G.R. No. 102383 November 26, 1992
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SEVENTH JUDICIAL), HON. JUDGE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 59, CHINA BANKING CORP., and PHILIPPINE CLEARING HOUSE CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

The controversy arose from a fraud perpetrated by an impostor. On October 9, 1981, a woman impersonating Eligia G. Fernando, Treasurer of Philamlife, called BPI’s Money Market Department to preterminate Fernando’s money market placement. BPI employee Reginaldo Eustaquio, without verifying the caller’s identity by contacting Fernando at her office, processed the request. BPI issued two cashier’s checks payable to Eligia G. Fernando. The impostor, also pretending to be Fernando’s niece Rosemarie Fernando, picked up the checks from BPI. BPI’s dispatcher failed to require the surrender of the promissory note evidencing the placement or to verify the signature on the authorization letter. On October 13, 1981, the same impostor, representing herself as Eligia G. Fernando, opened a current account at China Banking Corporation (CBC) with an initial deposit of P10,000. CBC approved the account based on an introduction by a valued client, without the approving cashier interviewing the new client. The next day, the impostor deposited the two BPI checks into the new CBC account. CBC guaranteed the prior endorsements and sent the checks for clearing; BPI cleared them. Subsequently, the impostor made large over-the-counter withdrawals from the account, depleting the funds. On the maturity date of the real Fernando’s placement, she went to BPI for a roll-over and disclaimed having preterminated it, executing an affidavit that her endorsements on the checks were forged. BPI returned the checks to CBC for the reason “Payee’s endorsement forged,” but CBC returned them citing “Beyond Clearing Time,” leading to arbitration.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the allocation of loss resulting from the encashment of forged checks due to the negligence of both banks.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It ruled that both BPI and CBC were negligent. BPI’s negligence was the proximate cause of the loss, as its employees failed to verify the impostor’s identity before issuing and releasing the checks. CBC’s negligence contributed equally to the success of the fraud, as its employees failed to exercise due care in opening the account and allowing suspicious large withdrawals immediately after. Both banks were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees. Applying Article 2179 of the Civil Code on contributory negligence, the Court allocated the total loss of P2,413,215.16 and arbitration costs of P7,250.00 on a 60-40 ratio. Petitioner BPI is responsible for sixty percent (60%) and respondent CBC for forty percent (40%). The Philippine Clearing House Corporation was directed to effect the corresponding entries to the banks’ clearing accounts. No interests and attorney’s fees were awarded. Costs were allocated in the same proportion.