Scribd
Upload
95 views1 page

BPI vs Salazar: Account Debit Dispute

This case involves a dispute over funds deposited in a bank account. BPI paid a third party, Templonuevo, the value of checks deposited in Salazar's account without her endorsement. BPI later debited Salazar's account for the amount paid to Templonuevo. The court found that BPI had the authority to withdraw funds paid in error but did not act judiciously in debiting Salazar's account without notice, causing damage such as bounced checks. The award of damages to Salazar was sustained.

Uploaded by

Elle Quizon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
95 views1 page

BPI vs Salazar: Account Debit Dispute

This case involves a dispute over funds deposited in a bank account. BPI paid a third party, Templonuevo, the value of checks deposited in Salazar's account without her endorsement. BPI later debited Salazar's account for the amount paid to Templonuevo. The court found that BPI had the authority to withdraw funds paid in error but did not act judiciously in debiting Salazar's account without notice, causing damage such as bounced checks. The award of damages to Salazar was sustained.

Uploaded by

Elle Quizon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

BPI vs CA, et. al.

G.R. No. 136202, January 25, 2007

FACTS:

Private respondent Salazar, filed an action against BPI for a sum of money amounting to
P267,707,70. In its answer, Petitioner BPI alleged that Templonuevo, a third-party
defendant, demanded from it the payment of P267,692.50, representing the aggregate
value of 3 checks, which were allegedly payable to him, but which were deposited with
the petitioner bank to Salazar’s account, without his knowledge and corresponding
endorsement. BPI complied with Templonuevo’s demand by paying him the amount and
freezing Salazar’s account. They debited the amount from Salazar’s account later on.

The checks Salazar had possession of, as found by the court, were payable to the order
of JRT Construction and Trading, which was the name of Templonuevo’s business.

ISSUE/S:
1. Did BPI have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from Salazar’s account the
amount it has previously paid upon certain endorsed order instrument?
2. Did BPI act judiciously in debiting Salazar’s account?

HELD:
1. Yes. Records show that no prior arrangement existed between Salazar and
Templonuevo regarding the transfer of ownership of the checks. This fact is crucial as
Salazar’s entitlement to the value of the instruments is based on the assumption that
she is a transferee within the contemplation of Section 49 of the NIL.

Section 49 of the NIL contemplates a situation where the payee or endorsee delivers a
negotiable instrument for value without endorsing it. The underlying premise of this
provision, however, is that a valid transfer of ownership of the negotiable instrument in
question has taken place. Transferees in this situation do not enjoy the presumption of
ownership in favor of holders since they are neither payees nor endorsees of such
instruments. Mere possession of a negotiable instrument does not in itself conclusively
establish either the right of the possessor to receive payment, or of the right of one who
has made payment to be discharged from liability. Something more than mere
possession is necessary to authorize payment to such possessor.

2. No.Solely upon the prompting of Templonuevo, BPI debited the account of Salazar
without even serving due notice upon her. Consequently, this caused damage to Salazar
such as having checks she issued dishonored because she was not given prior notice of
the deduction from her account. As such, the award of damages must be sustained.

You might also like