Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAN CARLOS MILLING CO. v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR NO. 146918 2006-05-02	CITIBANK v. SPS. LUIS AND CARMELITA CABAMONGAN AND THEIR SONS LUIS CABAMONGAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In this case, it has been sufficiently shown that the signatures of Carmelita in the forms for pretermination of deposits are forgeries. Citibank, with its signature verification procedure, failed to detect the forgery. Its negligence consisted in the omission of that degree of diligence required of banks. The Court has held that a bank is "bound to know the signatures of its customers; and if it pays a forged check, it must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds, and cannot ordinarily charge the amount so paid to the account of the depositor whose name was forged."[45] Such principle equally applies here.
	GR No. 149454 and GR No. 149507 2004-05-28	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CASA MONTESSORI INTERNATIONALE PANGANIBAN, J.
BPI contends that it has a signature verification procedure, in which checks are honored only when the signatures therein are verified to be the same with or similar to the specimen signatures on the signature cards. Nonetheless, it still failed to detect the eight instances of forgery. Its negligence consisted in the omission of that degree of diligence required[78] of a bank. It cannot now feign ignorance, for very early on we have already ruled that a bank is "bound to know the signatures of its customers; and if it pays a forged check, it must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds, and cannot ordinarily charge the amount so paid to the account of the depositor whose name was forged."[79] In fact, BPI was the same bank involved when we issued this ruling seventy years ago.