Você está na página 1de 1

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.
negligent

in

accepting

the

checks

Moreover, Jai Alai Corporation

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.