Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

BPI vs.

CASA MONTESSORI

G.R. No. 149454 May 28, 2004

FACTS: CASA Montessori International opened a Current Account with BPI with CASA’s President Ms. Lebron as one of its
authorized signatories. In 1991, CASA discovered that 9 of its checks had been encashed by a certain Sonny D. Santos since 1990
in the total amount of ₱782,000.00. It turned out that ‘Sonny D. Santos’ with account at BPI’s Greenbelt Branch [was] a fictitious
name used by Leonardo T. Yabut who worked as external auditor of CASA. Yabut voluntarily admitted that he forged the signature
of Ms. Lebron and encashed the checks.

A Complaint for Collection with Damages was filed against BPI to reinstate the amount of ₱782,500.00 in the current and savings
accounts of CASA with interest at 6% per annum. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the CASA. Modifying the decision of
the RTC, the CA apportioned the loss between BPI and CASA. The appellate court took into account CASA’s contributory
negligence that resulted in the undetected forgery.

Hence, these Petitions.

ISSUE: Whether or not BPI was negligent and therefore liable

RULING: The Court have repeatedly emphasized that, since the banking business is impressed with public interest, of paramount
importance thereto is the trust and confidence of the public in general. Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected,
and high standards of integrity and performance are even required, of it. By the nature of its functions, a bank is “under obligation
to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.”

BPI’s negligence consisted in the omission of that degree of diligence required of a bank. It cannot now feign ignorance, for very
early on we have already ruled that a bank is “bound to know the signatures of its customers; and if it pays a forged check, it must
be considered as making the payment out of its own funds, and cannot ordinarily charge the amount so paid to the account of the
depositor whose name was forged.”

Loss Borne by Proximate Source of Negligence

For allowing payment on the checks to a wrongful and fictitious payee, BPI — the drawee bank — becomes liable to its depositor-
drawer. It “may not debit the drawer’s account and is not entitled to indemnification from the drawer.” In both law and equity,
when one of two innocent persons “must suffer by the wrongful act of a third person, the loss must be borne by the one whose
negligence was the proximate cause of the loss or who put it into the power of the third person to perpetrate the wrong.”

Pursuant to its prime duty to ascertain well the genuineness of the signatures of its client-depositors on checks being encashed, BPI
is “expected to use reasonable business prudence.” Unfortunately, it failed in that regard.

Potrebbero piacerti anche