Case Digest (G.R. No. 126696)
Facts:
Security Bank & Trust Company v. Triumph Lumber and Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 126696, January 21, 1999, Supreme Court First Division, Davide Jr., C.J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Security Bank & Trust Company (the bank); the respondent is Triumph Lumber and Construction Corporation (the depositor/plaintiff in the trial court). Triumph maintained a savings and a current/checking account with the bank at its Sucat, Parañaque branch. On 23–24 March 1987 three checks payable to cash and drawn on the current account, totalling P300,000 (Check Nos. 466779, 466777 and 466780), were presented to and encashed by the bank. Triumph claimed its office and filing cabinet had been forcibly opened that same morning and later discovered the disappearance of banking documents; it asserted the three checks bore forged signatures of its authorized signatories and demanded reimbursement from the bank, which refused.
Triumph filed Civil Case No. 16882 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati alleging forgery and the bank’s gross or inexcusable negligence; it presented photocopies of the checks and the testimony of Crispina V. Tabo, Senior Document Examiner of the PC Crime Laboratory. The bank countered that Triumph failed to produce the original checks, that standard signature cards governed which signatures the bank was to honor, that an automatic transfer agreement existed, and that it followed standard bank procedures in verifying the checks; it also alleged alternative defenses in its Answer.
The RTC (Judge Zosimo Z. Angeles) found for the bank and dismissed Triumph’s complaint in a decision of 14 November 1990, concluding Triumph failed to prove forgery, had willfully suppressed originals, and was negligent in safekeeping and reporting the burglary. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 33513 reversed on 28 December 1995, holding forgery established by expert testimony and admissions in the bank’s Answer, and that the bank failed to exercise due prudence (including not following an alleged arrangement to inform Triumph when checks over P10,000 were presented); the CA ordered reimbursement of P300,000 plus interest and attorneys’ fees (25% of the principal). The CA denied the bank’s motion for reconsideration on 17 September 1996.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supre...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Court review and resolve the conflicting factual findings between the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in this case?
- Were the signatures on the three checks proved to be forged by a preponderance of evidence?
- Did the bank act with negligence in cashing the disputed checks?
- Is the respondent entitled to reimbursement of P300,000 plu...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)