Republic v Equitable Bank (Negotiable Instruments Law)

REPUBLIC V. EQUITABLE BANK 10 SCRA 8

FACTS: Corporacion had acquired 24 treasury warrants through Carranza (its former trusted employee) who asked Corporacion to cash the warrants, alleging that it was difficult to do so directly with the Government and that his wife expected a sort of commission for the encashment. Corporacion acceded to Carranza's request, provided that the warrants would first be deposited with BPI, and that actual payment of the value of the warrants would be made only after the same had been duly accepted and cleared by the Treasurer and the proceeds duly credited to the account of the Corporacion in the BPI.

The warrants were deposited by the Corporacion with BPI. When the warrants were deposited with the BPI, each bore the indorsement of the respective payees and that of the Corporation. BPI then presented the warrants for payment to the drawee— the Government — thru the Clearing Office.

After clearance, the BPI credited the proceeds of said warrants to the account of Corporacion. Corporacion  withdrew the proceeds by means of its own checks and eventually paid the corresponding amounts to Carranza. Later, the Treasurer returned the treasury warrants to the Central Bank, and demanded, on the ground that they had been forged, that the value thereof be charged against the accounts of the BPI Bank. 

The Central Bank in turn referred said warrants and letters of demand to the BPI. BPI opposed the return of the warrants or to have the value thereof charged against its account in the Clearing Office and requested the Central Bank to return the warrants to the Treasurer. 

In another case, 4 Treasury Warrants were deposited to Equitable Bank by customers Wong, and Ching. Equitable Bank then presented the warrants to the Central Bank. It was cleared and the bank collected the amounts from theTreasurer. Again, the Treasurer returned the warrants claiming they were forged. The Government filed 2 cases separately against BPI and Equitable Bank seeking to recover:

(1) from the Equitable Banking Corporation the sum of P17,100, representing the value of 4 treasury warrants paid to said bank by the Treasurer of the Philippines; and 

(2) from the Bank of the Philippine the total sum of P342,767.63, representing the value of 24 warrants similarly paid by the Treasurer to the said Bank. 

These claims for refund are based upon a common ground: although said 28 warrants were executed on genuine government forms,   the signature thereon of the drawing office and   that of the representative of the Auditor General in that office are forged.

ISSUES:

WON the Government can recover the amounts paid erroneously in consideration of the 28 treasury warrants,which in fact, were forged. 

HELD: 

NO. 

The Government was found to be negligent, thus they are not entitled to recovery. It was the Treasurer who initially cleared the 28 treasury warrant, being a member of the aforementioned Clearing Office.

The gross nature of the negligence of the Treasury becomes more apparent when we consider that each one of the 24 warrants was for over P5,000, and, hence; beyond the authority of the auditor of the Treasury — whose signature thereon had been forged — to approve. In other words, the irregularity of said warrants was apparent the face thereof, from the viewpoint of the Treasury. Moreover, the same had not advertised the loss of genuine forms of its warrants. Neither had the BPI nor the Equitable Bank been informed of any irregularity in connection with any of the warrants involved in these 2 cases, until after the warrants had been cleared and honored. As a consequence, the loss of the amounts thereof is mainly imputable to acts and omissions of the Treasury, for which the BPI and the Equitable Bank should not and cannot be penalized.

Where a loss, which must be borne by one of two parties alike innocent of forgery, can be traced to the neglect or fault of either, it is reasonable that it would be borne by him, even if innocent of any intentional fraud, through whose means it has succeeded, (Phil. National Bank v. National City Bank of New York, 63 Phil. 711, 723.)