This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| To be sure, a collecting bank, Asianbank in this case, where a check is deposited and which indorses the check upon presentment with the drawee bank, is an indorser.[31] This is because in indorsing a check to the drawee bank, a collecting bank stamps the back of the check with the phrase "all prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed"[32] and, for all intents and purposes, treats the check as a negotiable instrument, hence, assumes the warranty of an indorser.[33] Without Asianbank's warranty, the drawee bank (China Bank in this case) would not have paid the value of the subject check. | |||||
|
2009-05-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The bank on which a check is drawn, known as the drawee bank, is under strict liability, based on the contract between the bank and its customer (drawer), to pay the check only to the payee or the payee's order. The drawer's instructions are reflected on the face and by the terms of the check. When the drawee bank pays a person other than the payee named on the check, it does not comply with the terms of the check and violates its duty to charge the drawer's account only for properly payable items.[9] Thus, we ruled in Philippine National Bank v. Rodriguez[10] that a drawee should charge to the drawer's accounts only the payables authorized by the latter; otherwise, the drawee will be violating the instructions of the drawer and shall be liable for the amount charged to the drawer's account. | |||||
|
2008-09-26 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In a checking transaction, the drawee bank has the duty to verify the genuineness of the signature of the drawer and to pay the check strictly in accordance with the drawer's instructions, i.e., to the named payee in the check. It should charge to the drawer's accounts only the payables authorized by the latter. Otherwise, the drawee will be violating the instructions of the drawer and it shall be liable for the amount charged to the drawer's account.[24] | |||||
|
2007-10-18 |
|||||
| In Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals,[6] we held that the collecting bank or last endorser generally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior indorsements and is privy to the depositor who negotiated the check. | |||||
|
2006-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| BPI further stamped its guarantee on the back of the checks to the effect that, "All prior endorsement and/or Lack of endorsement guaranteed." Thus, BPI became the indorser of the MCs, and assumed all the warranties of an indorser,[91] specifically, that the checks were genuine and in all respects what they purported to be; that it had a good title to the checks; that all prior parties had capacity to contract; and that the checks were, at the time of their indorsement, valid and subsisting.[92] So even if the MCs deposited by BPI's client, whether it be by respondent herself or some other person, lacked the necessary indorsement, BPI, as the collecting bank, is bound by its warranties as an indorser and cannot set up the defense of lack of indorsement as against petitioner Citibank, the drawee bank.[93] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Under this provision, a forged signature is a real[13] or absolute defense,[14] and a person whose signature on a negotiable instrument is forged is deemed to have never become a party thereto and to have never consented to the contract that allegedly gave rise to it.[15] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| For allowing payment[100] on the checks to a wrongful and fictitious payee, BPI -- the drawee bank --becomes liable to its depositor-drawer. Since the encashing bank is one of its branches,[101] BPI can easily go after it and hold it liable for reimbursement.[102] It "may not debit the drawer's account[103] and is not entitled to indemnification from the drawer."[104] In both law and equity, when one of two innocent persons "must suffer by the wrongful act of a third person, the loss must be borne by the one whose negligence was the proximate cause of the loss or who put it into the power of the third person to perpetrate the wrong."[105] | |||||
|
2002-01-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Respondent also cites Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals[14] which held that the collecting bank or last endorser generally suffers the loss because it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior endorsements. The collecting bank is also made liable because it is privy to the depositor who negotiated the check. The bank knows him, his address and history because he is a client. Hence, it is in a better position to detect forgery, fraud or irregularity in the indorsement.[15] | |||||