ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 140980. March 1, 2000]
SPS. FRANCISCO S. ANTONIO, et al. vs. SPS. TEODORICO C. OMNES, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 1 2000.
G.R. No. 140980 (SPS. Francisco S. Antonio and Amor W. Antonio vs. Sps. Teodorico C. Omnes and Alice Omnes and the Standard Chartered Bank.)
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision, dated February 26, 1999, of the Court of Appeals. It appears that in 1988, Rarecrafts Philippines (Rarecrafts), a handicrafts export business owned by petitioners, hired respondent Alice Omnes as its accountant-bookkeeper. Her duties included the preparation of checks for the payment of bills to the suppliers of rarecrafts.
Sometime in July 1991, petitioner Francisco S. Antonio received a telephone call from respondent Standard Chartered Bank seeking confirmation of the issuance of a check for P105,750.00 payable to cash. He then asked Mrs. Omnes about the check in question, after which he went back to his office, while she went to her desk, presumably to verify the issuance of the check from the records. When Mrs. Omnes failed to return after some time, Mr. Antonio decided to follow up the matter with her. As he was going out of his office, Mr. Antonio saw Mrs. Omnes crossing the street and taking a jeepney bound for Pasig. Alarmed, Mr. Antonio looked for the stub to the check, which he found and saw that the amount indicated therein was P335.15.
Later on the same day, respondent bank called Mr. Antonio regarding a check for P97,500.00 payable to cash. Upon verification, Mr. Antonio found that the stub of the check indicated a different amount.
It was found that the two checks were credited to the savings account of Mrs. Omnes at the Far East Bank and Trust Company, Tanay Branch. At the request of Mr. Antonio, respondent bank furnished him with photocopies of the two checks, which he denied having signed.
Subsequently, Mr. Antonio conducted an examination of the records pertaining to the issuance of checks from the time Mrs. Omnes was employed by Rarecrafts. He found that 70 checks, involving a total amount of P4,720,600.00, were issued for amounts different from those indicated in the corresponding stubs. Petitioners (Mr. Antonio and his wife Amor) filed an action against respondents with the trial court, and judgment was rendered in their favor. The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, appreciating the preponderance of evidence sufficient to warrant favorable action on plaintiffs-spouses Francisco and Amor Antonio's stand, defendants Alice Omnes and the Standard Chartered Bank are hereby ordered to pay unto the herein plaintiffs, jointly and severally:
1.�������� The amount of P3,349,550.00 with 12% interest thereon computed from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., July 29, 1991 until the said sum is fully paid;
2.�������� The sum of P200,000.00 as moral damages;
3.�������� The sum of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
4.�������� The sum of P100,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
5.�������� Costs of suit.
On the cross-claim, cross-defendant Spouses Teodoro and Alice Omnes are hereby ordered to pay cross-plaintiff the Standard Chartered Bank the above-enumerated amounts.
The counterclaims at the bar are hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of factual basis.
The writ of attachment is hereby made permanent. The 'Motion and Claim for Damages Against The Bond' filed by defendant Teodoro Omnes through counsel is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision on the following grounds: (a) in concluding that the signatures in the checks and the standard signatures of Mr. Antonio were written by the same person, the handwriting expert presented by respondent bank, Atty. Desiderio Paqui, specified the similarities and the difference between the signatures in the checks and the standard signatures, while the handwriting experts of petitioners confined themselves to general statements regarding their alleged differences; and (b) the negligence of petitioners was the proximate cause of the loss.
Petitioners now raise the following assignment of errors:
a.�������� The Court of Appeals had committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of facts in the instant case.
b.�������� The findings of facts of the Court of Appeals, especially on the question of forgery of the drawer's signature on the questioned checks, are at variance with that [of] the lower court, calling for review of the evidence to arrive at the correct findings based on the record, pursuant to the rule enunciated in the case of Roblesa v. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 354, 362 (1989), as an exception to the rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally not subject to review on certiorari.
c.�������� And on the assumption that there was forgery, the Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion that respondent drawee bank was not liable when it honored the forged checks of petitioner Francisco Antonio as drawer therein under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law and pertinent jurisprudence in relation thereto.
The petition is without merit.
First. The Court of Appeals properly gave credence to Atty. Desiderio Paqui, the handwriting expert of respondent bank, rather than to the handwriting experts of petitioners. In his report, Atty. Paqui indicated in detail the similarities and the difference between the signatures in the checks and the standard signatures of Mr. Antonio. He cited eight important similarities and only one significant difference between the signatures in the checks and the standard signatures of Mr. Antonio. In contrasts, the handwriting experts of petitioners supported their finding that the signatures in the checks and the standard signatures of Mr. Antonio were written by different persons with mere generalizations, such as alleged differences in "manner of execution of strokes," "structural patterns of letters," and "minute identifying details." Thus, petitioners failed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish forgery, the existence of which cannot be presumed. (Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 20 (1986))
Second. The Court of Appeals correctly observed that the failure of Mr. Antonio for over three years to detect the repeated commission of fraud within his business, which he claims eventually involved the total amount of P4,720,600.00, despite the fact that respondent bank sent monthly statements to Rarecrafts, is indicative of his extreme negligence. It appears that Mr. Antonio completely left to Mrs. Omnes the management of such an important aspect of his business. While the general rule is that a drawee bank which clears a forged check for payment should reimburse the drawer, this does not apply when the failure of the latter to exercise ordinary care made the loss possible. Hence, even is the signatures in the checks were forged, petitioners have no right of recourse against respondent bank. (Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 620 (1996))
It is settled that if the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals are borne out by the records, the same are binding on this Court, even when such are contrary to the findings of the trial court. (Uniland Resources v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 200 SCRA 751 (1991)) In the instant case, petitioners failed to show that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in the appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
