The case BPI vs CA 326 SCRA 641 is a case filed by the petitioner, Bank

of the Philippine Islands (BPI) versus the Court of Appeals (CA), and Benjamin
C. Napiza, both of which are respondents. This is a petition for review about the
decision of the CA, which dismissed the complaint of BPI against private
respondent Napiza for sum of money.
These are the facts presented on the case: Private respondent Benjamin
Napiza deposited in his foreign current deposit with BPI dollar check owned by
Henry Chan in which he affixed his signature at the dorsal side thereof. For this
purpose, Napiza gave Chan a signed blank withdrawal slip. However, Gayon Jr.
got hold of the withdrawal slip and used it to withdraw the proceeds of the dollar
check, even before the check was cleared and without the presentation of the
bank passbook. The issues are (1) Whether or not petitioner can hold private
respondent liable for the proceeds of the check for having affixed his signature at
the dorsal side as indorser; and (2) Whether or not the bank was negligent as the
proximate cause of the loss and should be held liable.
As a general rule, Napiza may be held liable as an indorser of the check
or even as an accommodation party. However, to hold him liable would result in
an injustice. So for this reason we must look into the events first that led to the
encashment of the check.
Under the rules appearing in the passbook that BPI issued to private
respondent, to be able to withdraw under the Philippine foreign currency deposit
system, the person withdrawing an amount must present two requisites to
petitioner BPI: (1) the duly filled-up withdrawal slip; (2) the depositors passbook.
Since BPI alleged that Napiza must indicate therein the person authorized
to receive the money, then Gayon could not have withdrawn any amount.
However, the withdrawal slip itself indicates a special instruction that the amount
is payable to Ramon de Guzman and/or Agnes de Guzman. So meaning, BPI
personnel should have been warned that Gayon was not the proper payee of the
proceeds of the check. Likewise, the fact that Napizas passbook was failed to be
presented during the withdrawal, which is evidenced by the entries therein,
showing the last transaction he made when he deposited the check. In the end,
BPI cannot hold Napiza, liable for the proceeds of the check for having affixed his
signature at the dorsal side as indorser
As far as we are concerned, 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. BPI failed to exercise the diligence of a
good father of a family. In total disregard of its own rules, BPIs personnel
negligently handled Napizas account to BPIs detriment.
The proximate cause of the withdrawal and eventual loss of the amount of
$2,500.00 on BPIs part was its personnels negligence in allowing such

withdrawal in disregard of its own rules and the clearing requirement in the
banking system. In so doing, BPI assumed the risk of incurring a loss on account
of a forged or counterfeit foreign check and hence, it should suffer the resulting
damage. So yes, BPI was negligent as the proximate cause of the loss and
should be held liable.
As finance major, I am well informed of our banking laws since we have
already tackled it on our past major subjects. That is why, I find this case very
interesting to read although it is very lengthy. This case just prove how the
banking system isnt that stable before. But now, look at how improved the
system because of the advanced technology we have today that will help the
bank to avoid such events to happen again.
In the end, the bank must always tell their personnel, employees, etc. to
keep in mind what the banking laws are, to avoid such events to occur again
because whatever mistakes the personnel and/or employees do, will be reflected
upon into the bank itself. So they must really be careful in the actions they are
executing.