8/10/2019 TORTS - BPI vs. Allied Bank
1/3
ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs. BPI
February 27, 2013
FACT!
On October 10, 2002, a check for P1,000,000 payable to Mateo Mgt. Group
International (MMGI) wa preente! for !epoit an! accepte! at "llie! #ank$ %awit
#ranch.
&he check, pot'!ate! Oct. , 200*+, wa !rawn fro the account of Marciano -ila,
/r. with #PI #el'"ir #ranch. #PI cleare! the check an! cre!ite! P1 illion to MMGI.
On October 22, 2002, MMGI$ account wa cloe! an! all fun! with!rawn.
One onth later, -ila !icoere! the P1 illion !ebit fro hi account. e
coplaine! an! #PI cre!ite! hi account with ai! aount.
#PI returne! a photocopy of the check to "llie! #ank for the reaon that it wa pot'
!ate!. oweer, "llie! bank refue! to accept an! the charge lip wa toe! eeral
tie between the two bank.
#PI reuete! P to take cuto!y of the original check an! to plit it 30430
becaue it wa ub5ect of a ping'pong controery.
"llie! #ank coplaine! before the "rbitration oittee, alleging that #PI houl!
olely bear the entire face alue of the check !ue to it negligence in failing to return
the check to "llie! within the 26'regleentary perio! a proi!e! in -ection 20.1 of
77 200. "llie! #ank praye! that #PI reibure it P300,000 with 128 interet, plu
attorney$ fee an! arbitration e9pene.
#PI, in it "nwer with ounterclai, charge! "llie! #ank with gro negligence for
accepting the pot'!ate! check in the :rt place. #PI conten!e! that "llie! #ank$
a!itte! negligence wa the ole an! pro9iate caue of the lo.
In 2006, the "rbitration oittee rule! in faor of "llie! #ank, aying that theituation wa not a ping'pong controery an! the check wa not returne! by #PI
within the 26'hour regleentary perio!. Or coure! through the clearing facilitie of
the P.
"ccor!ing to the "rbitration oittee, #PI ha! the lat clear chance of aoi!ing the
lo. ence, it houl! alone houl!er the lo.
8/10/2019 TORTS - BPI vs. Allied Bank
2/3
I"E!
#ON A$$%e& Ba'( )r BPI *as 'e+$%+e'- B)/ *ere 'e+$%+e'
#ON /e D)r%'e ) Las C$ear C/a'e A$%es %' /e ase a bar- es. BPI
/a& /e $as $ear /a'e.
4ELD!
" well etablihe! by the recor!, both #PI an! "llie! #ank were a!itte!ly
negligent in the encahent of a check pot'!ate! one year fro it preentent.
In thi cae, the ei!ence clearly how that the pro9iate caue of the unwarrante!encahent of the ub5ect check wa the negligence of #PI who cleare! a pot'!ate!
check ent to it thru the P clearing facility without obering it own eri:cation
proce!ure. " correctly foun! by the P an! uphel! by the 7&, if only repon!ent
e9ercie! or!inary care in the clearing proce, it coul! hae eaily notice! the
glaring !efect upon eeing the !ate written on the face of the check ;Oct. , 200*;.
#PI coul! hae then proptly returne! the check an! with the check thu !ihonore!,
"llie! #ank woul! hae not cre!ite! the aount thereof to the payee$ account.
&hu, notwithtan!ing the antece!ent negligence of the "llie! #ank in accepting the
pot'!ate! check for !epoit, it can eek reibureent fro #PI the aount
cre!ite! to the payee$ account coering the check.
"'&er Ar%$e 2175 ) /e Ne* C%v%$ C)&e,when the plainti
8/10/2019 TORTS - BPI vs. Allied Bank
3/3
/e(s. >n!er thee circutance, we apply Ar%$e 2175 ) /e C%v%$ C)&e to
the e
Top Related