MANILA LIGHTER TRANS V. CA
182 SCRA 251
FACTS:
Perez was able to collect the checks payable to petitioner. The petitioner wasn't able however to receive the checks. Instead, the payee’s signatures therein were forged and was able to land in the hands of third persons who deposited the same to their account in China bank. Petitioner sued Chinabank for the sum of money. The trial court held that there was equal negligence on the part of petitioner and bank but the appellate court held that the bank had no liability whatsoever.HELD:
Since the petitioner had no account with the bank and wasn't a client thereof, the latter had no way of ascertaining the authenticities of its indorsements on the checks which were deposited in the accounts of the third party defendants in said bank. Respondent bank wasn't negligentbecause, in accordance with banking practice, it caused the checks to pass through the clearing house before it allowed their proceeds to be withdrawn by the depositors.