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.