GEMPESAW V. CA

218 SCRA 682

 

FACTS:

Gempensaw was the owner of many grocery stores.  She paid her suppliers through  the  issuance  of  checks  drawn  against  her  checking  account  with respondent  bank.    The  checks  were  prepared  by  her  bookkeeper  Galang.  In the signing of the checks prepared by Galang, Gempensaw didn't bother
herself  in  verifying  to  whom  the  checks  were  being  paid  and  if  the issuances  were  necessary.    She didn't  even verify  the  returned  checks  of the bank when the latter notifies her of the same.  During her two years in business,  there  were  incidents  shown  that  the  amounts  paid  for  were  in excess of what should have been paid.  It was also shown that even if the checks were crossed, the intended payees didn't receive the amount of the checks.    This  prompted  Gempensaw  to  demand  the  bank  to  credit  her account for the amount of the forged checks.  The bank refused to do so and this prompted her to file the case against the bank.     
 

HELD:

Forgery is a real defense by the party whose signature was forged.  A party whose signature was forged was never a party and never gave his consent to  the  instrument.    Since  his  signature  doesn’t  appear  in  the  instrument, the same cannot be enforced against him even by a holder in due course.  The drawee bank cannot charge the account of the drawer whose signature was forged because he never gave the bank the order to pay.
 
In  the  case  at  bar  the  checks  were  filled  up  by  petitioner’s  employee Galang and were later given to her for signature.  Her signing the checks made the negotiable instruments complete.  Prior to signing of the checks, there  was  no  valid  contract  yet.    Petitioner  completed  the  checks  by signing them and thereafter authorized Galang to deliver the same to their respective  payees.    The  checks  were  then  indorsed,  forged  indorsements thereon.   
 
As a rule, a drawee bank who has paid a check on which an indorsement has  been  forged  cannot  debit  the  account  of  a  drawer  for  the  amount  of said  check.    An  exception  to  this  rule  is  when  the  drawer  is  guilty  of negligence which causes the bank to honor such checks.  Petitioner in this case  has  relied  solely  on  the  honesty  and  loyalty  of  her  bookkeeper  and never  bothered  to  verify  the  accuracy  of  the  amounts  of  the  checks  she signed  the  invoices  attached  thereto.   And  though  she  received  her  bank statements,  she  didn't  carefully  examine  the  same  to  double-check  her
payments.  Petitioner didn't exercise reasonable diligence which eventually led to the fruition of her bookkeeper’s fraudulent schemes.