N2 BPI vs CA

G.R. No. 136202 January 25, 2007

facts:

A woman who identified herself as Eligia G. Fernando called up BPI, requesting for the pre-
termination of her money market placement with the bank. 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. Thereafter, the caller gave delivery instructions that
instead of delivering the checks to her office, it would be picked up by her niece and it indeed
happen as such. It was found out later on that the person impersonated Fernando and her
alleged niece in getting the checks and forged Fernandos’ signature. The dispatcher also didn't
bother to get the promissory note evincing the placement when he gave the checks to the
impersonated niece. This was aggravated by the fact that this impersonator opened an account
with the CBC and deposited the subject checks. CBC's guaranty of prior endorsements and/or lack of
endorsement was then stamped on the two checks, which CBC forthwith sent to clearing and which BPI
cleared on the same day.

Issue:

What are the liabilities of the drawee and collecting bank?

Ruling:

Petitioner BPI as drawee bank and respondent CBC as representing or collecting bank were both
negligent resulting in the encashment of the forged checks.

While it is true that petitioner BPI's negligence may have been the proximate cause of the loss,
respondent CBC's negligence contributed equally to the success of the impostor in encashing the
proceeds of the forged checks. While it is true that petitioner BPI's negligence may have been the
proximate cause of the loss, respondent CBC's negligence contributed equally to the success of the
impostor in encashing the proceeds of the forged checks. BPI shall be responsible for sixty percent (60%)
while respondent CBC shall share forty percent (40%) of the loss.