100%(1)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (1 Abstimmung)
196 Ansichten2 Seiten
This document summarizes a court case between BPI Family Savings Bank and First Metro Investment Corporation regarding a deposit of 100 million pesos by First Metro at the BPI Francisco del Monte branch. The branch manager, Jaime Sebastian, arranged for the deposit and guaranteed an interest rate of 6% annually. However, BPI later transferred 70 million pesos from First Metro's account to another company without authorization. First Metro sued BPI to recover its deposit after a check was dishonored. The main issue is whether BPI is liable for the unauthorized acts of its branch manager. The Court ruled that BPI is estopped from denying the manager's authority since it allowed him to perform acts within the apparent
This document summarizes a court case between BPI Family Savings Bank and First Metro Investment Corporation regarding a deposit of 100 million pesos by First Metro at the BPI Francisco del Monte branch. The branch manager, Jaime Sebastian, arranged for the deposit and guaranteed an interest rate of 6% annually. However, BPI later transferred 70 million pesos from First Metro's account to another company without authorization. First Metro sued BPI to recover its deposit after a check was dishonored. The main issue is whether BPI is liable for the unauthorized acts of its branch manager. The Court ruled that BPI is estopped from denying the manager's authority since it allowed him to perform acts within the apparent
This document summarizes a court case between BPI Family Savings Bank and First Metro Investment Corporation regarding a deposit of 100 million pesos by First Metro at the BPI Francisco del Monte branch. The branch manager, Jaime Sebastian, arranged for the deposit and guaranteed an interest rate of 6% annually. However, BPI later transferred 70 million pesos from First Metro's account to another company without authorization. First Metro sued BPI to recover its deposit after a check was dishonored. The main issue is whether BPI is liable for the unauthorized acts of its branch manager. The Court ruled that BPI is estopped from denying the manager's authority since it allowed him to perform acts within the apparent
BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., petitioner, vs. FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION, respondent. Fac!" Respondent First Metro Investment Corporation (FMIC) through its Executive Vice President Antonio ng, opened a current account and deposited ME!R"A#$ chec% o& P'(( mi))ion *ith "PI Fami)+ "an% , ("PI F") -an Francisco de) Monte "ranch (.ue/on Cit+) *hich is o*ned 0+ Petitioner "an% o& Phi)ippine Is)ands Fami)+ -avings "an%, Inc. ng made the deposit upon re1uest o& his &riend, Ador de Asis, a c)ose ac1uaintance o& 2aime -e0astian, then "ranch Manager o& "PI F" -an Francisco de) Monte "ranch. -e0astian3s aim *as to increase the deposit )eve) in his "ranch. "PI F", through -e0astian, guaranteed the pa+ment o& P'4,556,576.(' representing '68 per annum interest o& P'(( mi))ion deposited 0+ respondent FMIC. !he )atter, in turn, assured "PI F" that it *i)) maintain its deposit o& P'(( mi))ion &or a period o& one +ear on condition that the interest o& '68 per annum is paid in advance. !his agreement 0et*een the parties *as reached through their communications in *riting. -u0se1uent)+, "PI F" paid FMIC '68 interest or P'4,556,576.(' upon c)earance o& the )atter3s chec% deposit. 9o*ever, on August :;, ';7;, on the 0asis o& an Authorit+ to <e0it signed 0+ ng and Ma. !heresa <avid, -enior Manager o& FMIC, "PI F" trans&erred P7( mi))ion &rom FMIC3s current account to the savings account o& !evesteco Arrastre = -tevedoring, Inc. (!evesteco). Respondent FMIC denied having authori/ed the trans&er o& its &unds to !evesteco, c)aiming that the signatures o& ng and <avid *ere &a)si&ied. !hereupon, to recover immediate)+ its deposit, respondent FMIC issued a "PI F" chec% &or P75,(>6,545.6: pa+a0)e to itse)& and dra*n on its deposit *ith "PI F" -F<M 0ranch. "ut upon presentation &or pa+ment, "PI F" dishonored the chec% as it *as ?dra*n against insu&&icient &unds? (<AIF). Conse1uent)+, respondent FMIC &i)ed a case against "PI F". @ith respect to the unauthori/ed trans&er o& respondent FMIC3s &unds to !evesteco, in its attempt to evade an+ )ia0i)it+ there&or, petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc. no* impugns the va)idit+ o& the su0Aect agreement on the ground that its "ranch Manager, 2aime -e0astian, overstepped the )imits o& his authorit+ in accepting respondent3s deposit *ith '68 interest per annum. Petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc. a)so maintains that respondent FMIC shou)d have &irst in1uired *hether the deposit o& P'(( Mi))ion and the &ixing o& the interest rate *ere pursuant to its (petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc.3s) interna) procedures. I!!#$B @hether or not petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc. is )ia0)e &or the acts o& its 0ranch manager (2aime -e0astian). %$&'B Ces. !he Court has he)d that i& a corporation %no*ing)+ permits its o&&icer, or an+ other agent, to per&orm acts *ithin the scope o& an apparent authorit+, ho)ding him out to the pu0)ic as possessing po*er to do those acts, the corporation *i)), as against an+ person *ho has dea)t in good &aith *ith the corporation through such agent, 0e estopped &rom den+ing such authorit+. In addition, a 0an% ho)ding out its o&&icers and agent as *orth+ o& con&idence *i)) not 0e permitted to pro&it 0+ the &rauds the+ ma+ thus 0e ena0)ed to perpetrate in the apparent scope o& their emp)o+mentD nor *i)) it 0e permitted to shir% its responsi0i)it+ &or such &rauds, even though no 0ene&it ma+ accrue to the 0an% there&rom. According)+, a 0an%ing corporation is )ia0)e to innocent third persons *here the representation is made in the course o& its 0usiness 0+ an agent acting *ithin the genera) scope o& his authorit+ even though the agent is secret)+ a0using his authorit+ and attempting to perpetrate a &raud upon his principa) or some other person &or his o*n u)timate 0ene&it. Furthermore, the pu0)ic has the right to re)+ on the trust*orthiness o& 0an% managers and their acts. 0vious)+, con&idence in the 0an%ing s+stem, *hich necessari)+ inc)udes re)iance on 0an% managers, is vita) in the economic )i&e o& our societ+.