Você está na página 1de 1

MAGUNDAYAO, KHAY ANN C.

Property - Case Digests


2nd Year Wesleyan Law School
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM VS. COURT OF
APPEALS
143 SCRA 623
FACTS:
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) had an account with
PNB. When it was still called NAWASA, MWSS made a special arrangement with
PNB so that it may have personalized checks to be printed by Mesina
Enterprises. These personalized checks were the ones being used by MWSS in
its business transactions.

From March to May 1969, MWSS issued 23 checks to various payees in the
aggregate amount of P320,636.26. During the same months, another set of 23
checks containing the same check numbers earlier issued were forged. The
aggregate amount of the forged checks amounted to P3,457,903.00. This
amount was distributed to the bank accounts of three persons: Arturo Sison,
Antonio Mendoza, and Raul Dizon.

MWSS then demanded PNB to restore the amount of P3,457,903.00. PNB


refused. The trial court ruled in favor of MWSS but the Court of Appeals reversed
the trial courts decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not PNB should restore the said amount.
HELD:
No. MWSS is precluded from setting up the defense of forgery.
ANALYSIS:
It has been proven that MWSS has been negligent in supervising the printing of its
personalized checks. It failed to provide security measures and coordinate the same
with PNB. Further, the signatures in the forged checks appear to be genuine as reported
by the National Bureau of Investigation so much so that the MWSS itself cannot tell the
difference between the forged signature and the genuine one. The records likewise
show that MWSS failed to provide appropriate security measures over its own records
thereby laying confidential records open to unauthorized persons. Even if the twentythree (23) checks in question are considered forgeries, considering the MWSSs gross
negligence, it is barred from setting up the defense of forgery under Section 23 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court further emphasized that forgery cannot be presumed. It must be
established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. This was not done in the
present case.