Case Digest (G.R. No. 129015)
Facts:
Samsung Construction Company Philippines, Inc. v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 129015, August 13, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Samsung Construction maintained a current account at respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), Bel‑Air, Makati branch; Jong Kyu Lee (Jong) was the sole authorized signatory and accountant Kyu Yong Lee (Kyu) kept the checks.On March 19, 1992, Roberto Gonzaga presented FEBTC Check No. 432100, payable to cash for P999,500.00, drawn on Samsung’s account. Teller Cleofe Justiani verified available balance and compared the signature with the specimen card; Senior Assistant Cashier Gemma Velez and another officer (Shirley Syfu) also examined the signature. Assistant accountant Jose Sempio III (present at the bank) vouched for the signature and the purpose; Syfu authorized payment and the bank encashed the check.
Kyu discovered the encashment the next day, found a missing blank check and reported it. Jong learned his signature was forged, consulted counsel, filed criminal charges against Sempio, and demanded reimbursement by letter dated May 6, 1992. When FEBTC did not credit the account, Samsung filed a civil complaint (Civil Case No. 92‑61506, RTC Manila, Branch 9) on June 10, 1992 under the Negotiable Instruments Law, Sec. 23.
At trial both parties produced document‑examination experts: the NBI’s Rhoda Flores concluded the signature was forged; the PNP’s Rosario Perez testified it was genuine. The RTC (Apr. 25, 1994) accepted the NBI expert and Jong’s testimony, held the signature forged and ordered FEBTC to reimburse P999,500.00 with interest and P15,000 attorneys’ fees. FEBTC appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA Special Fourteenth Division (Nov. 28, 1996) reversed, finding conflicting expert opinions cast doubt on forgery a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Samsung Construction precluded from asserting the defense of forgery under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law by reason of negligence in safeguarding its checks?
- Was the signature on Check No. 432100 proven to be forged so as to permit Samsung to invoke Section 23?
- If forgery is established and the drawer is not precluded, is FEBTC liable to reimburse the drawer for th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)