BPI V.

CA
216 SCRA 51

FACTS:
A woman who identified herself to be Eligia Fernando, called up BPI, requesting for the
pre-termination of her money market placement with the bank. Eustaquio, the person who
took the call didn't bother to verify with Fernando’s office if whether or not she really intended
to preterminate her money market placement. Instead, he relied on the verification stated by
the caller. He proceeded with the processing of the termination and prepared two checks
both payable to Fernando. Thereafter, the caller gave delivery instructions that instead of
delivering the checks to her office in philamlife, it would be picked up by her niece and it
indeed happen as such. The dispatcher also didn't bother to get the promissory note
evidencing the placement when he gave the checks to the impersonated niece. On the next
day, the same woman who represented herself to be Fernando applied at Chinabank’s for the
opening of a current account. It was indicated in her application form that she was introduced by
the bank’s long standing valued client. The application was approved and the woman deposited
the two checks with chinabank which chinabank sent to clearing and which BPI cleared on the
same day. Two days later, the woman began withdrawing the amount until the balance was
only 571.61. It was found out later on, that the person impersonated Fernando and her
alleged niece in getting the checks.

The day of the maturity of the money market placement happened and the real Fernando
surfaced herself. She denied preterminating the money market placements and though she
was the payee of the checks in issue, she didn't receive any of its proceeds. This
prompted BPI to surrender to Chinabank the checks and asked for reimbursement on
alleged forgery of payee’s indorsements. The Arbitration Committee ruled in favor of BPI and
declared the negligence of Chinabank graver. However, the Philippine Clearing House Corp.
Board of Directors, the lower court and the CA declared that BPI’s negligence was graver.

ISSUE: Who between BPI and Chinabank should bear the loss in the payment of the forged
checks?

RULING: Both BPI and Chinabank are liable.

HELD: Banks handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos. By the very nature of their
work, the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and
officials is far greater than those of ordinary clerks and employees. The banks are expected to
exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.

The acts of the employees of BPI were tainted with negligence. First, the act of disclosing
information about the money market placement over the phone is a violation of the General
Banking Law. Second, there was failure on the bank’s part to even compare the
signatures during the termination of the placement, with the specimen signature in file of
Fernando. And third, there was failure to ask the surrender of the promissory note
evidencing the placement. The Court cannot ignore however, the fact that Chinabank’s
employees closed their eyes to the suspicious circumstances of huge over the counter
withdrawals made immediately after the account was opened. The opening of the account itself
was accompanied by inexplicable acts clearly showing negligence. Both banks were negligent
in the selection and supervision of their employees resulting in the encashment of the forged
checks. Both banks were not able to overcome the presumption of negligence in the selection
and supervision of their employees. It was the gross negligence of the employees of both banks
which resulted in the fraud and the subsequent loss. While it is true that BPI’s negligence may
have been the proximate cause of the loss, Chinabank’s negligence contributed equally to the
success of the impostor in encashing the proceeds of the forged checks. BPI shall be
responsible for 60% while Chinabank shall share 40% of the loss.