Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 199 views

    N-23-16 Manila Lighter Trans v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
    The Court of Appeals and the trial court found that Manila Lighter Transportation was negligent for allowing its employee, Augusto Perez, to collect checks and falsify the signature of its general manager on the checks' endorsements. While the banks deposited the checks into the accounts of third parties based on the falsified endorsements, the banks were not liable as they followed standard banking practice by clearing the checks before releasing the funds. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, finding that Manila Lighter Transportation's own negligence caused its loss, and that the banks were not negligent in their handling of the checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    N-23-16 Manila Lighter Trans v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
    199 views1 page
    The Court of Appeals and the trial court found that Manila Lighter Transportation was negligent for allowing its employee, Augusto Perez, to collect checks and falsify the signature of its general manager on the checks' endorsements. While the banks deposited the checks into the accounts of third parties based on the falsified endorsements, the banks were not liable as they followed standard banking practice by clearing the checks before releasing the funds. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, finding that Manila Lighter Transportation's own negligence caused its loss, and that the banks were not negligent in their handling of the checks.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals and the trial court found that Manila Lighter Transportation was negligent for allowing its employee, Augusto Perez, to collect checks and falsify the signature of its general manager on the checks' endorsements. While the banks deposited the checks into the accounts of third parties based on the falsified endorsements, the banks were not liable as they followed standard banking practice by clearing the checks before releasing the funds. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, finding that Manila Lighter Transportation's own negligence caused its loss, and that the banks were not negligent in their handling of the checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    199 views1 page

    N-23-16 Manila Lighter Trans v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
    The Court of Appeals and the trial court found that Manila Lighter Transportation was negligent for allowing its employee, Augusto Perez, to collect checks and falsify the signature of its general manager on the checks' endorsements. While the banks deposited the checks into the accounts of third parties based on the falsified endorsements, the banks were not liable as they followed standard banking practice by clearing the checks before releasing the funds. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, finding that Manila Lighter Transportation's own negligence caused its loss, and that the banks were not negligent in their handling of the checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    and the defendant, for not detecting the falsification made by the plaintiff’s

    Manila Lighter Trans. v. CA employees when the checks were presented to it.
    G.R. No. L-50373 | 182 SCRA 251 | February 15, 1990 | Grino-Aquino, J. 5. Petitioner and private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals,
    Petitioner: Manila Lighter Transportation, Inc. contending that the other should be entirely liable. Ko Lit and Cao Pek also
    Respondents: Court of Appeals and China Banking Corp. appealed but their appeal was dismissed.
    NIL, Section 23: Forged Indorsement 6. Respondent Bank denied liability for the petitioner's loss which was due to
    its own negligence. It alleged that petitioner is estopped from denying its
    DOCTRINE collector's authority to receive the checks from the drawers/customers;
     A bank is not liable for negligence if it caused checks to pass through the that petitioner failed to give defendant Bank and the drawee Banks notice
    clearing house before it allowed proceeds to be withdrawn by the of the alleged forged or unauthorized indorsements within a reasonable
    depositors in accordance with banking practice. time; and that its loss was occasioned by its own failure to observe the
    proper degree of diligence in the supervision of its employees, particularly
    Relevant Provision its collector, Augusta Perez.
    7. On January 18, 1979, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of
    Sec. 23. Forged signature; effect of. - When a signature is forged or made
    private respondent, China Bank, extinguishing their liability against
    without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is
    petitioner.
    wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a
    8. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but it was
    discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto,
    denied.
    can be acquired through or under such signature, unless the party against
    whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the
    forgery or want of authority. ISSUES
    1. W/N the petitioner is negligent – YES.
    FACTS 2. W/N private respondent should be liable for petitioner’s negligence – NO.
    1. From January 29, 1960 to June 22, 1961, Augusto Perez collected from
    different clients of plaintiff company some 49 checks with a total value of RULING & RATIO
    P91,153.11. The endorsement of the payee, plaintiff Manila Lighter 1. The main issue of petitioner's negligence had already been determined by
    Transportation, Inc., by its general manager, Luis Gaskell appear on the the trial court against petitioner and affirmed by the Court of Appeals after
    checks. The latter disclaimed such signatures and presented a examining the evidence in the records. (Factual issue, therefore the courts
    handwriting expert who gave the opinion that the signatures "L. Gaskell" did not look into it.)
    on the indorsement were indeed forgeries. The checks as thus endorsed 2. Since the petitioner was not a client of respondent Bank, i.e., did not
    were negotiated by Wilfredo Lagamon, accountant of the plaintiff company maintain an account in said Bank, the latter had no way of ascertaining the
    and relative of Luis Gaskell with Cao Pek and Co., an electronic store, authenticity of its indorsements on the checks which were deposited in the
    whose treasurer is Ko Lit. Most of the checks, with a total amount of accounts of the third-party defendants in said Bank. Respondent Bank was
    P90,500.24, were deposited by Ko Lit in his account with defendant bank. not negligent because, in accordance with banking practice, it caused the
    Three checks with a total amount of P1,115.05 were deposited in the checks to pass through the clearing house before it allowed their proceeds
    account of Cao Pek & Co. while one check for P2,735.19 was deposited to be withdrawn by the depositors (third-party defendants in the lower
    in the accounts of Lu Siu Po, manager of Cao Pek & Co. These accounts court).
    have no more balances at present.
    2. On September 9, 1961, plaintiff demanded refund against defendant bank DISPOSITION
    for the amount of the checks. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied for lack of merit. Costs
    3. On May 30, 1962, the defendant Bank filed a third-party complaint against against the petitioner.
    Cao Pek and Co. and Ko Lit. Cao Pek and Co., in turn, filed a cross-claim
    against Ko Lit.
    4. The lower court found both parties equally negligent, the plaintiff, for
    allowing a state of affairs in which its employees could appropriate the
    checks and falsify the indorsement thereon of its manager with impunity,
    Kool Kids 2016 | ALS 2D N-23-16 Manila Lighter Trans v. CA.pdf
    AURELIO | BALLESTEROS | BATUNGBACAL | BILIRAN | CADIENTE | DONES | GALLARDO | GESTA | GUBATAN | PINTOR | SY | TOLEDO Page 1 of 1

    You might also like