Calinog vs PNB (1955)

Summary Cases:

● Calinog vs. Philippine National Bank (PNB) 51 OG 4104

Subject: Signature on the check is a forgery; PNB's agents were guilty of negligence in encashing the
forged check; Drawee bank is responsible for determining authenticity of the signature of the drawer of
the check

Facts:

The plaintiff, Father Mariano Calinog, had a current account deposit with Philippine National Bank (PNB).

A woman who represented herself as Andrea Calinog presented for encashment at PNB Legaspi branch
a PNB Check No. 45080-C for the amount of P1,500. This check purports on its face to have been
drawn by Rev. Mariano Calinog in favor of Andrea Calinog on October 3, 1949, payable to her or order.

As Vedasto Reposo, the bank teller, did not know Andrea Calinog, he refused to cash the check, and
advised the latter to have somebody known to him who could identify her signature. Complying with this
request, Andrea Calinog brought one Damaso Romero as her guarantor. Vedasto Reposo again refused
to cash the check as he did not know Romero either. Thereupon, Damaso Romero had Andrea Calinog
indorse the check in blank in his favor, and produced Andres C. Aguilar, as guarantor of his signature.
As Vedasto Reposo knew Aguilar he agreed to encash the check if the latter would sign the necessary
identification clause. Aguilar signed his name on the back of the check below the clause “For
identification of payee’s signature and payment guaranteed”, stamped immediately after the signature “D.
Romero” appearing thereon as last indorsee. After this was accomplished, Vedasto Reposo accepted
the check and delivered it to the bookkeeper of the bank for verification. The bookkeeper, after a
comparison of the signature of the drawer (Calinog) with the latter’s signature on file and after finding
that its amount is covered by his deposit, returned the check to Reposo for payment. The latter,
thereupon, had Andrea Calinog sign her name once more on the back of the check below the signature
of Andres C. Aguilar, and paid P1,500 to her.

When Rev. Calinog received the statement of his account for the month of October 1949, he noticed that
the bank balance was short of P1,500. He wrote to PNB informing the latter that the check for the
amount of P1,500 credited against his account was a forgery, and asking that the amount be reinstated
in said account. PNB refused to make the reinstatement.

Rev. Calinog filed an action in court. The trial court rendered judgment, finding PNB guilty of negligence
and ordering PNB to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1,500, with legal interest. Hence, this appeal.
Held:

Signature on the check is a forgery

1. The plaintiff, a religious man quiet, advance in years, clearly testified that the signature to the check in
question is not his. We find no reason to discredit this witness. The same is corroborated by the result of
a comparison which we have made of the signature appearing in the check with the plaintiff’s authentic
signatures on the documents presented by the bank as basis for comparison. We have found in the
features of said signatures general characteristic dissimilarities, perfectly visible to the naked eyes of a
layman, which are indicative that the signature in the check in question is not authentic.

(a) signature in the check appears to have been written slowly, without penlifts, by a firm and
| Page 1 of 3
 young hand, while the signature appearing in comparison documents appear to have been written
with pen-lifts by an infirm hand of a person advance in years;

(b) the signature in the check is written in the form of writing taught in the schools of today, those
appearing in the documents and 4 are written in the form taught in the old schools;

(c) the signature in the documents show a loop in the capital letter “M” of the Christian name of the
plaintiff, which is totally absent in the signature appearing in the check , and that the loop of the
capital letter “C” in the surname of the plaintiff in the signature in the check is big, while the loop in
that letter in the signatures appearing in the exhibits is considerably reduced in size.

PNB's agents were guilty of negligence in encashing the forged check

2. As already stated, it does not require an expert eye to detect the apparent dissimilarity between the
signature in the check in question and those appearing in the card of specimen of signature . Had the
bookkeeper, therefore, been careful he could not have failed to notice such dissimilarity.

3. Moreover, the payment of this check was irregular. At first, the teller Vedasto refused to pay the same
either to Andrea Calinog or to Damaso Romero as he did not know them. He knew that Andres C.
Aguilar refused to identify the signature that Andrea Calinog because the latter is not known to him, and
that for this reason Andrea Calinog had to indorse the check in blank to Damaso Romero, whose
signature as payee Andres C. Aguilar was willing to identify and guarantee. Yet Vedasto Reposo,
instead of paying the amount of the check to Romero, whose signature has been identified by Andres C.
Aguilar, paid it to Andrea Calinog, whom he required to sign once more her name on the back thereof
below the signature of Aguilar, thus making it appear that she was its last indorsee and payee. Such
circumstances clearly show that the agents of the defendant, in encashing the check in question, were
guilty of negligence. Consequently, the trial court did not commit any error in holding that the bank liable
to the plaintiff for the amount of said check. A drawer has a right of action against a bank encashing
a forged instrument.

Drawee bank is responsible for determining authenticity of the signature of the drawer of the
check

4. PNB contends that inasmuch as Andres C. Aguilar has identified the signature of Damaso Romero
and guaranteed the payment of the check, he is liable for whatever damages may be suffered by the
bank resulting from the transaction.

5. In signing the certification clause found on the back of the check, all that Andres Romero certified was
that the signature of Damaso Romero, who then appeared as last indorsee thereof, was genuine, and
that if payment is made to him such payment would be made to the correct party.

6. He did not certify to the genuineness of the signature of Andrea Calinog or made a similar guaranty as
regards to the payment of the amount of the check to her. And this must have been clear to Vedasto
Reposo, the paying teller of the defendant, for he knew that Andres C. Aguilar refused to identify the
signature of Andrea Calinog. The certification clause in question could not be interpreted as meaning
that Andres C. Aguilar guaranteed the genuineness of the signature of the drawer of the check either,
because the latter was not the one cashing it. The determination of this question was the concern of the
bank.

7. It cannot be maintained furthermore that in stamping his signature to said certification Andres C.
Aguilar became an indorsee of the check in due course. We do not see, therefore, how Andres C.
| Page 2 of 3
Aguilar could be held liable for the said check, which has been wrongly paid by the agents of the bank.
Anyone who assumes the responsibility of identifying the payee of a check is answerable to the bank
cashing the check if the bank pays its amount to such person.

| Page 3 of 3