Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-26001
Decision Date
Oct 29, 1968
PNB sued PCIB over forged GSIS check; SC ruled PNB's negligence in ignoring stop payment notice caused loss, dismissing PNB's claim against PCIB.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26001)

Disputed Signatures and Endorsements

PNB alleged that, since drawer signatures were forged, intermediate indorsements must also be forged. The court rejected this, observing no evidence of spurious indorsements. Moreover, forgeries of drawer signatures, not of intermediary indorsements, caused the loss, and a drawee’s liability does not hinge on prior indorsement authenticity.

Warranty on Indorsement

PCIB’s back-of-check stamp guaranteed “all prior indorsements” but did not cover the authenticity of the GSIS officers’ signatures, since GSIS was the drawer, not an indorser. That warranty might benefit a subsequent bona fide holder, but PNB, as drawee, was neither a holder in due course nor a latter indorsee; upon payment, the check ceased to be negotiable and became merely a payment voucher.

Acceptance versus Payment

Under Act No. 2031, “acceptance” is a drawee’s assent to a bill’s order, while “payment” is the actual performance of that order. Checks being payable on demand require no formal acceptance. PNB’s clearing practice—retaining the check and honoring it—constituted payment, satisfying any implied acceptance.

Comparative Negligence and Proximate Cause

PNB claimed PCIB negligence for not detecting forgery. The court found both banks negligent, but PNB was principally at fault. It had formal notice from GSIS to stop payment and yet honored and paid the check, signaling to PCIB that it was genuine. By failing to return the check, PNB induced PCIB to release funds to Lim. Equity dictates that the party whose neg

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.