Plaintiff,: Regional Trial Court

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Mandaluyong City, Branch No. 23
Brainy Kids Montessori

represented by Min A. Chin, President/ Owner
Plaintiff,
- versus - Civil Case No. 31

For: Collection of Sum
of Money
Security Bank – Kalentong Branch,

Defendant.
x----------------------------x
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
Plaintiff MIN A. CHIN, by counsel, after having been duly sworn

according to law hereby depose and say:
1. That PLAINTIFF Min A. Chin is of legal age, single, Filipino citizen

and a resident of 143 New Era St., Mandaluyong City where she can
be served with summons and other court processes;
2. That DEFENDANT Security Bank – Kalentong Branch is a domestic

corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of
Philippine laws with principal address at 78 Kalentong St.,
Mandaluyong City where it may be served with summons and other
court processes;
3. That Plaintiff is the proprietor of Brainy Kids Montessori (hereafter

referred to as “Montessori”), a sole proprietorship formed under the
laws of the Philippines with DTI Registration No. 00849744, as
evidenced by “ANNEX A”;
4. That the Plaintiff is the holder and authorized signatory of

Montessori’s check(s) under Current Account No. 0291-0081-01 of
Security Bank-Kalentong Branch, as evidenced by “ANNEX B”;
5. That in behalf of Montessori, Plaintiff is filing a formal complaint

for Recovery of Sum of Money against “Security Bank –
Kalentong Branch” [herein “Defendant”], for the encashment of
forged check(s) in violation of Sec. 23 of Negotiable Instruments
Law which provides that:
Page 1 of 4
“When a signature is forged or made without the
authority of the person whose signature it purports to
be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain
the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to
enforce payment thereof against any party thereto, can
be acquired through or under such signature,
unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce
such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or
want of authority.”
6. That sometime during the 2nd quarter of 2018, Mr. Makasair A.

Alvarez of LBCC, Montessori’s external auditor, while conducting
audit, had discovered that nine (9) check(s) issued by Defendant
bank, under Montessori’s Current Account No. 029-0081-01, with
check numbers 839700, 839459, 839609, 839549, 839569,
729149, 729129, 839684 and 729034, all bearing Plaintiff’s
signature, had been encashed by a certain Magna Nacao since 2015
in the total amount of Seven hundred eighty two thousand and six
hundred pesos (Php 782,600.00) (see “ANNEX C”);
7. That the check(s) described in Annex C were actually blank and

unsigned check(s), and were neither delivered nor intended to be
delivered to one Magna Nacao, nor did the plaintiff authorize the
latter to fill up the material particulars of the check(s);
8. That the aforementioned check(s) were unlawfully taken from the

possession of the Plaintiff by one “Magna Nacao”, whose true
identity was later identified as Ms. May B. Calocojan;
9. That Ms. Calocojan a.k.a. “Magna Nacao” was the external auditor of
Montessori inclusive of Fiscal Years 2014 to 2018;
10. That on 14 July, 2018, Plaintiff proceeded in the place of residence

of Ms. Calocojan in 21 Annex St., Mandaluyong City in order to
obtain her explanation regarding the stolen check(s); that then and
there, Ms. Calocojan personally admitted that she stole the
check(s) and voluntary made a statement in writing explaining
the circumstances of how the check(s) came in her possession and
the reasons thereof thru her letter of apology (see “ANNEX D”);
11. That Ms. Calocojan drawn herself as the payee of the said check(s),
filled up the material particulars without authority, forged the
signature of the Plaintiff (as evidenced by the findings of PNP Crime
Lab, “ANNEX E”, in support of Ms. Calocojan’s admission), and
presented the checks for encashment on the dates incorporated in
Annex C, at the Defendant’s bank, to her own benefit and to the
prejudice of the Plaintiff;
Page 2 of 4
12. That Defendant bank accepted and encashed the said forged
check(s) upon the presentment for payment, and debited such
amounts from the account of Montessori;
13. That under “Annex E,” the PNP Crime Lab report, the questioned
signatures of Ms. Min A. Chin appearing in the checks marked “Q-1”
to “Q-9” and the standard signatures submitted for comparison
marked “S-1” to “S2” inclusive, were written by two different
persons;
14. That Defendant bank, who was in a better position to determine the
genuineness of the check presented before it, failed to exert the
required due diligence and care in the prevention of such faulty
discharge, as stated in the case of Samsung Construction
Company Philippines, Inc. v. Far East Bank and Trust
Company, Inc., G.R. No. 129015, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA
402, 421:
“It is well-settled that banks are engaged in a business

impressed with public interest, and it is their duty to
protect in return their many clients and depositors who
transact business with them. They have the obligation
to treat their clients account meticulously and with the
highest degree of care, considering the fiduciary nature
of their relationship. The diligence required of banks,
therefore, is more than that of a good father of a
family.”
In addition, in Republic Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA

100, G.R. No. 42725 April 22, 1991), it was stated that:
“Every bank that issues a check for the use of its

customers should know whether or not the drawers
signature thereon is genuine, whether therein sufficient
funds in the drawers account to cover the checks
issued, and it should be able to detect alterations,
erasures, superimpositions or intercalations thereon,
for these instrument prepared, printed and issued by
itself, it has control of the drawers account, and it is
supposed to be familiar with the drawers signature. It
should possess appropriate detecting devices for
uncovering forgeries and/or alterations on these
instruments.”
15. That on 24 July 2018, upon learning of such external audit report,
the Plaintiff immediately proceeded to the Defendant bank and
made known to the bank’s Branch Manager - Leilane C. Cabras that
she neither prepared the said check(s) nor attached her signature
Page 3 of 4
thereto; that her purported signature therein was forged and that
reimbursement should be made. The bank’s Branch Manager
promised to credit back the amount but only after it had completed
its own investigation;
16. That on 16 November 2018, the Plaintiff, through counsel, made a

formal demand from the Defendant bank the amount of Seven
Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (Php782,600.00)
plus interest thereto, however, such demand was unheeded;
17. That the Plaintiff spent Php100,000.00 for attorney’s fees for the
filing of this complaint-affidavit.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto
this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and
that after judgment:
a. The Defendant be ordered to reimburse Plaintiff the principal amount

of Php782,600.00, plus damages to be computed from date of the
filing of the herein complaint;
b. The Defendant be ordered to pay Php100,000.00 for the Attorney’s

Fees;
c. The Defendant be ordered to pay for the litigation expenses; and
d. The Defendant be ordered to pay for the costs of suit.
Such other reliefs and remedies under the said premises are likewise
prayed for.
City of Mandaluyong, this 26th day of November, 2018
______________________
Atty. Jennifer A. Lopez
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97:
Rm. 4 2/F Rockwell Center
180 Lacson, Mandaluyong City
th
5 MCLE Compliance No.IV-0025415
Page 4 of 4

Plaintiff,: Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff,: Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Brainy Kids Montessori

- versus - Civil Case No. 31

Security Bank – Kalentong Branch,

Plaintiff MIN A. CHIN, by counsel, after having been duly sworn

1. That PLAINTIFF Min A. Chin is of legal age, single, Filipino citizen

2. That DEFENDANT Security Bank – Kalentong Branch is a domestic

3. That Plaintiff is the proprietor of Brainy Kids Montessori (hereafter

4. That the Plaintiff is the holder and authorized signatory of

5. That in behalf of Montessori, Plaintiff is filing a formal complaint

6. That sometime during the 2nd quarter of 2018, Mr. Makasair A.

7. That the check(s) described in Annex C were actually blank and

8. That the aforementioned check(s) were unlawfully taken from the

10. That on 14 July, 2018, Plaintiff proceeded in the place of residence

“It is well-settled that banks are engaged in a business

In addition, in Republic Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA

“Every bank that issues a check for the use of its

16. That on 16 November 2018, the Plaintiff, through counsel, made a

a. The Defendant be ordered to reimburse Plaintiff the principal amount

b. The Defendant be ordered to pay Php100,000.00 for the Attorney’s

c. The Defendant be ordered to pay for the litigation expenses; and

d. The Defendant be ordered to pay for the costs of suit.

City of Mandaluyong, this 26th day of November, 2018

You might also like