Francisco v CA; G.R. No. 116320; 29 Nov 1999; 319 SCRA 354

FACTS:
Petitioner and private respondent Ong, as presidents of their respective corporations, entered into a contract where the latter shall render construction and land development services and shall be paid on the basis of the completed houses and developed lands delivered to and accepted by the former and the project financer. Years later, Ong learned that seven checks drawn had been executed and signed payable to respondent corporation for completed and deliver work under the contract. These checks were supposed to be delivered to him by petitioner but, instead, the latter forged his signature at the back of the checks and deposited the same to her savings account.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not petitioner was an agent of respondent Ong.

RULING:
NO. The Negotiable Instruments Law provides that where any person is under obligation to indorse in a representative capacity, he may indorse in such terms as to negative personal liability. An agent, when so signing, should indicate that he is merely signing in behalf of the principal and must disclose the name of his principal; otherwise he shall be held personally liable. Even assuming that Francisco was authorized by HCCC to sign Ong’s name, still, Francisco did not indorse the instrument in accordance with law. Instead of signing Ong’s name, Francisco should have signed her own name and expressly indicated that she was signing as an agent of HCCC. Thus, the Certification cannot be used by Francisco to validate her act of forgery.

Tags: , , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *