RAMON K. ILUSORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS. G.R. No. 139130. November 27, 2002.

FACTS:

Ramon Ilusorio entrusted his credit cards and checkbooks and blank checks to his secretary. Apparently,
his secretary was able to encash and deposit to her personal account 17 checks drawn against his
account.

Ilusorio requested to restore to his account the value of the checks that were wrongfully encashed but
the bank refused, hence the case.

In court, the bank testified that they make sure that the sign on the check is verified. When asked by the
NBI to submit standard signs to compare, Ilusorio failed to comply. The lower held held in favor of
defendant.

ISSUE: Whether the bank was negligent in receiving the checks.

RULING:

The SC affirmed the lower court's decision. Ilusorio failed to prove that the bank was negligent on their
part as he has the burden of proof. The bank's employees did not know the secretary's modus operandi
as she was always transacting in behalf of Ilusorio.

The SC even held that it was Ilusorio who was negligent as he trusted his secretary of unusual degree.

Ilusorio also cites Sec. 23 of the NIL that a forged check is inoperative and that he bank has no authority
to pay. While true, the case at bar falls under the exception stated in the section. The SC held that
Ilusorio is precluded from setting up the forgery, assuming there is forgery, due to his own negligence in
entrusting his secretary.
Samsung Const. Co. Phil. v Far East Bank; G.R. No. 129015; 13 Aug 2004; 436 SCRA 402

Published on 26 January 2018 in Legal Chyme by Claudine

FACTS:

A check drawn against petitioner was presented for payment to respondent Bank. Satisfied with the
authenticity of the signature appearing thereon, the check was encashed. The following day, petitioner’s
accountant who had custody of the company checks discovered that a check was missing and reported
the petitioner’s project manager who is also the sole signatory to its checking account. Petitioner
demanded that it be reimbursed for the proceeds of the check.

ISSUE(S):

Whether or not respondent bank is liable to reimburse for the payment of the forged check.

RULING:

YES. Banks are engaged in a business impressed with public interest, and it is their duty to protect in
return their many clients and depositors who transact business with them. They have the obligation to
treat their client’s account meticulously and with the highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary
nature of their relationship. The diligence required of banks, therefore, is more than that of a good
father of a family. Given the circumstances, extraordinary diligence dictates that FEBTC should have
ascertained from Jong personally that the signature in the questionable check was his. Since the drawer,
Samsung Construction, is not precluded by negligence from setting up the forgery, the general rule
should apply. Consequently, if a bank pays a forged check, it must be considered as paying out of its
funds and cannot charge the amount so paid to the account of the depositor. A bank is liable,
irrespective of its good faith, in paying a forged check.