143 SCRA 20



MWSS  had  an  account  from  PNB.    Its  treasurer,  auditor,  and  General Manager are the ones authorized to sign checks.  During a period of time, 23  checks  were  drawn  and  debited  against  the  account  of  petitioner.  Bearing the same check numbers, the amounts stated therein were again
debited from the account of petitioner.  The amounts drawn were deposited in the accounts of the payees in PCIB.  It was found out though that the names stated in the drawn checks were all fictitious.  Petitioner demanded the return of the amounts debited but the bank refused to do so.  Thus, it filed a complaint.


There  was  no  categorical  finding  that  the  23  checks  were  signed  by persons  other  than  those  authorized  to  sign.    On  the  contrary,  the  NBI reports shows that the fraud was an “inside job” and that the delay in the reconciliation  of  the  bank  statements  and  the  laxity  and  loss  of  records
control  in the printing of the personalized checks facilitated the fraud.  It further doesn’t provide that the signatures were forgeries.
Forgery cannot be presumed.  It should be proven by clear, convincing and positive evidence.  This wasn’t done in the present case. 

The petitioner cannot invoke Section 23 because it was guilty of negligence not only before the questioned checks but even after the same had already been negotiated.