This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Clearly, petitioner, through its employee, was negligent when it allowed the deposit of the crossed check, despite the lone endorsement of Bitanga, ostensibly ignoring the fact that the check did not, it bears repeating, carry the indorsement of BA Finance.[29] | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, petitioner cannot evade responsibility for the loss by attributing negligence on the part of respondent because, even if we concur that the latter was indeed negligent in pre-signing blank checks, the former had the last clear chance to avoid the loss. To reiterate, petitioner's own operations manager admitted that they could have called up the client for verification or confirmation before honoring the dubious checks. Verily, petitioner had the final opportunity to avert the injury that befell the respondent. Failing to make the necessary verification due to the volume of banking transactions on that particular day is a flimsy and unacceptable excuse, considering that the "banking business is so impressed with public interest where the trust and confidence of the public in general is of paramount importance such that the appropriate standard of diligence must be a high degree of diligence, if not the utmost diligence."[23] Petitioner's negligence has been undoubtedly established and, thus, pursuant to Art. 1170 of the NCC,[24] it must suffer the consequence of said negligence. | |||||
|
2006-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In general, a crossed check cannot be presented to the drawee bank for payment in cash. Instead, the check can only be deposited with the payee's bank which, in turn, must present it for payment against the drawee bank in the course of normal banking hours. The crossed check cannot be presented for payment, but it can only be deposited and the drawee bank may only pay to another bank in the payee's or indorser's account.[80] The effect of crossing a check was described by this Court in Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals[81] - | |||||
|
2004-08-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, forgery is a real or absolute defense by the party whose signature is forged.[26] On the premise that Jong's signature was indeed forged, FEBTC is liable for the loss since it authorized the discharge of the forged check. Such liability attaches even if the bank exerts due diligence and care in preventing such faulty discharge. Forgeries often deceive the eye of the most cautious experts; and when a bank has been so deceived, it is a harsh rule which compels it to suffer although no one has suffered by its being deceived.[27] The forgery may be so near like the genuine as to defy detection by the depositor himself, and yet the bank is liable to the depositor if it pays the check.[28] | |||||