Title
Philippine National Bank vs. F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 173259
Decision Date
Jul 25, 2011
PNB negligently approved forged manager’s checks, debiting FFCCI’s account; FFCCI contributed by delayed review. Loss split 60-40, emphasizing bank’s higher diligence standard.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173259)

Factual Antecedents

FFCCI, represented by its President Felipe Cruz and Secretary-Treasurer Angelita A. Cruz, held a savings account with PNB and authorized transactions on that account. While both signatories were temporarily out of the country, unauthorized applications for manager's checks totaling ₱13,210,500.31 were made against the account. Upon discovering these discrepancies upon Angelita's return, FFCCI requested PNB to rectify these unauthorized transactions, but PNB refused, prompting FFCCI to file a lawsuit for damages against PNB.

Regional Trial Court's Ruling

The Regional Trial Court determined that both parties exhibited negligence. FFCCI was deemed negligent for allowing their accountant, Aurea Caparas, to implement decisions regarding account transactions without strict oversight, effectively waiving the requirement for dual signatures. Conversely, PNB was also found negligent for failing to properly verify the large withdrawals. The trial court ruled that PNB bore the greater responsibility for the loss and ordered the bank to compensate FFCCI for the full amount debited.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but adjusted the allocation of damages. It held that PNB's failure to verify the genuineness of the signatures during the check processing constituted negligence, since the absence of a verifier's signature suggested a breakdown of the verification process. Nonetheless, it identified FFCCI’s contributory negligence in not promptly reviewing account statements, resulting in a modification of the trial court's ruling to a 60-40 liability split favoring PNB.

Petition for Review and Issues Raised

Both parties sought further review by the Supreme Court. The main issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in attributing negligence to PNB. FFCCI contended that PNB’s negligence justified a full reimbursement of their losses, while PNB argued that its verification procedures mitigated its liability and FFCCI’s lack of vigilance exacerbated the situation.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' findings regarding PNB's negligence while also recognizing FFCCI's contributory negligence. It confirmed the 60-40 liability distribution between PNB and FFCCI, stating that PNB's failure to detect the forgeri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.