MWSS vs CA Digest

MAGUNDAYAO, KHAY ANN C.

Property - Case Digests 2   Year – Wesleyan Law School  nd 

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 PNB so that that it may may hae hae pers person onal ali! i!ed ed chec checks ks to "e prin printe ted d "y Mesi Mesina na #nterprises. #nterprises. $hese personali!ed personali!ed checks were the ones "eing used "y MWSS in its "usiness transactions. %rom March to May &'', MWSS issued * checks to arious payees in the aggregate amount o+ P*,*.. -uring the same months, another set o+ * checks containing the same check num"ers earlier issued were +orged. $he aggre aggrega gate te amou amount nt o+ the the +org +orged ed check checks s amou amount nted ed to P*, P*,/0 /0,' ,'* *. .. . $his $his amount was distri"uted to the "ank accounts o+ three persons1 Arturo Sison,  Antonio Mendo!a, and 2aul -i!on. MWSS then demand demanded ed PNB to restore restore the amount o+ P*,/0, P*,/0,'* '*. ... PNB re+used. $he trial court ruled in +aor o+ MWSS "ut the 3ourt o+ Appeals reersed the trial court4s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not PNB should restore the said amount. HELD:

No. MWSS is precluded +rom setting up the de+ense o+ +orgery. ANALYSIS:

5t has "een proen that MWSS has "een negligent in superising the printing o+ its personali!ed checks. 5t +ailed to proide security measures and coordinate the same with PNB. %urther, the signatures in the +orged checks appear to "e genuine as reported "y the National Bureau o+ 5nestigation so much so that the MWSS itsel+ cannot tell the di++erence "etween the +orged signature and the genuine one. $he records likewise show that MWSS +ailed to proide appropriate security measures oer its own records there"y laying con+idential records open to unauthori!ed persons. #en i+ the twenty6 three (*) checks in 7uestion 7uestion are considered considered +orgeries, considering considering the MWSS4s MWSS4s gross negligence, it is "arred +rom setting up the de+ense o+ +orgery under Section * o+ the Negotia"le 5nstruments 8aw. CONCLUSION:

$he Supreme 3ourt +urther emphasi!ed that +orgery cannot "e presumed. 5t must "e esta"lished "y clear, positie, and conincing eidence. $his was not done in the present case.