered that Diaz and Francisco, the Vice-President of Whether BPI had the right to debit from petitioner's
GSIS, had executed and signed seven checks of various current account the value of the checks with the forged
dates and amounts payable to HCCC for completed and indorsements.
delivered work under the contract. Ong, however, claims
that these checks were never delivered to HCCC. It turned RULING:
out that Francisco forged the indorsement of Ong on the BPI acted within legal bounds when it debited the
checks and indorsed the checks for a second time by petitioner's account. Having indorsed the checks to
signing her name at the back of the checks, petitioner then respondent bank, petitioner is deemed to have given the
deposited said checks in her savings account. A case was warranty prescribed in Section 66 of the NIL that every
brought by private respondents against petitioner to single one of those checks "is genuine and in all respects
recover the value of said checks. Petitioner however what it purports to be." Respondent which relied upon
claims that she was authorized to sign Ong's name on the the petitioner's warranty should not be held liable for the
checks by virtue of the Certification executed by Ong in resulting loss.
her favor giving her the authority to collect all the
**The depositor of a check as indorser warrants that it is Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS)
genuine and in all respects what it purports to be. Having had an account with PNB. When it was still called
indorsed the checks to respondent bank, petitioner is NAWASA, MWSS made a special arrangement with PNB so
deemed to have given the warranty prescribed in Section that it may have personalized checks to be printed by
66 of the NIL that every single one of those checks " is Mesina Enterprises. These personalized checks were the
genuine and in all respects what it purports to be." ones being used by MWSS in its business transactions.
From March to May 1969, MWSS issued 23 checks to
Republic Bank vs. Ebrada various payees in the aggregate amount of P320,636.26.
GR L-40796, 31 July 1975 During the same months, another set of 23 checks
-forgery containing the same check numbers earlier issued were
forged. The aggregate amount of the forged checks
FACTS: amounted to P3,457,903.00. This amount was distributed
Respondent Ebrada encashed a back pay check dated to the bank accounts of three persons: Arturo Sison,
January 15, 1963 at Republic Bank. The Bureau of Antonio Mendoza, and Raul Dizon.
Treasury, which issued the check advised the bank that the
MWSS then demanded PNB to restore the amount of
alleged indorsement of the check by one Martin Lorenzo
P3,457,903.00. PNB refused. The trial court ruled in favor
was a forgery as the latter has been dead since 14 July
of MWSS but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial
1952; and requested that it be refunded he sum deducted
courts decision.
from its account. The bank refunded the amount to the
Bureau and demanded upon Ebrada the sum in question, ISSUE: Whether or not PNB should restore the said
who refused. amount.

ISSUES: HELD: No. MWSS is precluded from setting up the defense


1) Whether the bank can recover from Ebrada who of forgery. It has been proven that MWSS has been
was the last indorser of the check with the forged negligent in supervising the printing of its personalized
indorsement. checks. It failed to provide security measures and
2) Whether the existence of one forged signature coordinate the same with PNB. Further, the signatures in
in the check will render void all the other negotiations of the forged checks appear to be genuine as reported by the
the check with respect to the other parties whose National Bureau of Investigation so much so that the
signature are genuine. MWSS itself cannot tell the difference between the forged
signature and the genuine one. The records likewise show
RULING: that MWSS failed to provide appropriate security
1) Republic Bank should suffer the loss when it measures over its own records thereby laying confidential
paid the amount of the check in question to Ebrada but it records open to unauthorized persons. Even if the twenty-
has the remedy to recover from the latter the amount it three (23) checks in question are considered forgeries,
paid to her because as last indorser of the check, she has considering the MWSSs gross negligence, it is barred from
warranted that she has good title to it even if in fact she setting up the defense of forgery under Section 23 of the
did not because the payee of the check was already dead Negotiable Instruments Law.
11 years before the check was issued. The Supreme Court further emphasized that forgery
2) The negotiation of the check in question from cannot be presumed. It must be established by clear,
Martin Lorenzo, the original payee whose indorsement positive, and convincing evidence. This was not done in
was forged, to the second indorser, should be declared of the present case.
no affect, but the negotiation of the aforesaid check from
the second indorser to the third indorser, and from the
third indorser to Ebrada who did not know of the forgery,
should be considered valid and enforceable, barring any Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Equitable
claim of forgery. Banking Corp. [G.R. No. 74917. January 20, 1988]

**The existence of one forged signature in the check will FACTS


not render void all the other negotiations of the check with
respect to the other parties whose signature are Equitable Bank drew six crossed managers check payable
genuine. As last indorser of the check, petitioner to certain member establishments of Visa Card.
warranted that she has good title to it even if in fact she Subsequently, the checks were deposited with Banco De
did not because the payee of the check was already dead
Oro (BDO) to the credit of its depositor. Following normal
11 years before the check was issued.
procedures and after stamping at the back of the checks
the usual endorsements,BDOsent the checks for clearing
through the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC).
Accordingly, Equitable Banking paid the checks; its clearing thereon. However, through Galang, these checks were
account was debited for the value of the checks and BDOs never delivered to the supposed payees. Instead, the
clearing account was credited for the same amount. checks were fraudulently indorsed to Alfredo Romero and
Benito Lam.
Thereafter, Equitable Banking discovered that the
endorsements appearing at the back of the checks and ISSUE: Whether or not the bank should refund the money
purporting to be that of the payees were forged and/or lost by reason of the forged indorsements.
unauthorized or otherwise belong to persons other than HELD: No. Gempesaw cannot set up the defense of forgery
the payees.Equitable Banking presented the checks by reason of her negligence. As a rule, a drawee bank (in
directly to BDO for the purpose of claiming reimbursement this case the Philippine Bank of Communications) who has
from the latter. However, BDO refused to accept such paid a check on which an indorsement has been forged
direct presentation and to reimburse Equitable Banking for cannot charge the drawers (Gempesaws) account for the
amount of said check. An exception to this rule is where
the value of the checks.
the drawer is guilty of such negligence which causes the
bank to honor such a check or checks. If a check is stolen
ISSUES from the payee, it is quite obvious that the drawer cannot
possibly discover the forged indorsement by mere
(a) Whether or not BDO is estopped from claiming that examination of his cancelled check. A different situation
checks under consideration are non-negotiable arises where the indorsement was forged by an employee
instruments. or agent of the drawer, or done with the active
participation of the latter.
(b) Whether or not BDO can escape liability by reasons of
forgery.
ASSOCIATED BANK V CA
(c) Whether or not only negotiable checks are within the
jurisdiction of PCHC. The Province of Tarlac was disbursing funds to Concepcion
Emergency Hospital via checks drawn against its account
with the Philippine National Bank (PNB). These checks
were drawn payable to the order of Concepcion
RULING Emergency Hospital. Fausto Pangilinan was the cashier of
Concepcion Emergency Hospital in Tarlac until his
retirement in 1978. He used to handle checks issued by
(a) YES. BDO having stamped its guarantee of all prior
the provincial government of Tarlac to the said hospital.
endorsements and/or lack of endorsements is now
However, after his retirement, the provincial government
estopped from claiming that the checks under still delivered checks to him until its discovery of this
consideration are not negotiable instruments. The checks irregularity in 1981. By forging the signature of the chief
were accepted for deposit by the petitioner stamping payee of the hospital (Dr. Adena Canlas), Pangilinan was
thereon its guarantee, in order that it can clear the said able to deposit 30 checks amounting to P203k to his
checks with the respondent bank. account with the Associated Bank.
When the province of Tarlac discovered this irregularity, it
(b) NO. A commercial bank cannot escape the liability of demanded PNB to reimburse the said amount. PNB in turn
demanded Associated Bank to reimburse said amount.
an endorser of a check and which may turn out to be a
PNB averred that Associated Bank is liable to reimburse
forged endorsement. Whenever any bank treats the because of its indorsement borne on the face of the
signature at the back of the checks as endorsements and checks:

thus logically guarantees the same as such there can be no All prior endorsements guaranteed ASSOCIATED BANK.
doubt said bank has considered the checks as negotiable. ISSUE: What are the liabilities of each party?
HELD: The checks involved in this case are order
instruments.
GEMPESAW V CA
Liability of Associated Bank
Natividad Gempesaw is a businesswoman who entrusted
to her bookkeeper, Alicia Galang, the preparation of Where the instrument is payable to order at the time of
checks about to be issued in the course of her business the forgery, such as the checks in this case, the signature
transactions. From 1984 to 1986, 82 checks amounting to of its rightful holder (here, the payee hospital) is essential
P1,208,606.89, were prepared and were supposed to be to transfer title to the same instrument. When the holders
delivered to Gempesaws clients as payees named indorsement is forged, all parties prior to the forgery may
raise the real defense of forgery against all parties
subsequent thereto.
A collecting bank (in this case Associated Bank) where a
check is deposited and which indorses the check upon
presentment with the drawee bank (PNB), is such an
indorser. So even if the indorsement on the check
deposited by the bankss client is forged, Associated Bank
is bound by its warranties as an indorser and cannot set up
the defense of forgery as against the PNB.
EXCEPTION: If it can be shown that the drawee bank (PNB)
unreasonably delayed in notifying the collecting bank
(Associated Bank) of the fact of the forgery so much so
that the latter can no longer collect reimbursement from
the depositor-forger.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi