Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRUDENTIAL BANK v. CA

This case has been cited 5 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. 186738 2010-09-27	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. LIWAYWAY ABASOLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The trial Court's reliance on the doctrine of apparent authority - that the principal, in this case petitioner, is liable for the obligations contracted by its agent, in this case Mendiola, - does not lie. Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals[15] instructs: [A] banking corporation is liable to innocent third persons where the representation is made in the course of its business by an agent acting within the general scope of his authority even though, in the particular case, the agent is secretly abusing his authority and attempting to perpetuate fraud upon his principal or some person, for his own ultimate benefit.[16] (underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 159489 2008-02-04	FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. CLEMENTE N. PEDROSO QUISUMBING, J.
Filipinas Life cannot profess ignorance of Valle's acts. Even if Valle's representations were beyond his authority as a debit/insurance agent, Filipinas Life thru Alcantara and Apetrior expressly and knowingly ratified Valle's acts. It cannot even be denied that Filipinas Life benefited from the investments deposited by Valle in the account of Filipinas Life. In our considered view, Filipinas Life had clothed Valle with apparent authority; hence, it is now estopped to deny said authority. Innocent third persons should not be prejudiced if the principal failed to adopt the needed measures to prevent misrepresentation, much more so if the principal ratified his agent's acts beyond the latter's authority. The act of the agent is considered that of the principal itself. Qui per alium facit per seipsum facere videtur. "He who does a thing by an agent is considered as doing it himself."[18]
	GR No. 132390 2004-05-21	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Going back to the unauthorized transfer of respondent's funds to Tevesteco, in its attempt to evade any liability therefor, petitioner now impugns the validity of the subject agreement on the ground that its Branch Manager, Jaime Sebastian, overstepped the limits of his authority in accepting respondent's deposit with 17% interest per annum. 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.[5] We reiterated this doctrine in Prudential Bank vs. Court of Appeals, [6] thus:"A bank holding out its officers and agent as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds they may thus be enabled to perpetrate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor will it be permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds, even though no benefit may accrue to the bank therefrom. Accordingly, a banking corporation is liable to innocent third persons where the representation is made in the course of its business by an agent acting within the general scope of his authority even though the agent is secretly abusing his authority and attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon his principal or some other person for his own ultimate benefit."
	GR No. 127469 2004-01-15	PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
Assuming Pagsaligan was behind the spurious promissory note, the BANK would still be accountable to Marcos. We have held that a bank is liable for the wrongful acts of its officers done in the interest of the bank or in their dealings as bank representatives but not for acts outside the scope of their authority.[37] Thus, we held:A bank holding out its officers and agents as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds they may thus be enabled to perpetrate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor will it be permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds, even though no benefit may accrue to the bank therefrom (10 Am Jur 2d, p. 114). Accordingly, a banking corporation is liable to innocent third persons where the representation is made in the course of its business by an agent acting within the general scope of his authority even though, in the particular case, the agent is secretly abusing his authority and attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon his principal or some other person, for his own ultimate benefit.[38]