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
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento