Negotiable Instruments Digest: BPI FAMILY BANK v. EDGARDO BUENAVENTURA et al.

BPI FAMILY BANK v. EDGARDO BUENAVENTURA et al.

[G.R. No. 148196, September 30, 2005] (471 SCRA 431)

FACTS:

            A complaint for Reinstatement of Current Account/Release of Money plus Damages was filed by the Buenaventuras against BPI Family Bank (BPI-FB) in the RTC. Buenaventura, et al. opened a Current account with the BPI-FB Branch in Caloocan City. They deposited a check from Amado Franco which was purportedly issued by Eladio Teves and Joseph Teves. The check was subsequently cleared and the amount of P500, 000.00 was credited to their Current Account.

            Petitioners then drew a check amounting to P91, 270.00 which was dishonored upon presentment for payment for the reason that the account was already closed in spite of the balance in their current account. They subsequently learned that the Bank of the Philippine Islands unilaterally freeze their Current account on the ground that the source of fund was illegal or unauthorized.

            BPI-FB refused to reinstate the account even after demand from the petitioners. It asserted  that the freezing of the account was triggered by the forgery claim of FMIC and the unauthorized fund transfer to Tevesteco. The check received by Buenaventura, et al. from Amado Franco was drawn by Eladio Teves  and Joseph Teves against the Current Account of the Tevesteco Arrastre Stevedoring Co., Inc. (Tevesteco) by means of forgery.

ISSUE:

            WON BPI-FB is liable for the loss due to its negligence to detect forgery prior to clearing the check?

 HELD:

            YES. Every bank that issues checks for the use of its customers should know whether or not the drawer's signature thereon is genuine, whether there are sufficient funds in the drawers account to cover checks issued, and it should be able to detect alterations, erasures, superimpositions or intercalations thereon, for these instruments are prepared, printed and issued by itself, it has control of the drawer's account, and it is supposed to be familiar with the drawer's signature. It should possess appropriate detecting devices for uncovering forgeries and/or alterations on these instruments. Unless a forgery or alteration is attributable to the fault or negligence of the drawer himself, the remedy of the drawee bank that negligently clears a forged and/or altered check for payment is against the party responsible for the forgery or alteration, otherwise, it bears the loss.

            Having been negligent in detecting the forgery prior to clearing the check, BPI-FB should bear the loss and can’t shift the blame to Buenaventura, et al. having failed to show any participation on their part in the forgery. BPI-FB fails to point any circumstance which should have put Buenaventura, et al. on inquiry as to the why and wherefore of the possession of the check by Amado Franco. Buenaventura, et al. were not privies to any transaction involving FMIC, Tevesteco or Franco. They thus had no obligation to ascertain from Franco what the nature of the latter’s title to the checks was, if any, or the nature of his possession. They cannot be guilty of gross neglect amounting to legal absence of good faith, absent any showing that there was something amiss about Franco’s acquisition or possession of the check, which was payable to bearer.

          Thus, BPI-FB has no unilateral right to freeze the current account of Buenaventura, et al. based on the suspicion that the funds in the latter’s account are illegal or unauthorized having been sourced from the unlawful transfer of funds from the account of FMIC to Tevesteco and disallow any withdrawal therefrom to allegedly protect its interest.

            Needless to stress, the contract between a bank and its depositor is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan. Thus, there is a debtor-creditor relationship between a bank and its depositor. The bank is the debtor and the depositor is the creditor. The depositor lends the bank money and the bank agrees to pay the depositor on demand. The savings or current deposit agreement between the bank and the depositor is the contract that determines the rights and obligations of the parties.

       Thus, the fact that the funds in deposit with BPI-FB under the name of Buenaventura, et al. were allegedly derived exclusively from the alleged P80,000,000.00 unlawfully transferred from the funds of FMIC or that the deposit under the name of Tevesteco consisted allegedly exclusively of the said P80,000,000.00 debited from FMIC’s account is immaterial. These circumstances cannot be used against a party not privy to the forgery. xxx