Title
Republic vs. Equitable Banking Corporation
Case
G.R. No. L-15894
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1964
Government seeks refund from banks for forged treasury warrants; Supreme Court rules Treasury’s negligence bars recovery, upholding clearing house rules and banks’ good faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-15894)

Facts of the Case

The Republic of the Philippines sought to recover amounts from both the Equitable Bank (P17,100) and the PI Bank (P342,767.63), totaling the value of thirty treasury warrants that had been executed using government forms but bore forged signatures. The warrants were acquired by the Corporation de los Padres Dominicos, which was misled by its former employee, Jacinto Carranza, to facilitate their cashing. The PI Bank accepted the warrants deposited by the Corporation and cleared them through the Central Bank's Clearing Office.

Procedure Following Treasury Warrant Clearance

The Equitable Bank and PI Bank subsequently presented the warrants for payment and received payments from the Treasurer of the Philippines after the warrants had been cleared. However, the Treasurer later returned several of the warrants due to their forgery. Notably, the Treasurer demanded reimbursement from the banks, which asserted claims against the Corporation and individuals involved in the transactions through third-party complaints.

Legal Issues Presented

The core of the legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 24-hour clearing house rule established by the Central Bank, which the Government contended it was not bound by because the Treasury is not a bank and the Treasurer had voiced objections to the rule. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Treasury was a member of the Clearing Office and had agreed to adhere to its rules, undermining its claim of exemption from the clearing procedure.

Findings on Treasury's Negligence

The Court found that the Treasury had been negligent in verifying the authenticity of the warrants despite having the capacity to clear a high volume of warrants in the relevant time frame. The Court noted that the apparent irregularities present in the forged warrants should have been sufficient to trigger a verification process. Additionally, the Treasury's failure to advertise the loss of genuine warrant forms contributed to the circumstances leading to the unauthorized cashing of the warrants.

Court’s Ruling

The Court ultimately held that the losses attributed to the forgery of the treasury warrants could not be borne by the defendant banks, as they acted in accordance with established rules governing transactions and had relied on the validity of the deposits they recei

...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.