Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BPI v. Casa Montessori G.R. No. 149454 May 28, 2004 Facts:: Issue

    Uploaded by

    Marvien Barrios
    21 views1 page
    BPI v. Casa Montessori involved a case where Casa Montessori was found responsible for forging nine checks totaling P782,000 that were cashed through BPI. The Supreme Court ruled that BPI was liable because, despite having a signature verification procedure, it failed to detect eight instances of forgery. The court held that banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence, and if a forged check is paid, the bank must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds and cannot charge the depositor.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Untitled

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    BPI v. Casa Montessori involved a case where Casa Montessori was found responsible for forging nine checks totaling P782,000 that were cashed through BPI. The Supreme Court ruled that BPI was liable because, despite having a signature verification procedure, it failed to detect eight instances of forgery. The court held that banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence, and if a forged check is paid, the bank must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds and cannot charge the depositor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views1 page

    BPI v. Casa Montessori G.R. No. 149454 May 28, 2004 Facts:: Issue

    Uploaded by

    Marvien Barrios
    BPI v. Casa Montessori involved a case where Casa Montessori was found responsible for forging nine checks totaling P782,000 that were cashed through BPI. The Supreme Court ruled that BPI was liable because, despite having a signature verification procedure, it failed to detect eight instances of forgery. The court held that banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence, and if a forged check is paid, the bank must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds and cannot charge the depositor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BPI v.

    Casa Montessori
    G.R. No. 149454
    May 28, 2004
    Facts:
    CASA was found responsible for the undetected forgery of nine checks, resulting in a
    loss of P782,000.00.

    Issue: Whether or not BPI is liable? 

    Held:
    Yes.

    BPI failed to detect eight instances of forgery, despite having a signature verification
    procedure. The highest degree of diligence is expected of a bank, and if it pays a forged
    check, it must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds and cannot
    charge the amount so paid to the account of the depositor whose name was forged.

    You might also like