BPI V. CASA MONTESORRI INTERNATIONALE
430 SCRA 261
CASA has a current account with BPI. It was discovered that for a material period of time, several checks were encashed by a certain Sonny Santos, who eventually was known to be a fictitious name used by the external auditor of CASA. The external auditor admitted forging the signature of CASA’s president to be able to encash the checks. The trial court held the bank liable but this was modified. The modified decision apportioned the loss between BPI and CASA.
A forged signature is a real and absolute defense, and a person whose signature appears on a negotiable instrument is forged is deemed to never have become a party thereto and to have never consented to the contract that allegedly gave rise to it.
The counterfeiting of any writing, consisting in the signing of another’s name with intent to defraud, is forgery.
First, there was really a finding of forgery. The forger admitted even in his affidavit of his forgery.
Second, there was a finding by the police laboratory that indeed the signatures were forged.
Furthermore, the negligence is attributable to BPI alone. Its negligence consisted in the omission of the degree of diligence required of a bank.
*Loss borne by proximate cause of negligence