BPI vs. Casa Montessori Internationale, G. R. No.

149454
& 149507, May 28, 2004
Post under case digests, Civil Law at Tuesday, January 31, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: CASA Montessori International opened an

account with BPI, with CASAs President as one of its
authorized signatories. It discovered that 9 of its checks
had been encashed by a certain Sonny D. Santos
whose name turned out to be fictitious, and was used by
a certain Yabut, CASAs external auditor. He voluntarily
admitted that he forged the signature and encashed the
checks.
RTC granted the Complaint for Collection with Damages
against BPI ordering to reinstate the amount in the
account, with interest. CA took account of CASAs
contributory negligence and apportioned the loss
between CASA and BPI, and ordred Yabut to reimburse
both.
BPI contends that the monthly statements it issues to its
clients contain a notice worded as follows: If no error is
reported in 10 days, account will be correct and as
such,
it
should
be
considered
a
waiver.
Issue:Whether or not waiver or estoppel results from
failure to report the error in the bank statement
Held: Such notice cannot be considered a waiver, even
if CASA failed to report the error. Neither is it estopped
from questioning the mistake after the lapse of the tenday
period.
This notice is a simple confirmation or "circularization" -in accounting parlance -- that requests client-depositors

to affirm the accuracy of items recorded by the banks.

Its purpose is to obtain from the depositors a direct
corroboration of the correctness of their account
balances
with
their
respective
banks.
Every right has subjects -- active and passive. While the
active subject is entitled to demand its enforcement, the
passive one is duty-bound to suffer such enforcement.
On the one hand, BPI could not have been an active
subject, because it could not have demanded from
CASA a response to its notice. CASA, on the other
hand, could not have been a passive subject, either,
because it had no obligation to respond. It could -- as it
did
-choose
not
to
respond.
Estoppel precludes individuals from denying or
asserting, by their own deed or representation, anything
contrary to that established as the truth, in legal
contemplation. Our rules on evidence even make a juris
et de jure presumption that whenever one has, by ones
own act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
another to believe a particular thing to be true and to act
upon that belief, one cannot -- in any litigation arising
from such act or omission -- be permitted to falsify that
supposed
truth.
In the instant case, CASA never made any deed or
representation that misled BPI. The formers omission, if
any, may only be deemed an innocent mistake oblivious
to the procedures and consequences of periodic audits.
Since its conduct was due to such ignorance founded
upon an innocent mistake, estoppel will not arise. A
person who has no knowledge of or consent to a

transaction may not be estopped by it. "Estoppel cannot

be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference x x
x." CASA is not barred from questioning BPIs error even
after the lapse of the period given in the notice.

BPI V. CASA MONTESORRI

INTERNATIONALE
430 SCRA 261
FACTS:
CASA has a current account with BPI. It was discovered that for a material period of time,
several checks were encashed by a certain Sonny Santos, who eventually was known to be
a fictitious name used by the external auditor of CASA. The external auditor admitted
forging the signature of CASAs president to be able to encash the checks. The trial court held
the bank liable but this was modified. The modified decision apportioned the loss between BPI
and CASA.

HELD:
A forged signature is a real and absolute defense, and a person whose signature appears
on a negotiable instrument is forged is deemed to never have become a party thereto and to
have never consented to the contract that allegedly gave rise to it.
The counterfeiting of any writing, consisting in the signing of anothers name with intent to
defraud, is forgery.
First, there was really a finding of forgery. The forger admitted even in his affidavit of his forgery.
Second, there was a finding by the police laboratory that indeed the signatures were
forged.

Furthermore, the negligence is attributable to BPI alone. Its negligence consisted in the
omission of the degree of diligence required of a bank.
*Loss borne by proximate cause of negligence