BPI vs.

Court of Appeals and Napiza

G.R. No. 112392. February 29, 2000
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

FACTS:
A certain Henry Chan owned a Continental Bank Manager’s Check
payable to "cash" in the amount of $2,500.00.  Chan went to the office of
Napiza and requested him to deposit the check in his dollar account by way
of accommodation and for the purpose of clearing the same. Napiza agreed
to deliver to Chan a signed blank withdrawal slip, with the understanding
that as soon as the check is cleared, they would go to the bank to withdraw
the amount of the check.  Napiza endorsed the check and deposited it in a
Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) Savings Account he maintained with
BPI.  Using the blank withdrawal slip given by private respondent to Chan,
one Ruben Gayon, Jr. was able to withdraw the amount of $2,541.67 from
Napiza's FCDU account.  It turned out that said check deposited by private
respondent was a counterfeit check. 

When BPI demanded the return of $2,500.00, private respondent

claimed that he deposited the check only to accommodate Chan but BPI
claims that Napiza, having affixed his signature at the dorsal side of the
check, should be liable for the amount stated therein in accordance with the
provision of the Negotiable Instruments Law on the liability of a general
indorser (Sec. 66).

ISSUE: Is private respondent obliged to return the money paid out by BPI on
a counterfeit check even if he deposited the check "for clearing purposes"
only to accommodate Chan?
 
RULING:
Ordinarily private respondent may be held liable as an indorser of the
check or even as an accommodation party.  However, petitioner BPI, in
allowing the withdrawal of private respondent’s deposit, failed to exercise
the diligence of a good father of a family.  BPI violated its own rules by
allowing the withdrawal of an amount that is over and above the aggregate
amount of private respondent’s dollar deposits that had yet to be
cleared.  The proximate cause of the eventual loss of the amount of
$2,500.00 on BPI's part was its personnel’s negligence in allowing such
withdrawal in disregard of its own rules and the clearing requirement in the
banking system. In so doing, BPI assumed the risk of incurring a loss on
account of a forged or counterfeit foreign check and hence, it should suffer
the resulting damage.