Jai-Alai vs. BPI 66 SCRA 29, Aug. 6, 1975 FACTS: Jai-Alai Corp. deposited with BPI the ten checks acquired from Ramirez, a sales agent of the Inter-Island Gas and a regular jai-alai bettor. The checks were all payable to Inter-Island Gas Service, Inc. or order. Inter-Island Gas discovered that all the indorsements made on the checks purportedly by its cashiers were forgeries. The drawers of the checks demanded reimbursement from the drawee bank-banks, who in turn demanded from BPI. BPI thus debited Jai-Alai's current account and forwarded to it the checks containing the forged indorsements which the petitioner refused to accept. ISSUE: Whether or not BPI had the right to debit the current account of Jai0Alai Corporation. HELD: YES. The court held that BPI acted within legal bounds when it debited the petitioners account. When the Jai-alai deposited the checks with BPI, the nature of the relationship created at that stage was one of agency, that is, bank was to collect from the drawee of the checks the corresponding proceeds. Since the indorsements were forgeries, they are inoperative, the payment made by drawee banks therefore is inoperative and relationship of a creditor and debtor was not created. The depositor of a check as indorser warrants that it “is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be. Having indorsed the checks to respondent bank, petitioner is deemed to have given the warranty prescribed in Section 66 of the NIL that every single one of those checks is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be. Moreover, Jai Alai Corporation negligent in accepting the checks without question from Antonio Ramirez, notwithstanding that the payee was the Inter-Island Gas Services, Inc. and it did not appear that he was authorized to indorse it.
Jai-Alai vs. BPI66 SCRA 29, Aug. 6, 1975FACTS: Jai-Alai Corp.
deposited with BPI the ten checks acquired from Ramirez, a sales
agent of the Inter-Island Gas and a regular jai-alai bettor. The
checks were all payable to Inter-Island Gas Service, Inc. or order.
Inter-Island Gas discovered that all the indorsements made on the
checks purportedly by its cashiers were forgeries.The drawers of
the checks demanded reimbursement from the drawee bank-banks, who
in turn demanded from BPI. BPI thus debited Jai-Alai's
currentaccountand forwarded to it the checks containing the forged
indorsementswhich the petitioner refused to accept.
ISSUE:Whether or not BPI had the right to debit the current
account of Jai0Alai Corporation.
HELD: YES. The court held that BPI acted within legal bounds
when it debited the petitioners account. When the Jai-alai
deposited the checks with BPI, the nature of the relationship
created at that stage was one of agency, that is, bank was to
collect from the drawee of the checks the corresponding proceeds.
Since the indorsements were forgeries, they are inoperative, the
payment made by drawee banks therefore is inoperative and
relationship of a creditor and debtor was not created. The
depositor of a check as indorser warrants that it is genuine and in
all respects what it purports to be. Having indorsed the checks to
respondent bank, petitioner is deemed to have given the warranty
prescribed in Section 66 of the NIL that everysingleone of those
checks is genuine and in all respects what it purports to be.
Moreover, Jai Alai Corporation negligent in accepting the checks
withoutquestionfrom Antonio Ramirez, notwithstanding that the payee
was the Inter-Island Gas Services, Inc. and it did not appear that
he was authorized to indorse it.
