Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    BPI Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Erika Angela Galceran
    1) Annabelle Salazar sued Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for debiting P267,707.70 from her account to pay Julio Templonuevo, who claimed he was owed the amount from three checks deposited in Salazar's account without his endorsement. 2) BPI argued the checks were payable to Templonuevo but deposited in Salazar's account without his knowledge or endorsement. 3) The issue was whether BPI had authority to unilaterally withdraw funds from Salazar's account to pay an amount previously paid based on unendorsed checks. 4) The Supreme Court ruled yes, as there was no evidence of a prior

    Copyright:

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

    BPI Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Erika Angela Galceran
    116 views1 page
    1) Annabelle Salazar sued Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for debiting P267,707.70 from her account to pay Julio Templonuevo, who claimed he was owed the amount from three checks deposited in Salazar's account without his endorsement. 2) BPI argued the checks were payable to Templonuevo but deposited in Salazar's account without his knowledge or endorsement. 3) The issue was whether BPI had authority to unilaterally withdraw funds from Salazar's account to pay an amount previously paid based on unendorsed checks. 4) The Supreme Court ruled yes, as there was no evidence of a prior

    Original Description:

    BPI vs CA

    Original Title

    BPI vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Annabelle Salazar sued Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for debiting P267,707.70 from her account to pay Julio Templonuevo, who claimed he was owed the amount from three checks deposited in Salazar's account without his endorsement. 2) BPI argued the checks were payable to Templonuevo but deposited in Salazar's account without his knowledge or endorsement. 3) The issue was whether BPI had authority to unilaterally withdraw funds from Salazar's account to pay an amount previously paid based on unendorsed checks. 4) The Supreme Court ruled yes, as there was no evidence of a prior

    Copyright:

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

    BPI Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Erika Angela Galceran
    1) Annabelle Salazar sued Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for debiting P267,707.70 from her account to pay Julio Templonuevo, who claimed he was owed the amount from three checks deposited in Salazar's account without his endorsement. 2) BPI argued the checks were payable to Templonuevo but deposited in Salazar's account without his knowledge or endorsement. 3) The issue was whether BPI had authority to unilaterally withdraw funds from Salazar's account to pay an amount previously paid based on unendorsed checks. 4) The Supreme Court ruled yes, as there was no evidence of a prior

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    136202

    BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner vs COURT OF APPEALS,


    ANNABELLE A. SALAZAR, and JULIO R. TEMPLONUEVO, respondents

    Section 49 Negotiable Instruments Law

    January 25, 2007

    FACTS OF THE CASE:

    A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services filed an action for a sum of
    money with damages against herein petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). The
    complaint was later amended by substituting the name of Annabelle A. Salazar as the real
    party in interest in place of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services. She
    sought for the recovery of the amount of Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand, Seven
    Hundred Seven Pesos and Seventy Centavos (P267,707.70) debited by petitioner BPI
    from her account. She likewise prayed for damages and attorney’s fees. BPI alleged that
    Julio R. Templonuevo, third-party defendant and herein also a private
    respondent, demanded from the former payment of the said amount representing the
    aggregate value of three (3) checks, which were allegedly payable to him, but which were
    deposited with the petitioner bank to private respondent Salazars account without his
    knowledge and corresponding endorsement. BPI froze Account of A.A. Salazar and
    Construction and Engineering Services, instead of another account where the checks
    were deposited, since this account was already closed by private respondent Salazar or
    had an insufficient balance. Private respondent Salazar was advised to settle the matter
    with Templonuevo but they did not arrive at any settlement. BPI decided to debit the
    amount from her account and the sum was paid to Templonuevo by means of a cashier’s
    check.

    ISSUE/S: Did BPI have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from Salazar’s
    account the amount it has previously paid upon certain unendorsed order instrument?

    CONCLUSION:
    Yes. In the present case, the records do not support the finding made by the CA
    and the trial court that a 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 Negotiable Instruments Law.

    You might also like