This case clarifies that banks bear the responsibility for verifying the authenticity of signatures on checks. When a bank pays out on a forged check, it is generally liable to reimburse the depositor from whose account the funds were improperly withdrawn. This responsibility exists even if the bank exercised due diligence, unless the depositor’s negligence directly contributed to the forgery. The Supreme Court emphasizes that banks must know their depositors’ signatures and protect client accounts meticulously due to the fiduciary nature of their relationship. This decision reinforces the importance of stringent verification procedures and protects depositors from unauthorized transactions.

The Case of the Purloined Payment: Who Pays When a Signature Isn’t Genuine?

Samsung Construction Company Philippines, Inc. maintained an account with Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC). A check for P999,500.00, purportedly signed by Samsung’s authorized signatory, Jong Kyu Lee, was presented and encashed. However, the signature was later found to be a forgery. The central legal question arose: Who should bear the loss resulting from the forged check – Samsung Construction, the depositor, or FEBTC, the bank that paid out on it?

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Samsung Construction, finding that the signature on the check was indeed forged, based primarily on the testimony of an NBI document examiner. This decision mandated FEBTC to credit back the amount to Samsung Construction’s account. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, citing conflicting findings between the NBI and PNP handwriting experts and alleging negligence on the part of Samsung Construction’s accountant. Undeterred, Samsung Construction elevated the case to the Supreme Court, seeking to reinstate the RTC’s original ruling and hold FEBTC liable for the unauthorized disbursement.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, heavily relied on Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, which unequivocally states that a forged signature is “wholly inoperative.” This means no right to enforce payment can be acquired through it unless the party is precluded from setting up the forgery as a defense. This provision underscores the fundamental principle that a bank cannot legally debit a depositor’s account based on a forged instrument. The Court underscored that drawee banks are in a superior position to detect forgery, having the depositor’s signature on file for comparison. This places a high duty of care on banks when verifying signatures before honoring checks.

Addressing the conflicting expert testimonies, the Supreme Court critically examined the appellate court’s reliance on the mere existence of opposing opinions. The Court pointed out that the RTC had already weighed the credibility of the expert witnesses, finding the NBI examiner’s testimony more convincing due to the demonstrable differences between the forged signature and the genuine specimens. The NBI examiner provided a comprehensive analysis, supported by scientific methods and detailed comparisons, leading to a more compelling conclusion of forgery. This illustrates the necessity for trial courts to perform proper evaluation to have just decisions.

Further solidifying its stance, the Supreme Court dispelled the Court of Appeals’ assertion of negligence on Samsung Construction’s part. The Court emphasized that negligence is not presumed and must be proven by the party alleging it. FEBTC failed to provide concrete evidence demonstrating how Samsung Construction’s actions directly contributed to the forgery. Moreover, the Court highlighted that the mere fact that the forgery was committed by an employee of the drawer does not automatically impute negligence to the drawer. Absent clear evidence of negligence on Samsung Construction’s part, the bank remained accountable for honoring the forged check.

Turning to the issue of the bank’s diligence, the Supreme Court acknowledged FEBTC’s internal procedures but noted critical shortcomings in their application. The substantial amount of the check (P999,500.00) and the fact that it was payable to cash should have heightened the bank’s suspicion. These circumstances demanded extraordinary diligence beyond mere compliance with standard procedures. Moreover, the Court found it troubling that FEBTC heavily relied on the vouching of Jose Sempio, the assistant accountant who would turn out to be the perpetrator himself, without adequately verifying the check’s authenticity with Jong Kyu Lee, Samsung’s authorized signatory. The Court underscored that banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in handling client accounts, given the fiduciary nature of their relationship.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court firmly established that FEBTC was liable for the loss. It emphasized that a bank paying on a forged check does so at its own peril and cannot debit the depositor’s account for the unauthorized payment. Because the drawer, Samsung Construction, was not negligent and, therefore, was not precluded from raising the defense of forgery, the Court reiterated that the general rule holds: the bank bears the loss when paying out on a forged signature.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was determining who should bear the financial loss when a bank pays out on a check bearing a forged signature: the bank or the depositor.
What did Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law say?	Section 23 states that a forged signature is wholly inoperative, meaning no right to enforce payment can be acquired through it unless the party is precluded from setting up the forgery.
Who had the burden of proving negligence?	The bank (FEBTC) had the burden of proving that Samsung Construction was negligent and that such negligence contributed to the forgery.
Why did the Supreme Court favor the NBI expert’s testimony?	The Court found the NBI expert’s testimony more credible due to the scientific approach and detailed comparisons revealing clear differences between the forged and genuine signatures.
What level of diligence is expected from banks?	Banks are required to exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in handling client accounts due to the fiduciary nature of their relationship with depositors.
Was Samsung Construction found negligent in this case?	No, the Supreme Court found no concrete evidence that Samsung Construction was negligent in the safekeeping of its checks or that its actions contributed to the forgery.
Can a bank debit a depositor’s account for a forged check?	No, a bank cannot legally debit a depositor’s account based on a forged instrument. The bank bears the loss if it pays out on a forged check.
What should a bank do when presented with a suspicious check?	When presented with a check of a substantial amount or one payable to cash, a bank should exercise extraordinary diligence to verify the check’s authenticity, including directly contacting the drawer.

This landmark decision affirms the vital role banks play in safeguarding depositors’ funds. By holding banks accountable for verifying the authenticity of signatures, the Supreme Court has reinforced the protection afforded to depositors under the Negotiable Instruments Law. The case serves as a stern reminder for banks to maintain stringent verification processes and exercise the highest level of care when handling client accounts, ultimately fostering trust and stability in the financial system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SAMSUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 129015, August 13, 2004