1

BPI VS CA 326 SCRA 641 On September 3, 1987, private respondent deposited in Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) Savings Account No. 028-1873 which he maintained in petitioner bank's Buendia Avenue Extension Branch, Continental Bank Manager's Check No. 000147574 dated August 17, 1984, payable to "cash" in the amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) and duly endorsed by private respondent on its dorsal side.5 It appears that the check belonged to a certain Henry who went to the office of private respondent and requested him to deposit the check in his dollar account by way of accommodation and for the purpose of clearing the same. Private respondent acceded, and agreed to deliver to Chan a signed blank withdrawal slip, with the understanding that as soon as the check is cleared, both of them would go to the bank to withdraw the amount of the check upon private respondent's presentation to the bank of his passbook. Using the blank withdrawal slip given by private respondent to Chan, on October 23, 1984, one Ruben Gayon, Jr. was able to withdraw the amount of $2,541.67 from FCDU Savings Account No. 028-187. Notably, the withdrawal slip shows that the amount was payable to Ramon A. de GuzmanA and Agnes C. de Guzman and was duly initialed by the branch assistant manager, Teresita Lindo.6 In reply, private respondent wrote petitioner's counsel on April 20, 198513 stating that he deposited the check "for clearing purposes" only to accommodate Chan. He added: Further, please take notice that said check was deposited on September 3, 1984 and withdrawn on October 23, 1984, or a total period of fifty (50) days had elapsed at the time of withdrawal. Also, it may not be amiss to mention here that I merely signed an authority to withdraw said deposit subject to its clearing, the reason why the transaction is not reflected in the passbook of the account. Besides, I did not receive its proceeds as may be gleaned from the withdrawal slip under the captioned signature of recipient.1wphi1.nt Private respondent filed his answer, admitting that he indeed signed a "blank" withdrawal slip with the understanding that the amount deposited would be withdrawn only after the check in question has been cleared. He likewise alleged that he instructed the party to whom he issued the signed blank withdrawal slip to return it to him after the bank draft's clearance so that he could lend that party his passbook for the purpose of withdrawing the amount of $2,500.00. However, without his knowledge, said party was able to withdraw the amount of $2,541.67 from his dollar savings account through collusion with one of petitioner's employees. P We hold, however, that the propriety of the withdrawal should be gauged by compliance with the rules thereon that both petitioner bank and its depositors are duty-bound to observe. 4. Withdrawals must be made by the depositor personally but in some exceptional circumstances, the Bank may allow withdrawal by another upon the depositor's written authority duly authenticated; and neither a deposit nor a withdrawal will be permitted except upon the presentation of the depositor's savings passbook, in which the amount deposited withdrawn shall be entered only by the Bank. Under these rules, to be able to withdraw from the savings account deposit under the Philippine foreign currency deposit system, two requisites must be presented to petitioner bank by the person withdrawing an amount: (a) a duly filled-up withdrawal slip, and (b) the depositor's passbook Said ruling brings to light the fact that the banking business is affected with public interest. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors "with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship."27 As such, in dealing with its depositors, a bank should exercise its functions not only with the diligence of a good father of a family but it should do so with the highest degree of care.28 While it is true that private respondent's having signed a blank withdrawal slip set in motion the events that resulted in the withdrawal and encashment of the counterfeit check, the negligence of petitioner's personnel was the proximate cause of the loss that petitioner sustained. Proximate cause, which is determined by a mixed consideration of logic, common sense, policy and precedent, is "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred."37 The proximate cause of the withdrawal and eventual loss of the amount of $2,500.00 on petitioner'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, petitioner assumed the risk of incurring a loss on account of a forged or counterfeit foreign check and hence, it should suffer the resulting damage.1wphi1.nt

CITYTRUST This case emanated from a complaint filed by private respondent Emme Herrero for damages against petitioner Citytrust Banking Corporation. In her complaint, private respondent averred that she, a businesswoman, made regular deposits, starting September of 1979, with petitioner Citytrust Banking Corporation at its Burgos branch in Calamba, Laguna. On 15 May 1980, she deposited with petitioner the amount of Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P31,500.00), in cash, in order to amply cover six (6) postdated checks she issued, viz: When presented for encashment upon maturity, all the checks were dishonored due to "insufficient funds." The last check No. 007400, however, was personally redeemed by private respondent in cash before it could be redeposited. Petitioner, in its answer, asserted that it was due to private respondent's fault that her checks were dishonored. It averred that instead of stating her correct account number, i.e., 29000823, in her deposit slip, she inaccurately wrote 2900823. In making a deposit . . . kindly insure accuracy in filing said deposit slip forms as we hold ourselves free of any liability for loss due to an incorrect account number indicated in the deposit slip although the name of the depositor is correctly written. the teller should not have accepted plaintiff's deposit without correcting the account number on the deposit slip which, obviously, was erroneous because, as pointed out by defendant, it contained only seven (7) digits instead of eight (8). Second, the complete name of plaintiff depositor appears in bold letters on the deposit slip (Exh. "B"). There could be no mistaking in her name, and that the deposit was made in her name, "Emma E. Herrero." In fact, defendant's teller should not have fed her deposit slip to the computer knowing that her account number written thereon was wrong as it contained only seven (7) digits. On the other hand, the depositors are not concerned with banking procedure. That is the responsibility of the bank and its employees. Depositors are only concerned with the facility of depositing their money, earning interest thereon, if any, and withdrawing therefrom, particularly businessmen, like plaintiff, who are supposed to be always "on-the-go". Plaintiff's account is a "current account" which should immediately be posted. After all, it does not earn interest. At least, the forbearance should be commensurated with prompt, efficient and satisfactory service. In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the dishonor of a check without good reason, can cause the depositor not a little embarrassment if not also financial loss and perhaps even civil and criminal litigation. PHILBANK now absorbed by the Philippine Commercial International Bank, the sum of P304,979.74 representing various deposits it had made in its current account with said bank but which were not credited to its account, and were instead deposited to the account of one Bienvenido Cotas, allegedly due to the gross and inexcusable negligence of the petitioner bank. In the ordinary and usual course of banking operations, current account deposits are accepted by the bank on the basis of deposit slips prepared and signed by the depositor, or the latter's agent or representative, who indicates therein the current account number to which the deposit is to be credited, the name of the depositor or current account holder, the date of the deposit, and the amount of the deposit either in cash or checks. The deposit slip has an upper portion or stub, which is detached and given to the depositor or his agent; the lower portion is retained by the bank. In some instances, however, the deposit slips are prepared in duplicate by the depositor. The original of the deposit slip is retained by the bank, while the duplicate copy is returned or given to the depositor. From May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976, petitioner Romeo Lipana claims to have entrusted RMC funds in the form of cash totalling P304,979.74 to his secretary, Irene Yabut, for the purpose of depositing said funds in the current accounts of RMC with PBC. It turned out, however, that these deposits, on all occasions, were not credited to RMC's account but were instead deposited to Account No. 53-01734-7 of Yabut's husband, Bienvenido Cotas who likewise maintains an account with the same bank. During this period, petitioner bank had, however, been regularly furnishing private respondent with monthly statements showing its current

3
accounts balances. Unfortunately, it had never been the practice of Romeo Lipana to check these monthly statements of account reposing complete trust and confidence on petitioner bank. Irene Yabut's modus operandi is far from complicated. She would accomplish two (2) copies of the deposit slip, an original and a duplicate. The original showed the name of her husband as depositor and his current account number. On the duplicate copy was written the account number of her husband but the name of the account holder was left blank. PBC's teller, Azucena Mabayad, would, however, validate and stamp both the original and the duplicate of these deposit slips retaining only the original copy despite the lack of information on the duplicate slip. The second copy was kept by Irene Yabut allegedly for record purposes. After validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the space left blank in the duplicate copy and change the account number written thereon, which is that of her husband's, and make it appear to be RMC's account number, i.e., C.A. No. 53-01980-3. With the daily remittance records also prepared by Ms. Yabut and submitted to private respondent RMC together with the validated duplicate slips with the latter's name and account number, she made her company believe that all the while the amounts she deposited were being credited to its account when, in truth and in fact, they were being deposited by her and credited by the petitioner bank in the account of Cotas. This went on in a span of more than one (1) year without private respondent's knowledge. 1) The proximate cause of the loss is the negligence of respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation and Romeo Lipana in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee. 2) The failure of respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation to cross-check the bank's statements of account with its own records during the entire period of more than one (1) year is the proximate cause of the commission of subsequent frauds and misappropriation committed by Ms. Irene Yabut. 3) The duplicate copies of the deposit slips presented by respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation are falsified and are not proof that the amounts appearing thereon were deposited to respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation's account with the bank, 4) The duplicate copies of the deposit slips were used by Ms. Irene Yabut to cover up her fraudulent acts against respondent Rommel Marketing Corporation, and not as records of deposits she made with the bank. 4 Simply put, the main issue posited before us is: What is the proximate cause of the loss, to the tune of P304,979.74, suffered by the private respondent RMC petitioner bank's negligence or that of private respondent's? Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Applying the above test, it appears that the bank's teller, Ms. Azucena Mabayad, was negligent in validating, officially stamping and signing all the deposit slips prepared and presented by Ms. Yabut, despite the glaring fact that the duplicate copy was not completely accomplished contrary to the self-imposed procedure of the bank with respect to the proper validation of deposit slips, original or duplicate, as testified to by Ms. Mabayad herself, thus: The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy lacked one vital information that of the name of the account holder should have already put Ms. Mabayad on guard. It was in fact only when he testified in this case in February, 1983, or after the lapse of more than seven (7) years counted from the period when the funds in question were deposited in plaintiff's accounts (May, 1975 to July, 1976) that bank manager Bonifacio admittedly became aware of the practice of his teller Mabayad of validating blank deposit slips. Undoubtedly, this is gross, wanton, and inexcusable negligence in the appellant bank's supervision of its employees. 14 It was this negligence of Ms. Azucena Mabayad, coupled by the negligence of the petitioner bank in the selection and supervision of its bank teller, which was the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the private respondent, and not the latter's act of entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, as insisted by the petitioners. In view of this, we believe that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by allocating the damage on a 60-40 ratio. Thus, 40% of the damage awarded by the respondent appellate court, except the award of P25,000.00 attorney's fees, shall be borne by private respondent RMC; only the balance of 60% needs to be paid by the petitioners. The award of attorney's fees shall be borne exclusively by the petitioners.

4
PSBANK IT is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the fault of others and to forget his own. Ang isang kakatuwang katangian ng isang hangal ay punahin ang kamalian ng iba at kalimutan naman ang sa kanya. On the respective due dates of each check, Chowking's acting accounting manager, Rino T. Manzano, endorsed and encashed said checks with the Bustos branch of respondent PSBank.3 All the five checks were honored by defendant Santos, even with only the endorsement of Manzano approving them. The signatures of the other authorized officers of respondent corporation were absent in the five (5) checks, contrary to usual banking practice.4 Unexpectedly, Manzano absconded with and misappropriated the check proceeds.5 When Chowking found out Manzano's scheme, it demanded reimbursement from PSBank.6 When PSBank refused to pay, Chowking filed a complaint7 for a sum of money with damages before the RTC. Likewise impleaded were PSBank's president, Antonio S. Abacan, and Bustos branch head, Santos.8 . The CA opined that even assuming that respondent was also negligent in allowing Manzano to encash its checks, petitioner had the last clear chance to avert injury and loss to respondent. This could have been done if petitioner, through Santos, faithfully and carefully observed its encashment rules and procedures. The doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais finds no application in the present case. The equitable doctrine of estoppel was explained by this Court in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Court of Appeals:24 Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. A party may not go back on his own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. In the law of evidence, whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it.25 We agree with the CA that Chowking did not make any false representation or concealment of material facts in relation to the encashments of the previous checks. As adverted to earlier, respondent may have allowed Manzano to previously encash its checks, but it has always been accompanied with the endorsements of the other authorized signatories. Respondent did not allow petitioner to have its checks encashed without the signature of all of its authorized signatories. x x x As related to the party claiming the estoppel, the essential elements are (1) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as the facts in question; (2) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct and statements of the party to be estopped; (3) action or inaction based thereon of such character as to change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice.31 Proximate cause is determined by the facts of the case. It is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.40 Unfortunately, it failed in that regard. x x x Without exercising the required prudence on its part, BPI accepted and encashed the eight checks presented to it. As a result, it proximately contributed to the fraud and should be held primarily liable for the "negligence of its officers or agents when acting within the course and scope of their employment." It must bear the loss.43 BPI VS CASAMONTESSORI On November 8, 1982, plaintiff CASA Montessori International*5] opened Current Account No. 0291-0081-01 with defendant BPI[,] with CASAs President Ms. Ma. Carina C. Lebron as one of its authorized signatories. In 1991, after conducting an investigation, plaintiff discovered that nine (9) of its checks had been encashed by a certain Sonny D. Santos since 1990 in the total amount of P782,000.00, on the following dates and amounts: It turned out that Sonny D. Santos with account at BPIs Greenbelt Branch *was+ a fictitious name used by third party defendant Leonardo T. Yabut who worked as external auditor of CASA. Third party defendant voluntarily admitted that he forged the signature of Ms. Lebron and encashed the checks.

First, both the CA[17] and the RTC[18] found that Respondent Yabut himself had voluntarily admitted, through an Affidavit, that he had forged the drawers signature and encashed the checks.*19+ He never refuted these findings.*20+ That he had been coerced into admission was not corroborated by any evidence on record.[21] Having established the forgery of the drawers signature, BPI -- the drawee -- erred in making payments by virtue thereof. The forged signatures are wholly inoperative, and CASA -- the drawer whose authorized signatures do not appear on the negotiable instruments -- cannot be held liable thereon. Neither is the latter precluded from setting up forgery as a real defense. For allowing payment[100] on the checks to a wrongful and fictitious payee, BPI -- the drawee bank -- becomes liable to its depositor-drawer. Since the encashing bank is one of its branches,[101] BPI can easily go after it and hold it liable for reimbursement.*102+ It may not debit the drawers account*103+ and is not entitled to indemnification from the drawer.*104+ In both law and equity, when one of two innocent persons must suffer by the wrongful act of a third person, the loss must be borne by the one whose negligence was the proximate cause of the loss or who put it into the power of the third person to perpetrate the wrong.*105+ Proximate cause is determined by the facts of the case.*106+ It is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.*107+ The financial statements are representations of the client; but it is the auditor who has the responsibility for the accuracy in the recording of data that underlies their preparation, their form of presentation, and the opinion[121] expressed therein.[122] The auditor does not assume the role of employee or of management in the clients conduct of operations*123+ and is never under the control or supervision[124] of the client. Yabut was an independent auditor[125] hired by CASA. He handled its monthly bank reconciliations and had access to all relevant documents and checkbooks.*126+ In him was reposed the clients*127+ trust and confidence*128+ that he would perform precisely those functions and apply the appropriate procedures in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.[129] Yet he did not meet these expectations. Nothing could be more horrible to a client than to discover later on that the person tasked to detect fraud was the same one who perpetrated it. Besides, in the internal accounting control system prudently installed by CASA,[130] it was Yabut who should examine those documents in order to prepare the bank reconciliations.[131] He owned his working papers,[132] and his output consisted of his opinion as well as the clients financial statements and accompanying notes thereto. CASA had every right to rely solely upon his output -- based on the terms of the audit engagement -- and could thus be unwittingly duped into believing that everything was in order. Besides, *g+ood faith is always presumed and it is the burden of the party claiming otherwise to adduce clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.*133+ Moreover, there was a time gap between the period covered by the bank statement and the date of its actual receipt. Lebron personally received the December 1990 bank statement only in January 1991[134] -- when she was also informed of the forgery for the first time, after which she immediately requested a stop payment order. She cannot be faulted for the late detection of the forged December check. After all, the bank account with BPI was not personal but corporate, and she could not be expected to monitor closely all its finances. A preschool teacher charged with molding the minds of the youth cannot be burdened with the intricacies or complexities of corporate existence. There is also a cutoff period such that checks issued during a given month, but not presented for payment within that period, will not be reflected therein.[135] An experienced auditor with intent to defraud can easily conceal any devious scheme from a client unwary of the accounting processes involved by manipulating the cash balances on record -- especially when bank transactions are numerous, large and frequent. CASA could only be blamed, if at all, for its unintelligent choice in the selection and appointment of an auditor -- a fault that is not tantamount to negligence. Clearly then, Yabut was able to perpetrate the wrongful act through no fault of CASA. If auditors may be held liable for breach of contract and negligence,[146] with all the more reason may they be charged with the perpetration of fraud upon an unsuspecting client. CASA had the discretion to pursue BPI alone under the NIL, by reason of expediency or munificence or both. Money paid under a mistake may rightfully be recovered,[147] and under such terms as the injured party may choose.