Facts:

In the case "Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Casa Montessori Internationale and Leonardo T. Yabut," the events unfolded as follows: On November 8, 1982, Casa Montessori International (CASA) opened Current Account No. 0291-0081-01 with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). The account included Ms. Ma. Carina C. Lebron as one of the authorized signatories. In 1991, CASA discovered that from 1990 onwards, nine checks had been unlawfully encashed by a fictitious name used by Leonardo T. Yabut, the external auditor for CASA. The total amount involved was P782,000. The checks were signed with forged signatures, as confirmed by a PNP Crime Laboratory examination that showed discrepancies with Ms. Lebron's actual signature.

In March 1991, CASA filed a complaint against BPI for the recovery of P782,500 alongside damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of CASA on February 16, 1999. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC decisio

...

Facts:

Parties and Account Opening

• CASA Montessori Internationale (CASA) opened a current account (No. 0291-0081-01) with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).
• Ms. Ma. Carina C. Lebron, as the president of CASA, was designated as an authorized signatory on the account.

Discovery of Forgery and Encashment of Checks

• CASA discovered in 1991 that nine checks had been encashed beginning in 1990, amounting to approximately ₱782,600.
• The checks, which bore dates and amounts on various occasions, were presented with signatures purportedly belonging to Ms. Lebron.
• A fictitious name, “Sonny D. Santos,” was used by Leonardo T. Yabut, who was later revealed to be an external auditor for CASA.

Evidence of Forgery

• Leonardo T. Yabut voluntarily admitted by affidavit that he had forged Ms. Lebron’s signature on the checks and had encashed them.
• The Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory conducted handwriting examinations and concluded that the signatures on the checks did not match the standard signature provided by Ms. Lebron.
• Secondary evidence, including microfilm copies of the checks, along with testimonial evidence by Ms. Lebron, further supported the conclusion that the signatures were not genuine.

Initiation of Legal Proceedings and History

• On March 4, 1991, CASA filed a Complaint for Collection with Damages against BPI, seeking the reinstatement of the lost amount along with interest at 6% per annum.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision in favor of CASA on February 16, 1999.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC’s decision by apportioning the loss between BPI and CASA, while also ordering Leonardo T. Yabut to reimburse half the amount due to his role in the fraud.
• Two Petitions for Review were subsequently filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court: one by BPI (GR No. 149454) and one by CASA (GR No. 149507), consolidating the issues for further review by the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Existence of Forgery Under the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL)

• Whether the forged signature on the checks can be established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, as required by applicable jurisprudence.
• Whether the admission by Yabut and the corroborative findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory suffice to prove that the signature was in fact forged.

Negligence and the Duties of the Bank and Other Parties

• Whether BPI, as a bank with a fiduciary duty, was negligent in failing to exercise the required high degree of care and diligence in verifying the signature on the checks.
• Whether CASA’s failure to report discrepancies in its bank statements within the period indicated in the bank’s circular (despite the “no error reported in ten (10) days” notice) precludes its right to set up the defense of forgery.
• The extent to which the negligence of BPI and its internal controls contributed to the wrongful encashment of the forged checks.

Award of Monetary and Equitable Claims

• Whether CASA is entitled to moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees under the circumstances of the case.
• Whether BPI should also pay interest on the amounts due, given its breach of its contractual duty in relation to CASA’s deposit account.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)