G.R. No.

132390 May 21, 2004

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., petitioner,
vs.
FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION, respondent.
Fac!" Respondent First Metro Investment Corporation (FMIC) through its Executive Vice
President Antonio ng, opened a current account and deposited ME!R"A#$ chec% o& P'((
mi))ion *ith "PI Fami)+ "an%
,
("PI F") -an Francisco de) Monte "ranch (.ue/on Cit+) *hich
is o*ned 0+ Petitioner "an% o& Phi)ippine Is)ands Fami)+ -avings "an%, Inc. ng made the
deposit upon re1uest o& his &riend, Ador de Asis, a c)ose ac1uaintance o& 2aime -e0astian, then
"ranch Manager o& "PI F" -an Francisco de) Monte "ranch. -e0astian3s aim *as to increase the
deposit )eve) in his "ranch.
"PI F", through -e0astian, guaranteed the pa+ment o& P'4,556,576.(' representing '68 per
annum interest o& P'(( mi))ion deposited 0+ respondent FMIC. !he )atter, in turn, assured "PI
F" that it *i)) maintain its deposit o& P'(( mi))ion &or a period o& one +ear on condition that the
interest o& '68 per annum is paid in advance. !his agreement 0et*een the parties *as reached
through their communications in *riting. -u0se1uent)+, "PI F" paid FMIC '68 interest or
P'4,556,576.(' upon c)earance o& the )atter3s chec% deposit.
9o*ever, on August :;, ';7;, on the 0asis o& an Authorit+ to <e0it signed 0+ ng and Ma.
!heresa <avid, -enior Manager o& FMIC, "PI F" trans&erred P7( mi))ion &rom FMIC3s current
account to the savings account o& !evesteco Arrastre = -tevedoring, Inc. (!evesteco).
Respondent FMIC denied having authori/ed the trans&er o& its &unds to !evesteco, c)aiming that
the signatures o& ng and <avid *ere &a)si&ied. !hereupon, to recover immediate)+ its deposit,
respondent FMIC issued a "PI F" chec% &or P75,(>6,545.6: pa+a0)e to itse)& and dra*n on its
deposit *ith "PI F" -F<M 0ranch. "ut upon presentation &or pa+ment, "PI F" dishonored the
chec% as it *as ?dra*n against insu&&icient &unds? (<AIF). Conse1uent)+, respondent FMIC &i)ed
a case against "PI F".
@ith respect to the unauthori/ed trans&er o& respondent FMIC3s &unds to !evesteco, in its attempt
to evade an+ )ia0i)it+ there&or, petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc. no* impugns the
va)idit+ o& the su0Aect agreement on the ground that its "ranch Manager, 2aime -e0astian,
overstepped the )imits o& his authorit+ in accepting respondent3s deposit *ith '68 interest per
annum. Petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc. a)so maintains that respondent FMIC shou)d
have &irst in1uired *hether the deposit o& P'(( Mi))ion and the &ixing o& the interest rate *ere
pursuant to its (petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc.3s) interna) procedures.
I!!#$B @hether or not petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc. is )ia0)e &or the acts o& its 0ranch
manager (2aime -e0astian).
%$&'B Ces. !he Court has he)d that i& a corporation %no*ing)+ permits its o&&icer, or an+ other
agent, to per&orm acts *ithin the scope o& an apparent authorit+, ho)ding him out to the pu0)ic as
possessing po*er to do those acts, the corporation *i)), as against an+ person *ho has dea)t in
good &aith *ith the corporation through such agent, 0e estopped &rom den+ing such authorit+. In
addition, a 0an% ho)ding out its o&&icers and agent as *orth+ o& con&idence *i)) not 0e permitted
to pro&it 0+ the &rauds the+ ma+ thus 0e ena0)ed to perpetrate in the apparent scope o& their
emp)o+mentD nor *i)) it 0e permitted to shir% its responsi0i)it+ &or such &rauds, even though no
0ene&it ma+ accrue to the 0an% there&rom. According)+, a 0an%ing corporation is )ia0)e to
innocent third persons *here the representation is made in the course o& its 0usiness 0+ an agent
acting *ithin the genera) scope o& his authorit+ even though the agent is secret)+ a0using his
authorit+ and attempting to perpetrate a &raud upon his principa) or some other person &or his
o*n u)timate 0ene&it. Furthermore, the pu0)ic has the right to re)+ on the trust*orthiness o& 0an%
managers and their acts. 0vious)+, con&idence in the 0an%ing s+stem, *hich necessari)+
inc)udes re)iance on 0an% managers, is vita) in the economic )i&e o& our societ+.