G.R. No. 211837. March 16, 2022
THE REAL BANK (A THRIFT BANK), INC., PETITIONER, VS. DALMACIO CRUZ MANINGAS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Dalmacio Cruz Maningas, a Filipino-British national living in London, issued two crossed checks (aggregate P1,152,700.00) from his Metrobank account in favor of his friend Bienvenido Rosaria as payment for land. Maningas inadvertently misspelled the payee’s name as “BIENVINIDO ROSARIA.” At Rosaria’s instruction, Maningas mailed the checks to Rosaria’s sister in Parañaque for deposit. The checks did not arrive. Maningas discovered the amounts were debited from his account. Metrobank informed him the checks were paid when a person named “BIENVINIDO ROSARIA” used them to open an account at petitioner Real Bank’s Bacoor branch, after which the full amount was withdrawn. The impostor presented three valid IDs. Real Bank sent the checks for clearing; Metrobank paid after clearing but later attempted to return them on the ground of “forged endorsement,” which Real Bank refused. Maningas demanded from both banks to no avail. Maningas filed a complaint for sum of money with damages against both banks, contending Metrobank (drawee) had the obligation to pay only upon genuine endorsement and Real Bank (collecting bank) was liable for its warranties guaranteeing all prior endorsements. Real Bank argued Maningas lacked standing, that it followed rules for account opening, that the checks became bearer instruments under the fictitious payee rule, and that Maningas was negligent. Metrobank argued liability lay solely with Real Bank as the collecting bank that guaranteed prior endorsements.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Real Bank is liable to respondent Maningas for the value of the checks bearing a forged endorsement.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court, holding Real Bank solely liable. The checks were order instruments, not bearer instruments, as the intended payee, Bienvenido Rosaria, was a real and existing person; the misspelling of his name did not make him fictitious. The endorsement by the impostor was a forgery. As a general rule, a forged endorsement is wholly inoperative, and the drawee bank (Metrobank) bears the loss if it pays a check bearing a forged endorsement. However, an exception applies when the collecting bank (Real Bank) guarantees prior endorsements. By stamping “all prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsements are guaranteed” on the checks, Real Bank, as the collecting bank and last endorser, warranted the genuineness of all prior endorsements. This guarantee estopped it from denying liability. The drawee bank (Metrobank) was not negligent; it paid in good faith upon clearing, relying on Real Bank’s guarantee. Real Bank was negligent as a collecting bank in failing to exercise the highest degree of diligence in scrutinizing the identity of the impostor who opened the account and presented the checks. The fictitious payee rule was inapplicable. Real Bank was ordered to pay Maningas P1,152,700.00 with legal interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the complaint until finality of judgment, and thereafter at 6% per annum on the total amount until full payment.