Security Bank VS Triumph Lumber and Construction

G.R. No. 126696 January 21, 1999

Facts:

Respondent is a depositor of the petitioner bank, having several accounts

from the latter.
Three checks all payable to cash were withdrawn from the respondents
accounts after encashment.
The said checks were said to be not authorized by the defendant and the
signature from which were forged.
Respondent claims that due to the gross and inexcusable negligence in
exercising ordinary diligence in verifying from the petitioner, the encashment
of the respondents checks, the said checks were en-cashed by unauthorized
person to the damage and prejudice of the respondent.
Respondent requested the petitioner to credit back and restore to its account
the value of the checks which were wrongfully en-cashed.
Despite due demand the petitioner failed to make the payment.
RTC decided in favor of the Petitioner
CA reversed the decision of the RTC

Issue: W/N forgery was proven by the respondent in relation to the unauthorized en-
cashed checks?

Ruling: No

First under the best evidence rule, the originals of the alleged forged checks
were not presented as evidence, but rather photocopies were provided for
The proper procedure in the investigation of the disputed handwriting was not
observed.
Only photocopies not the originals of the long bond papers containing the
alleged specimen signature were presented, nobody was presented to prove
that the specimen signature were in fact the signatures affixed by the
authorized signatories of the respondent (Yu Chun Kit and Co Yok Teng).
Even though one of the signatories took the witness stand, he was never
called to identify or authenticate his signature on the said photocopy.
The specimen signature was not even turned over to the expert witness
(Tabo) by the persons who purportedly wrote them.
The expert witness never saw the parties write the specimen signatures, she
just presumed the signature specimen to be genuine signatures of the parties
concerned.

Appeal Granted