BPI vs.

CA
G.R. No. 112392
Doctrine: z

The requirement of presentation of the passbook when withdrawing an

amount cannot be given a mere lip service even though the person
making the withdrawal is authorized by the depositor to do so.
 z
 FACTS: Private Respondent Napiza deposited in Foreign
Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) Savings Account which he
maintained in petitioner’s bank Continental Bank Manager’s
Check payable to cash in the amount of Two Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars and duly endorsed by Napiza on its dorsal side.
It appears that the check belonged to Henry Chan who went to
the office of Napiza and requested him to deposit the check in
his dollar account. Napiza 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 withdraw upon Napiza’s
presentation of his passbook. Using the blank withdrawal slip ,
one Ruben Gayon Jr was able to withdraw the amount. It was
later found out that the check was counterfeit. Petitioner filed a
complaint against Napiza praying for the return of the amount of
$2,500.00 plus interest.
z
ISSUE: Whether petitioner was grossly negligent
in allowing the withdrawal

RULING:
Petitioner anchors its argument on the fact that the respondent as an indorser
guaranteed the validity of the check and the signatures therein and that the
private respondent signed a blank withdrawal slip bearing only 2 of his signatures
and payee de Guzman therein.

To hold the private respondent liable for the amount of the check he deposited by
the strict application of the law and without considering the attending
circumstances in the case would result in an injustice and in the erosion of the
public trust in the banking system.
 Under the rules issued by the petitioner in the private
z respondent’s passbook, 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

b.) the depositor’s passbook

Moreover, the withdrawal slip contains a boxed warning that

states “ This receipt must be signed and presented with the
corresponding foreign currency savings passbook by the
depositor in person. “ Despite the fact that private
respondent’s passbook was not presented at the time of the
withdrawal, the petitioner still allowed the said withdrawal in
violation of their rules.
z

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.” 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. Petitioner
herein failed to do this act, and in fact, violated its own rules by
allowing the withdrawal of an amount that is definitely over and above
the aggregate amount of private respondent’s dollar deposits that had
yet to be cleared. In doing so, 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.