Archive for January, 2018

PNB v CA; G.R. No. 107508; 25 Apr 1996; 256 SCRA 491

FACTS: The Ministry of Education issued a check drawn against petitioner bank. The payee deposited the questioned check in its savings account with Capitol City Development Bank (Capitol) which in turn deposited the same in its account with respondent bank. After petitioner cleared the check, respondent bank credited Capitol for the amount. However, petitioner returned […]

Continue Reading

International Corporate Bank v CA; G.R. No. 129910; 05 Sep 2006; 501 SCRA 20

FACTS: The Ministry of Education and Culture issued fifteen checks drawn against respondent bank which accepted them for deposit. After twenty-four hours from submission of the checks to respondent bank for clearing, petitioner bank paid the value of the checks and allowed the withdrawals of the deposits. However, respondent bank returned all the checks without […]

Continue Reading

Gempesaw v CA; G.R. No. 92244; 09 Feb 1993; 218 SCRA 682

FACTS: To facilitate payment of debts to her suppliers, petitioner draws checks against her checking account with respondent bank as drawee. The checks are prepared and filled up by her trusted bookkeeper of eight years and submitted to petitioner for signature together with corresponding invoice receipts. Petitioner did not make any verification as to the […]

Continue Reading

Manila Lighter Trans., Inc. v CA; G.R. No. 50373; 15 Feb 1990; 182 SCRA 251

FACTS: Some forty-nine checks payable to petitioner were delivered to its collector. The checks bore the forged endorsement of its general manager and were negotiated by its accountant with an electronic store. The checks were deposited with respondent bank: three in the account of the electronic store, one in the account of its manager, and […]

Continue Reading

Republic Bank v CA; G.R. No. 42725; 22 Apr 1991; 196 SCRA 100

FACTS: A check was drawn against an account with respondent bank. After it was delivered to the payee, the amount on its face was fraudulently altered and increased. Respondent bank learned of the material alteration in the amount of the check a month after it was paid, and only informed petitioner bank of it two […]

Continue Reading