8/12/2019 BPI vs CA Case Digest

1/2

G.R. No. 102383 November 26, 1992BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANS v!. THE HON. "O#RT OF APPEALS $SE%ENTH I"IAL', HON.GE REGIONAL TRIAL "O#RT OF (AKATI, BRAN"H )9, "HINA BANKING "ORP., *+ PHILIPPINE"LEARING HO#SE "ORPORATION

A certain Susan Lopez San Juan, with the connivance of some BPI employees, succeeded in impersonating Eligia

! "ernando! #he real "ernando is a #reasurer of Philippine American Life Insurance $ompany %Philamlife

handling Philamlife's corporate money mar(et account and has a money mar(et placement as evidenced )y a

promissory note with a maturity date of *ovem)er ++, +-+ and a maturity value of P.,/0.,./1!+!

#he impostor called up BPI and arranged for the pretermination of the placement! Informed that the placementwould yield less than the maturity value )ecause of its pretermination, the caller insisted on the pretermination 2ustthe same and as(ed that two chec(s )e issued for the proceeds, one for P+,-33,333!33 and the second for the)alance, and that the chec(s )e delivered to her office at Philamlife! But the caller later advised that a certain4osemarie "ernando, her niece would pic( up the chec(s! #he dispatcher failed to get or to re5uire the surrender ofthe promissory note evidencing the placement when the chec(s were claimed! #here is also no showing that Eligia! "ernando's purported signature on the letter re5uesting the pretermination and the latter authorizing 4osemarie"ernando to pic( up the two chec(s, )oth of which letters were presuma)ly handed to the dispatcher )y 4osemarie"ernando, was compared or verified with Eligia ! "ernando's signature in BPI's file! #he niece 64osemarie"ernando7 was also an impostor!

#he impostor applied at $B$'s 8ead 9ffice for the opening of a current account! #he following day, the womanholding herself out as Eligia ! "ernando deposited the two chec(s in controversy with $urrent Account *o!+.01+3:1! 8er endorsement on the two chec(s was found to conform with the depositor's specimen signature$B$'s guaranty of prior endorsements and;or lac( of endorsement was then stamped on the two chec(s, which$B$ forthwith sent to clearing and which BPI cleared on the same day!

#wo days after, withdrawals )egan! 8owever, the )alance shown in the computerized teller terminal when awithdrawal is serviced at the counter does not show the account's opening date, the amounts and dates of depositsand withdrawals! #he last withdrawal on *ovem)er /, +-+ left $urrent Account *o! .01+3:1 with a )alance of onlyPhen the he maturity date of the money mar(et placement with BPI came on *ovem)er ++, +-+, the real Eligia "ernando went to BPI for the roll:over of her placement! She disclaimed having preterminated her placement on9cto)er +., +-+! She e?ecuted an affidavit stating that while she was the payee of the two chec(s in controversyshe never received nor endorsed them and that her purported signature on the )ac( of the chec(s was not hers )uforged! BPI returned the two chec(s in controversy to $B$ for the reason @Payee's endorsement forged@! A ping:pong started when $B$, in turn, returned the chec(s for reason @Beyond $learing #ime@!

#he Ar)itration $ommittee ruled in favor of petitioner BPI, ordering $hina Ban(ing $orporation to pay the formerthe amount of P+,.30,03=!

8/12/2019 BPI vs CA Case Digest

2/2

>ho )etween the parties should )ear the loss in the payment of the forged chec(s

Held: Both )an(s were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees resulting in theencashment of the forged chec(s )y an impostor! It was the gross negligence of the employees of )oth )an(s whichresulted in the fraud and the su)se5uent loss!

Petitioner BPI theorizes that the *egotia)le Instruments Law, specifically Section .1 thereof is not applica)le in thelight of the a)solute lia)ility of the representing or collecting )an( as regards forged endorsements in consonance

with the clearing guarantee re5uirement imposed upon the presenting or collecting )an(s @as it is worded todayF!

But this theory of petitioner BPI is not in order! #he present case involves chec(s as defined )y and under thecoverage of the *egotia)le Instruments Law! T-ere *re /o $2' *r! o Seo+ 23 o -e Ne4o*b5eI+!rme+! L*/7 T-e r! *r !*e! -e 4e+er*5 r5e /-5e -e !eo+ *r !*e! -e eeo+ o -e4e+er*5 r5e. T-e 4e+er*5 r5e ! o -e ee -* * or4e !4+*re ! /-o55: +oer*ve, *+ *:me+m*e -ro4- or +er !- !4+*re ! +ee*5 or oe! +o !-*r4e -e +!rme+. T-e eeo+o -! r5e ! /-e+ -e *r: re5:+4 + -e or4er: ! re5e rom !e+4 -e or4er: or /*+ o*-or:. T-e S" reo4+;e negligence of the party +vo