RSS

Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-62943. July 14, 1986]

30 Jul

FACTS

Twenty three (23) “personalized” checks drawn by petitioner were paid by respondent bank and debited against petitioner after they were deposited in collection banks.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner is barred from setting up the defense of forgery on the ground of gross negligence.

 

RULING

YES. Respondent drawee Bank for not having detected the fraudulent encashment of the checks because the printing of the petitioner’s personalized checks was not done under the supervision and control of the Bank. There is no evidence on record indicating that because of this private printing the petitioner furnished the respondent Bank with samples of checks, pens, and inks or took other precautionary measures with the PNB to safeguard its interests.

 

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: