BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., petitioner, vs. FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION, respondent. Fac!" Respondent First Metro Investment Corporation (FMIC) through its Executive Vice President Antonio ng, opened a current account and deposited ME!R"A#$ chec% o& P'(( mi))ion *ith "PI Fami)+ "an% , ("PI F") -an Francisco de) Monte "ranch (.ue/on Cit+) *hich is o*ned 0+ Petitioner "an% o& Phi)ippine Is)ands Fami)+ -avings "an%, Inc. ng made the deposit upon re1uest o& his &riend, Ador de Asis, a c)ose ac1uaintance o& 2aime -e0astian, then "ranch Manager o& "PI F" -an Francisco de) Monte "ranch. -e0astian3s aim *as to increase the deposit )eve) in his "ranch. "PI F", through -e0astian, guaranteed the pa+ment o& P'4,556,576.(' representing '68 per annum interest o& P'(( mi))ion deposited 0+ respondent FMIC. !he )atter, in turn, assured "PI F" that it *i)) maintain its deposit o& P'(( mi))ion &or a period o& one +ear on condition that the interest o& '68 per annum is paid in advance. !his agreement 0et*een the parties *as reached through their communications in *riting. -u0se1uent)+, "PI F" paid FMIC '68 interest or P'4,556,576.(' upon c)earance o& the )atter3s chec% deposit. 9o*ever, on August :;, ';7;, on the 0asis o& an Authorit+ to <e0it signed 0+ ng and Ma. !heresa <avid, -enior Manager o& FMIC, "PI F" trans&erred P7( mi))ion &rom FMIC3s current account to the savings account o& !evesteco Arrastre = -tevedoring, Inc. (!evesteco). Respondent FMIC denied having authori/ed the trans&er o& its &unds to !evesteco, c)aiming that the signatures o& ng and <avid *ere &a)si&ied. !hereupon, to recover immediate)+ its deposit, respondent FMIC issued a "PI F" chec% &or P75,(>6,545.6: pa+a0)e to itse)& and dra*n on its deposit *ith "PI F" -F<M 0ranch. "ut upon presentation &or pa+ment, "PI F" dishonored the chec% as it *as ?dra*n against insu&&icient &unds? (<AIF). Conse1uent)+, respondent FMIC &i)ed a case against "PI F". @ith respect to the unauthori/ed trans&er o& respondent FMIC3s &unds to !evesteco, in its attempt to evade an+ )ia0i)it+ there&or, petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc. no* impugns the va)idit+ o& the su0Aect agreement on the ground that its "ranch Manager, 2aime -e0astian, overstepped the )imits o& his authorit+ in accepting respondent3s deposit *ith '68 interest per annum. Petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc. a)so maintains that respondent FMIC shou)d have &irst in1uired *hether the deposit o& P'(( Mi))ion and the &ixing o& the interest rate *ere pursuant to its (petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc.3s) interna) procedures. I!!#$B @hether or not petitioner "PI Fami)+ -avings "an% Inc. is )ia0)e &or the acts o& its 0ranch manager (2aime -e0astian). %$&'B Ces. !he Court has he)d that i& a corporation %no*ing)+ permits its o&&icer, or an+ other agent, to per&orm acts *ithin the scope o& an apparent authorit+, ho)ding him out to the pu0)ic as possessing po*er to do those acts, the corporation *i)), as against an+ person *ho has dea)t in good &aith *ith the corporation through such agent, 0e estopped &rom den+ing such authorit+. In addition, a 0an% ho)ding out its o&&icers and agent as *orth+ o& con&idence *i)) not 0e permitted to pro&it 0+ the &rauds the+ ma+ thus 0e ena0)ed to perpetrate in the apparent scope o& their emp)o+mentD nor *i)) it 0e permitted to shir% its responsi0i)it+ &or such &rauds, even though no 0ene&it ma+ accrue to the 0an% there&rom. According)+, a 0an%ing corporation is )ia0)e to innocent third persons *here the representation is made in the course o& its 0usiness 0+ an agent acting *ithin the genera) scope o& his authorit+ even though the agent is secret)+ a0using his authorit+ and attempting to perpetrate a &raud upon his principa) or some other person &or his o*n u)timate 0ene&it. Furthermore, the pu0)ic has the right to re)+ on the trust*orthiness o& 0an% managers and their acts. 0vious)+, con&idence in the 0an%ing s+stem, *hich necessari)+ inc)udes re)iance on 0an% managers, is vita) in the economic )i&e o& our societ+.