3) Gempesaw v. CA G.R. No.

92244
Facts:
Petitioner owns and operates four grocery stores. To facilitate payment of debts to her suppliers, petitioner draws
checks against her checking account with the respondent bank (PBC) as drawee.The checks were prepared and filled
up as to all material particulars by her trusted bookkeeper, Alicia Galang. Petitioner signed each and every check
without bothering to verify the accuracy of the checks against the corresponding invoices nor make any verification
as to whether or not the checks were delivered to their respective payees. Although the respondent drawee bank
notified her of all checks presented to and paid by the bank, petitioner did not verify the correctness of the returned
checks, much less if the payees actually received the checks in payment for the supplies she received. Petitioner
issued a total of 82 checks in favor of several suppliers for a period of 2 years. Most of the aforementioned checks
were for amounts in excess of her actual obligations to the various payees as shown in their corresponding invoices.
All the checks issued and honored by the drawee bank were crossed checks. It was only after the lapse of more 2
years that petitioner found out about the fraudulent manipulations of her bookkeeper. This prompted Petitioner to
demand the bank to credit her account for the amount of the forged checks. The bank refused to do so.
Issue: Whether the petitioner can recover from the drawee bank the money value of the 82 checks by reason of the
forged indorsement
Held: No. Gempesaw cannot set up the defense of forgery by reason of her negligence. Petitioners negligence was
the proximate cause of her loss. Under sec.23 of the NIL, she is now precluded from using the forgery by reason of
her gross negligence to prevent the banks debiting of her account.
As a rule, a drawee bank who has paid a check on which an indorsement has been forged cannot charge the drawers
account for the amount of said check. An exception to this rule is where the drawer is guilty of such negligence
which causes the bank to honor such a check or checks. Petitioner in this case has relied solely on the honesty and
loyalty of her bookkeeper and never bothered to verify the accuracy of the amounts of the checks she signed the
invoices attached thereto. And though she received her bank statements, she didn't carefully examine the same to
double-check her payments. Petitioner didn't exercise reasonable diligence which eventually led to the fruition of her
bookkeepers fraudulent schemes.
4) Mesina vs IAC 145 SCRA 497, G.R. No. 70145 November 13, 1986
FACTS: