8/10/2019 The Case BPI vs CA 326 SCRA 641

1/2

The case BPI vs CA 326 SCRA 641 is a case filed by the petitioner, Bankof the Philippine Islands (BPI) versus the Court of Appeals (CA), and BenjaminC. Napiza, both of which are respondents. This is a petition for review about thedecision of the CA, which dismissed the complaint of BPI against privaterespondent Napiza for sum of money.

These are the facts presented on the case: Private respondent BenjaminNapiza deposited in his foreign current deposit with BPI dollar check owned byHenry Chan in which he affixed his signature at the dorsal side thereof. For thispurpose, Napiza gave Chan a signed blank withdrawal slip. However, Gayon Jr.got hold of the withdrawal slip and used it to withdraw the proceeds of the dollarcheck, even before the check was cleared and without the presentation of thebank passbook. The issues are (1) Whether or not petitioner can hold privaterespondent liable for the proceeds of the check for having affixed his signature atthe dorsal side as indorser; and (2) Whether or not the bank was negligent as theproximate cause of the loss and should be held liable.

As a general rule, Napiza may be held liable as an indorser of the checkor even as an accommodation party. However, to hold him liable would result inan injustice. So for this reason we must look into the events first that led to theencashment of the check.

Under the rules appearing in the passbook that BPI issued to privaterespondent, to be able to withdraw under the Philippine foreign currency depositsystem, the person withdrawing an amount must present two requisites topetitioner BPI: (1) the duly filled-up withdrawal slip; (2) the depositors passbook.

Since BPI alleged that Napiza must indicate therein the person authorizedto receive the money, then Gayon could not have withdrawn any amount.However, the withdrawal slip itself indicates a special instruction that the amountis payable to Ramon de Guzman and/or Agnes de Guzman.So meaning, BPIpersonnel should have been warned that Gayon was not the proper payee of theproceeds of the check. Likewise, the fact that Napizas passbook was failed to bepresented during the withdrawal, which is evidenced by the entries therein,showing the last transaction he made when he deposited the check. In the end,BPI cannot hold Napiza, liable for the proceeds of the check for having affixed hissignature at the dorsal side as indorser

As far as we are concerned, a bank is under obligation to treat theaccounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind thefiduciary nature of their relationship. BPI failed to exercise the diligence of agood father of a family. In total disregard of its own rules, BPIs personnelnegligently handled Napizas account to BPIs detriment.

The proximate cause of the withdrawal and eventual loss of the amount of$2,500.00 on BPIs part was its personnels negligence in allowing such

8/10/2019 The Case BPI vs CA 326 SCRA 641

2/2

withdrawal in disregard of its own rules and the clearing requirement in thebanking system. In so doing, BPI assumed the risk of incurring a loss on accountof a forged or counterfeit foreign check and hence, it should suffer the resultingdamage. So yes, BPI was negligent as the proximate cause of the loss andshould be held liable.

As finance major, I am well informed of our banking laws since we havealready tackled it on our past major subjects. That is why, I find this case veryinteresting to read although it is very lengthy. This case just prove how thebanking system isnt that stable before. But now, look at how improved thesystem because of the advanced technology we have today that will help thebank to avoid such events to happen again.

In the end, the bank must always tell their personnel, employees, etc. tokeep in mind what the banking laws are, to avoid such events to occur againbecause whatever mistakes the personnel and/or employees do, will be reflected

upon into the bank itself. So they must really be careful in the actions they areexecuting.