Republic Act 1405- Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law

1) Banco Filipino v. Purisima, 161 SCRA 576 [1988] Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Concealment of illegally acquired property

Held: Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery and dereliction of duty and there is no reason why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential. The policy as to one cannot be different from the policy as to the other. Inquiry into illegally acquired property extends to cases where such property is concealed by being held by or recorded in the name of other persons.

2) Mellon Bank v. Magsino, 190 SCRA 633 [1990] Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Concealment of illegally acquired property

Held: In an action filed by the bank to recover the money transmitted by mistake R.A. 1405 allows the disclosure of bank deposits in cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of litigation. In such action, necessarily, an inquiry into the whereabouts of the amount extends to whatever is concealed by being held or recorded in the name of the persons other than the one responsible for the illegal acquisition. 3) Marquez v. Desierto, G.R. 135882, June 17, 2001
Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Case pending in court required before Ombudsman can examine bank accounts

Held: Examination or disclosure of information about deposits can be allowed in cases filed by the Ombudsman and upon the latters authority to examine and have access to bank accounts and records
4) Salvacion v. Central Bank, G.R. 94723, August 21, 1997 Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Related statutes; Foreign Currency Deposit Act Held: Foreign deposits cannot be garnished. However, in a case which involved an American tourist who was found guilty of repeatedly raping a 12-year-old child, the SC allowed the garnishment of foreign deposits belonging to the American because the law was not intended to cause injustice.

Republic Act 3765- Truth in Lending Act 1. New Sampaguita Builders Construction v. PNB, G.R. 148753, (2004)

Held: The lifting of ceiling on interest rates (CB Circular 905) does not give lender a carte blanche authority to raise the interest. Rates found to be iniquitous or unconscionable are void, as if there was no express contract thereon. Held: Section 4 of RA 3765 provides for matters that the creditor must furnish or disclose to the debtor prior to the consummation of a loan or sale. In case of non-disclosure, the validity or enforceability of the contract or transaction is not affected.

2. DBP v. Arcilla, G.R. 161397, June 30, 2005

CODE OF COMMERCE

3. Prudential Bank v. IAC, G.R. 74886, Dec. 8, 1992

Letters of Credit; Nature

4. Bank of America v. CA, 228 SCRA 357 [1993]

Letters of Credit; Nature

Held: In an irrevocable letter of credit, the issuing bank may not, without the consent of the beneficiary and the applicant, revoke its undertaking under the letter, whereas, in a confirmed letter of credit, the correspondent bank gives an absolute assurance to the beneficiary that it will undertake the issuing banks obligation as its own according to the terms and condition of the credit.

Held: Letters of credit is a financial device (model of payment) developed as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of the goods before paying. 5. Lee v. CA, G.R. 117913
Letters of Credit; Nature

Held: Letters of credit and trust receipts are not negotiable instruments, but drafts issued in connection with letters of credit are negotiable instruments. Hence, while the presumption of consideration under the negotiable instrument law may not necessarily be applicable to trust receipts and letters of credit, the presumption that the drafts drawn in connection with the letters of credit have sufficient consideration applies. 6. Transfield Philippines v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, G.R. 146717, Nov. 22, 2004
Letters of Credit; Standby letters of credit

Held: The independence nature of letter of credit may be only as to the justification aspect like a commercial letter of credit or repayment standby, which is identical with the same obligations under the underlying agreement. 7. BPI v. De Reny Fabric Industries, G.R. L-248211, Oct. 16, 1970
Letters of Credit; Independence principle

Held: Under the independence principle, the relationship of the buyer and the bank is separate and distinct from the relationship of the buyer and seller in the main contract; the bank is not required to investigate if the contract underlying the LC has been fulfilled or not because in transactions involving LC, banks deal only with documents and not goods. In effect, the buyer has no course of action against the issuing bank. 8. Feati Bank v. CA, 196 SCRA 576 [1991]
Letters of Credit; Rule of strict compliance

Held: Documents tendered by the seller/beneficiary must strictly conform to the terms of the Letter of Credit, i.e. they must include all documents required by the Letter of Credit. Thus, a correspondent bank which departs from what has been stipulated under the LC acts on its own risk and may not thereafter be able to recover from the buyer or the issuing bank, as the case may be, the money thus paid to the beneficiary. Presidential Decree No. 115- Trust Receipts Law 9. Vintola v. IBAA, G.R. 73271, May 29, 1987

Liability of entrustee not extinguished by return of goods to entruster Held: IBAA did not become the real owner of the goods; it was merely the holder of a security title for the advances it had made to the Vintolas. The goods remain the Vintolas own property. The trust receipt arrangement did not convert the IBAA into an investor. The fact that the Vintolas were unable to sell the seashells does not affect IBAA's right to recover the advances made under the Letter of Credit 10. Allied Banking v. Ordoez, G.R. 82495
Trust Receipts Law; law deemed to cover capital goods

Held: TRL applies even to goods not destined for sale or manufacture, and would include items obtained to repair and maintain equipment used in business. 11. Robles v. CA, G.R. 59640, (1991)
Trust Receipts Law; Bipartite transaction deemed covered by law

Held: In deciding WON the delivery trust receipts covered a trial sale transaction or one that fell under the trust receipts law, the SC found that the requisites under Sec 4 were met: 1. Paramount retained ownership of the office equipment covered by the receipts; 2. possession of the goods was subject to a fiduciary obligation to return them within a specified period or to account for the proceeds thereof 12. People v. Nitafan, G.R. 81559-60 Violation of PD 115 is an offense against public order, not property Held: The Trust Receipts Law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods - it does not seek to enforce payment of the loan. Thus, there can be no violation of a right against imprisonment for non-payment of a debt. P.D. 115, like BP 22, punishes the act "not as an offense against property, but as an offense against public order. Thus the law states that a breach of a trust receipt agreement makes one liable for estafa.