Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 181426 2015-07-13	GAMES v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Of particular relevance herein are our pronouncements in BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. First Metro Investment Corporation,[46] citing Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals[47] and Francisco v. Government Service Insurance System[48]:We have held that if a corporation knowingly permits its officer, or any other agent, to perform acts within the scope of an apparent authority, holding him out to the public as possessing power to do those acts, the corporation will, as against any person who has dealt in good faith with the corporation through such agent, be estopped from denying such authority. We reiterated this doctrine in Prudential Bank vs. Court of Appeals, thus:
	GR No. 179015 2012-06-13	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. PLANTERS PRODUCTS ABAD, J.
True, a corporation like UCPB is liable to innocent third persons where it knowingly permits its officer, or any other agent, to perform acts within the scope of his general or apparent authority, holding him out to the public as possessing power to do those acts.[5]
	GR No. 148444 2008-07-14	ASSOCIATED BANK v. SPS. RAFAEL AND MONALIZA PRONSTROLLER NACHURA, J.
Naturally, the third person has little or no information as to what occurs in corporate meetings; and he must necessarily rely upon the external manifestations of corporate consent. The integrity of commercial transactions can only be maintained by holding the corporation strictly to the liability fixed upon it by its agents in accordance with law.[38] What transpires in the corporate board room is entirely an internal matter. Hence, petitioner may not impute negligence on the part of the respondents in failing to find out the scope of Atty. Soluta's authority. Indeed, the public has the right to rely on the trustworthiness of bank officers and their acts.[39]
	GR No. 123498 2007-11-23	BPI FAMILY BANK v. AMADO FRANCO NACHURA, J.
FMIC filed a complaint against BPI-FB for the recovery of the amount of P80,000,000.00 debited from its account.[17] The case eventually reached this Court, and in BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. First Metro Investment Corporation,[18] we upheld the finding of the courts below that BPI-FB failed to exercise the degree of diligence required by the nature of its obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care. Thus, BPI-FB was found liable to FMIC for the debited amount in its time deposit. It was ordered to pay P65,332,321.99 plus interest at 17% per annum from August 29, 1989 until fully restored. In turn, the 17% shall itself earn interest at 12% from October 4, 1989 until fully paid.