Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 125 views

    VII 9 Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Equitable Banking Corp.

    Uploaded by

    Valora France Miral Aranas
    Equitable Bank filed a case against BDO after discovering forged endorsements on six crossed manager's checks that were deposited into an account at BDO. BDO refused to reimburse Equitable for the value of the checks upon direct presentation. The Supreme Court ruled that as the collecting bank, BDO had a duty of diligence to scrutinize checks deposited with it to determine their genuineness and regularity. As the banking expert with privity to the depositor, BDO took a risk in allowing collection on the checks and is therefore liable for the forged checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    VII 9 Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Equitable Banking Corp.

    Uploaded by

    Valora France Miral Aranas
    125 views1 page
    Equitable Bank filed a case against BDO after discovering forged endorsements on six crossed manager's checks that were deposited into an account at BDO. BDO refused to reimburse Equitable for the value of the checks upon direct presentation. The Supreme Court ruled that as the collecting bank, BDO had a duty of diligence to scrutinize checks deposited with it to determine their genuineness and regularity. As the banking expert with privity to the depositor, BDO took a risk in allowing collection on the checks and is therefore liable for the forged checks.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Equitable Bank filed a case against BDO after discovering forged endorsements on six crossed manager's checks that were deposited into an account at BDO. BDO refused to reimburse Equitable for the value of the checks upon direct presentation. The Supreme Court ruled that as the collecting bank, BDO had a duty of diligence to scrutinize checks deposited with it to determine their genuineness and regularity. As the banking expert with privity to the depositor, BDO took a risk in allowing collection on the checks and is therefore liable for the forged checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    125 views1 page

    VII 9 Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Equitable Banking Corp.

    Uploaded by

    Valora France Miral Aranas
    Equitable Bank filed a case against BDO after discovering forged endorsements on six crossed manager's checks that were deposited into an account at BDO. BDO refused to reimburse Equitable for the value of the checks upon direct presentation. The Supreme Court ruled that as the collecting bank, BDO had a duty of diligence to scrutinize checks deposited with it to determine their genuineness and regularity. As the banking expert with privity to the depositor, BDO took a risk in allowing collection on the checks and is therefore liable for the forged checks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VII 9 Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Equitable Banking Corp.

    [G.R. No. 74917. January 20, 1988]

    Facts:

    Plaintiff Equitable Bank drew six crossed Manager's check, and the Checks were deposited with BDO to
    the credit of its depositor, a certain Aida Trencio.

    Equitable discovered that the endorsements appearing at the back of the Checks and purporting to be
    that of the payees were forged.

    Pursuant to the PCHC Clearing Rules and Regulations, Equitable presented the Checks directly to the
    BDO for the purpose of claiming reimbursement from the latter. However, BDO refused to accept such
    direct presentation and to reimburse the plaintiff for the value of the Checks; hence, this case.

    Issue: Whether BDO as the collecting bank can be held liable for the forged checks.

    Ruling:

    Yes. We hold that while the drawer generally owes no duty of diligence to the collecting bank,
    the law imposes a duty of diligence on the collecting bank to scrutinize checks deposited with it for the
    purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. The collecting bank being primarily engaged in
    banking holds itself out to the public as the expert and the law holds it to a high standard of conduct.

    The collecting bank has privity with the depositor who is the principal culprit in this case. The
    defendant knows the depositor; her address and her history, Depositor is defendant's client. It has taken
    a risk on its depositor when it allowed her to collect on the checks.

    You might also like