Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    Gempesaw vs. CA Case Digest - Nego

    Uploaded by

    MP Manliclic
    Gempesaw filed a complaint against Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) to recover money from 82 checks charged to her account that contained forged endorsements. Gempesaw's bookkeeper of 8 years, Alicia Galang, prepared checks and Gempesaw signed them without verifying amounts. It was discovered Galang caused overpayments totaling the face value of the checks. PBCom debited Gempesaw's account. The court examined whether Gempesaw could claim forgery as a defense given she failed to discover the forgeries by her employee for two years. Philippine law makes an exception preventing use of forgery as a defense if the drawer was negligent in failing to promptly discover

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gempesaw vs. CA Case Digest - Nego

    Uploaded by

    MP Manliclic
    85 views2 pages
    Gempesaw filed a complaint against Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) to recover money from 82 checks charged to her account that contained forged endorsements. Gempesaw's bookkeeper of 8 years, Alicia Galang, prepared checks and Gempesaw signed them without verifying amounts. It was discovered Galang caused overpayments totaling the face value of the checks. PBCom debited Gempesaw's account. The court examined whether Gempesaw could claim forgery as a defense given she failed to discover the forgeries by her employee for two years. Philippine law makes an exception preventing use of forgery as a defense if the drawer was negligent in failing to promptly discover

    Original Title

    Gempesaw vs. CA case digest - nego

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gempesaw filed a complaint against Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) to recover money from 82 checks charged to her account that contained forged endorsements. Gempesaw's bookkeeper of 8 years, Alicia Galang, prepared checks and Gempesaw signed them without verifying amounts. It was discovered Galang caused overpayments totaling the face value of the checks. PBCom debited Gempesaw's account. The court examined whether Gempesaw could claim forgery as a defense given she failed to discover the forgeries by her employee for two years. Philippine law makes an exception preventing use of forgery as a defense if the drawer was negligent in failing to promptly discover

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views2 pages

    Gempesaw vs. CA Case Digest - Nego

    Uploaded by

    MP Manliclic
    Gempesaw filed a complaint against Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) to recover money from 82 checks charged to her account that contained forged endorsements. Gempesaw's bookkeeper of 8 years, Alicia Galang, prepared checks and Gempesaw signed them without verifying amounts. It was discovered Galang caused overpayments totaling the face value of the checks. PBCom debited Gempesaw's account. The court examined whether Gempesaw could claim forgery as a defense given she failed to discover the forgeries by her employee for two years. Philippine law makes an exception preventing use of forgery as a defense if the drawer was negligent in failing to promptly discover

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Gempesaw vs.

    CA
    G.R. No. 92244. February 9, 1993

    FACTS:
    The records show that on January 23, 1985, Gempesaw filed a Complaint against the
    private respondent Philippine Bank of Communications (respondent drawee Bank) for recovery
    of the money value of eighty-two (82) checks charged against the petitioner's account with them
    on the ground that the payee’s indorsements were forgeries.

    Gempesaw practiced of issuing checks to her suppliers was that, Alicia Galang, her
    bookkeeper for more than eight years, was in charged of preparing checks payable to her
    suppliers and then she will sign it after without verifying the truthfulness of the attached
    documents, trusting her employee that the said payment were true and without error. However,
    it turned out that there were overpayments on the amount of the subject checks. Now, the
    drawee bank, PBCom debited from her account the 82 crossed checks covering the face value
    of the said documents

    After two years, Gempesaw, upon learning this filed a complaint against PBCom for
    recovery of the money value of eighty-two (82) checks charged against the her account with
    them on the ground that the payee’s indorsements were forgeries.

    On trial, the following facts were disputed, that the 63 checks with forged signatures of
    the payees were brought to Ernest Boon, the Chief Accountant of respondent drawee bank at
    the Buendia Branch to the credit and/or account of Alfredo Romero, a very close friend of
    Esnest Boon for the rest of the checks were deposited under the account of Benito Lam at the
    Elcano Branch.
    About 30 of the payees’ whose name are specifically written on the check testified that
    they did not see the check personally and that the endorsement appearing on the back of the
    checks were not theirs.
    The bank auditor failed to discover check or stop the unauthorized act of Mr. Boon.
    According to their bank rules, only the branch managers and no other official may authorize a
    second endorsement check.

    ISSUE:
    Under the aforecited provision, forgery is a real or absolute defense by the party whose
    signature is forged. A party whose signature to an instrument was forged was never a party and
    never gave his consent to the contract which gave rise to the instrument.

    However, the law makes an exception to these rules where a party is precluded from
    setting up forgery as a defense.

    As a matter of practical significance, problems arising from forged indorsements of


    checks may generally be broken into two types of cases: (1) where forgery was accomplished
    by a person not associated with the drawer—for example a mail robbery; and (2) where the
    indorsement was forged by an agent of the drawer. This difference in situations would
    determine the effect of the drawer's negligence with respect to forged indorsements. While there
    is no duty resting on the depositor to look for forged indorsements on his cancelled checks in
    contrast to a duty imposed upon him to look for forgeries of his own name, a depositor is under
    a duty to set up an accounting system and a business procedure as are reasonably calculated
    to prevent or render difficult the forgery of indorsements, particularly by the depositor's own
    employees. And if the drawer (depositor) learns that a check drawn by him has been paid under
    a forged indorsement, the drawer is under duty promptly to report such fact to the drawee bank.
    For his negligence or failure either to discover or to report promptly the fact of such forgery to
    the drawee, the drawer loses his right against the drawee who has debited his account under
    the forged indorsement. In other words, he is precluded from using forgery as a basis for his
    claim for recrediting of his account.

    You might also like