0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
148 vues2 pages
The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) claimed that 23 checks written on its account with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) were forgeries and demanded restitution of the amount encashed. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of PNB, finding that MWSS was grossly negligent in supervising the printing of its personalized checks and failing to coordinate with PNB on security measures. Even if the checks were forged, MWSS's negligence precluded it from claiming the defense of forgery under the law. The signatures on the checks also appeared genuine, so forgery was not conclusively proven.
The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) claimed that 23 checks written on its account with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) were forgeries and demanded restitution of the amount encashed. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of PNB, finding that MWSS was grossly negligent in supervising the printing of its personalized checks and failing to coordinate with PNB on security measures. Even if the checks were forged, MWSS's negligence precluded it from claiming the defense of forgery under the law. The signatures on the checks also appeared genuine, so forgery was not conclusively proven.
The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) claimed that 23 checks written on its account with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) were forgeries and demanded restitution of the amount encashed. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of PNB, finding that MWSS was grossly negligent in supervising the printing of its personalized checks and failing to coordinate with PNB on security measures. Even if the checks were forged, MWSS's negligence precluded it from claiming the defense of forgery under the law. The signatures on the checks also appeared genuine, so forgery was not conclusively proven.
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE MWSS made a special arrangement with PNB so that it may
SYSTEM have personalized checks to be printed by Mesina Enterprises.
vs. These personalized checks were the ones being used by MWSS COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE in its business transactions. NATIONAL BANK G.R. No. 129015 August 13, 2004 From March to May 1969, MWSS issued 23 checks to various TINGA, J.: payees in the aggregate amount of P320,636.26. During the same months, another set of 23 checks containing the same Forgery Sec. 23 check numbers earlier issued were forged. The aggregate amount of the forged checks amounted to P3,457,903.00. This amount was distributed to the bank accounts of three persons: Arturo Sison, Antonio Mendoza, and Raul Dizon. PETITIONER: Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System. RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals and The Philippine National Bank MWSS then demanded PNB to restore the amount of P3,457,903.00. PNB refused. The trial court ruled in favor of SUMMARY: MWSS but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s The subject of this case are 23 checks written for the account of decision. NWSA, the predecessor of MWSS. The latter claims that the checks were forgeries, and prayed for the restitution of the amount which had been fraudulently encashed from its PNB account for the 23 checks that had been ISSUE: cashed. Whether or not PNB should restore the said amount. – No. Doctrine: RULING: Forgery cannot be presumed (Siasat, et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al, 139 SCRA 238). It must be established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. This was not done in the present case. No. MWSS is precluded from setting up the defense of forgery. Even if the twenty-three (23) checks in question are considered forgeries, considering the petitioner's gross negligence, it is barred from setting up the It has been proven that MWSS has been negligent in supervising defense of forgery under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. the printing of its personalized checks. It failed to provide security measures and coordinate the same with PNB. Further, the signatures in the forged checks appear to be genuine as FACTS: reported by the National Bureau of Investigation so much so that the MWSS itself cannot tell the difference between the forged Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) had signature and the genuine one. The records likewise show that an account with PNB. When it was still called NAWASA, MWSS failed to provide appropriate security measures over its own records thereby laying confidential records open to unauthorized persons. Even if the twenty-three (23) checks in question are considered forgeries, considering the MWSS’s gross negligence, it is barred from setting up the defense of forgery under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.
RATIO: The Supreme Court further emphasized that forgery cannot be presumed. It must be established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. This was not done in the present case.