BPI vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court GR# L-66826, August 19, insurer, herein respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc.
1988
Facts: Rizaldy T. Zshornack and his wife maintained in COMTRUST a
dollar savings account and a peso current account. An application for a
dollar drat was accomplished by Virgillo Garcia branch manager of
COMTRUST payable to a certain Leovigilda Dizon. In the application,
Garcia indicated that the amount was to be charged to the dollar savings
account of the Zshornacks. There wasa no indication of the name of the
purchaser of the dollar draft. Comtrust issued a check payable to the
order of Dizon. When Zshornack noticed the withdrawal from his account,
he demanded an explainaiton from the bank. In its answer, Comtrust
claimed that the peso value of the withdrawal was given to Atty. Ernesto
Zshornack, brother of Rizaldy. When he encashed with COMTRUST a
cashiers check for P8450 issued by the manila banking corporation
payable to Ernesto.
Issue: Whether the contract between petitioner and respondent bank is a
deposit?
Held: The document which embodies the contract states that the
US$3,000.00 was received by the bank for safekeeping. The subsequent
acts of the parties also show that the intent of the parties was really for
the bank to safely keep the dollars and to return it to Zshornack at a later
time. Thus, Zshornack demanded the return of the money on May 10,
1976, or over five months later.
The above arrangement is that contract defined under Article 1962, New
Civil Code, which reads:
Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a
thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and of
returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the
principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other
contract.
TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES INC. vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS
INSURANCE
COMPANY, GR. No. 160554, February 21, 2005
FACTS: Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant.
De Asis was using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 issued by
her employer Crispa Textile Inc.. On said date, De Asis availed of the valet
parking service of petitioner and entrusted her car key to petitioner's
valet counter. Afterwards, a certain Madridano, valet attendant, noticed
that the car was not in its parking slot and its key no longer in the box
where valet attendants usually keep the keys of cars entrusted to them.
The car was never recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its
Having indemnified Crispa for the loss of the subject vehicle, FMICI, as
subrogee to Crispa's rights, filed
with the RTC at Makati City an action for damages against petitioner
Triple-V Food Services, Inc. Petitioner claimed that the complaint failed to
adduce facts to support the allegations of recklessness and negligence
committed in the safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle. Besides,
when De Asis availed the free parking stab which contained a waiver of
petitioners liability in case of loss, she had thereby waived her rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc. is liable for
the loss.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. In a contract of
deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with the
obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same. A deposit may be
constituted even without any consideration. It is not necessary that the
depositary receives a fee before it becomes obligated to keep the item
entrusted for safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor. Petitioner
cannot evade liability by arguing that neither a contract of deposit nor
that of insurance, guaranty or surety for the loss of the car was
constituted when De Asis availed of its free valet parking service.
CA Agro-Industrial vs CA, G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993
Facts
Petitioner (through its President) purchased 2 parcels of land from
spouses Pugao for P350 K with a downpayment of P75 K.
Per agreement, the land titles will be transferred upon full payment
and will be placed in a safety deposit box (SBDB) of any bank.
Moreover, the same could be withdrawn only upon the joint signatures
of a representative of the Petitioner and the Pugaos upon full payment
of the purchase price.
Thereafter, Petitioner and spouses placed the titles in SDB of
Respondent Security Bank and signed a lease contract which
substantially states that the Bank will not assume liability for the
contents of the SDB.
Subsequently, 2 renter's keys were given to the renters one to the
Petitioner and the other to the Pugaos. A guard key remained in the
 possession of the Respondent Bank. The SDB can only be opened
using these 2 keys simultaneously.
Afterwards, a certain Mrs. Ramos offered to buy from the Petitioner
the 2 lots that would yield a profit of P285K.
Mrs. Ramos demanded the execution of a deed of sale which
necessarily entailed the production of the certificates of title. Thus,
Petitioner with the spouses went to Respondent Bank to retrieve the
titles.
However, when opened in the presence of the Bank's representative,
the SDB yielded no such certificates.
Because of the delay in the reconstitution of the title, Mrs. Ramos
withdrew her earlier offer to purchase the lots; as a consequence, the
Petitioner allegedly failed to realize the expected profit of P285K.
Hence, Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against Respondent
Bank.
Lower courts ruled in favour of Respondent Bank. Thus, this petition.
Issues:
1 Whether or not the disputed contract is an ordinary contract of lease?
2 Whether or not the provisions of the cited contract are valid?
3 Whether or not Respondent Bank is liable for damages?
Ruling:
1 No. SC ruled that it is a special kind of deposit because:
the full and absolute possession and control of the SDB was not
given to the joint renters the Petitioner and the Pugaos.
The guard key of the box remained with the Respondent Bank;
without this key, neither of the renters could open the box and vice
versa.
In this case, the said key had a duplicate which was made so that
both renters could have access to the box.
Moreover, the renting out of the SDBs is not independent from, but
related to or in conjunction with, the principal function of a contract
of deposit the receiving in custody of funds, documents and other
valuable objects for safekeeping.
2 NO. SC opined that it is void.
Generally, the Civil Code provides that the depositary
(Respondent Bank) would be liable if, in performing its obligation,
it is found guilty of fraud, negligence, delay or contravention of
the tenor of the agreement.
In the absence of any stipulation, the diligence of a good father of
a family is to be observed.
Hence, any stipulation exempting the depositary from any liability
arising from the loss of the thing deposited on account of fraud,
negligence or delay would be void for being contrary to law and
public policy (which is present in the disputed contract)
Said provisions are inconsistent with the Respondent Bank's
responsibility as a depositary under Section 72(a) of the General
Banking Act.
3 NO. SC ruled that:
no competent proof was presented to show that Respondent Bank
was aware of the private agreement between the Petitioner and
the Pugaos that the Land titles were withdrawable from the SDB
only upon both parties' joint signatures,
and that no evidence was submitted to reveal that the loss of the
certificates of title was due to the fraud or negligence of the
Respondent Bank.
G.R. Nos. 173654-765 August 28, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO
PORRAS
Facts: On 7 November 2005, the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office filed
before RTC in Dumangas, Iloilo, 112 cases of Qualified Theft against
respondents Teresita Puig (Puig) and Romeo Porras (Porras) who were the
Cashier and Bookkeeper, respectively, of private complainant Rural Bank
of Pototan, Inc. It was alleged in the information that Teresita Puig and
Romeo Porras took away P15,000 without the consent of the owner Bank
to the prejudice and damage of the bank. The RTC dismissed the case for
insufficiency of the information ruling that the real parties in interest are
the depositors-clients and not the bank because the bank does not
acquire ownership of the money deposited in it. Hence petitioner Rural
Bank went directly to the court via petition for certiorari. Petitioner
explains that under Article 1980 of the New Civil Code, "fixed, savings,
and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be
governed by the provisions concerning simple loans." Corollary thereto,
Article 1953 of the same Code provides that "a person who receives a
loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof,
and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and
quality." Thus, it posits that the depositors who place their money with the
bank are considered creditors of the bank. The bank acquires ownership
of the money deposited by its clients, making the money taken by
respondents as belonging to the bank.
Issue: Whether or not the Bank acquired ownership of the money
deposited in it to be able to hold the respondents liable for qualified theft
which requires that there must be taking of the money without the
consent of the owners.
Held: The petition is meritorious. Banks where monies are deposited, are
considered the owners thereof. This is very clear not only from the
express provisions of the law, but from established jurisprudence. The
relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of
creditor and debtor. Articles 1953 and 1980 of the New Civil Code, as
appropriately pointed out by petitioner, provide as follows:
Article 1953.A person who receives a loan of money or
any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof,
and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the
same kind and quality.
Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of
money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed
by the provisions concerning loan.
In a long line of cases involving Qualified Theft, the Court has
firmly established the nature of possession by the Bank of the money
deposits therein, and the duties being performed by its employees who
have custody of the money or have come into possession of it. The Court
has consistently considered the allegations in the Information that such
employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage and
prejudice of the Bank, without particularly referring to it as owner of the
money deposits, as sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft. In
summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its
clients; and the employees of the Bank, who are entrusted with the
possession of money of the Bank due to the confidence reposed in them,
occupy positions of confidence. The Informations, therefore, sufficiently
allege all the essential elements constituting the crime of Qualified Theft.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on
Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated 30 January 2006 and 9
June 2006 of the RTC dismissing Criminal cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SERRANO vs CENTRAL BANK
Facts: Serrano had P350K worth of time deposits in Overseas
Bank of Manila. He made a series of encashment but was not successful.
He filed a case against Overseas Bank & he also included the Central
Bank so that the latter may also be jointly and severally liable. Serrano
argued that the CB failed to supervise the acts of Overseas Bank and
protect the interests of its depositors by virtue of constructive trust.
Issue: W/N the Central Bank is liable?
Ruling: No. There is no breach of trust from a banks failure to
return the subject matter of the deposit. Bank deposits are in the nature
of irregular deposits. All kinds of bank deposits are to be treated as loans
and are to be covered by the law on loans Art.1980. In reality the
depositor is the creditor while the bank is the debtor. Failure of the
respondent bank to honor the time deposit is failure to pay its obligation
as a debtor.
YHT REALTY CORPORATION VS. CA, GR. No. 126780, February 17,
2005
FACTS: Maurice Mcloughlin is an Australian philanthropist, businessman,
and a tourist. In his various trips from Australia going to different
countries, one of which is the Philippines, he would stay in Tropicana Inn
which is owned by YHT Realty Corp. After series of transactions with the
inn as depositary of his belongings, he noticed that his money and several
jewelries would be either reduced or lost. He then decided to file an action
against Tropicana and its innkeepers. However, the latter argued that they
have no liability with regard to the loss by virtue of the undertaking
signed by Mcloughlin. Such undertaking is a waiver of the inns liability in
case of any loss. The RTC and CA both decided that such undertaking is
null and void as contrary to
the express provisions of the law. Hence, the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject undertaking is null and void
HELD: The court ruled in the affirmative. Art. 2003 of the Civil Code
provides that, the hotelkeeper cannot free himself from responsibility by
posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought
by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest
whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles 1998 to
2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void.
YHT Realty v. CA
FACTS:
Respondent McLoughlin would stay at Tropicana Hotel every time
he is here in the Philippines and would rent a safety deposit box.
 The safety deposit box could only be opened through the use of 2
keys, one of which is given to the registered guest, and the other
remaining in the possession of the management of the hotel.
McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box
2 envelopes containing US Dollars, one envelope containing
Australian Dollars, Letters, credit cards, bankbooks and a
checkbook.
When he went abroad, a few dollars were missing and the jewelry
he bought was likewise missing.
Eventually, he confronted Lainez and Paiyam who admitted that
Tan opened the safety deposit box with the key assigned to him.
McLoughlin went up to his room where Tan was staying and
confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen McLouglins key
and was able to open the safety deposit box with the assistance of
Lopez, Paiyam and Lainez. Lopez alsto told McLoughlin that Tan
stole the key assigned to McLouglin while the latter was asleep.
McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume
responsibility for the loss he suffered.
Lopez refused to accept responsibility relying on the conditions for
renting the safety deposit box entitled Undertaking For the Use
of Safety Deposit Box
ISSUE: Whether the hotels Undertaking is valid?
HELD: NO
Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an
expression of public policy precisely to apply to situations such as
that presented in this case. The hotel business like the common
carriers business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the
public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for
hotel guests and security to their persons and belongings. The
twin duty constitutes the essence of the business. The law in turn
does not allow such duty to the public to be negated or diluted by
any contrary stipulation in so-called undertakings that ordinarily
appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for
their signature.
In an early case (De Los Santos v. Tan Khey), CA ruled that to hold
hotelkeepers or innkeeper liable for the effects of their guests, it is
not necessary that they be actually delivered to the innkeepers or
their employees. It is enough that such effects are within the hotel
or inn. With greater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper
be enforced when the missing items are taken without the guests
knowledge and consent from a safety deposit box provided by the
hotel itself, as in this case.
Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the undertaking manifestly
contravene Article 2003, CC for they allow Tropicana to be
released from liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or
use of the safety deposit box for any cause whatsoever. Evidently,
the undertaking was intended to bar any claim against Tropicana
for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or
not negligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees.