BPI vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court GR# L-66826, August 19, 1988

Facts:

Rizaldy T. Zshornack and his wife maintained in COMTRUST a dollar savings

accountand 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 PPLICtion, Garcia indicated that the amount was to be charged to
the dolar 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.

2. TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES INC. VS. FILIPINO MECHANTS 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 the parking slot and its key is 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 insurer, herein
respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance Company Inc. 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 the petitioner’s liability in case of loss, she hereby waived her rights.

Issue: WON petitioner Triple V Food Services Inc. is liable for the loss

Held: The SC 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.

4. CA Agro-Industrial vs CA and Security Bank and Trust Company

G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993, 219 SCRA 426
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. No. 156940 December 14, 2004ASSOCIATED BANK (Now WESTMONT BANK)
vs.
TANFACTS:
Respondent Tan is a businessman and a regular depositor-creditor of the petitioner,
Associated Bank. Sometime in September 1990, he deposited a postdated check with
the petitioner in the amount of P101,000 issued to him by a certain Willy Cheng from
Tarlac. The check was duly entered in his bank record. Allegedly, upon advice and
instruction of petitioner that theP101,000 check was already cleared and backed up by
sufficient funds, respondent, on the same date, withdrew the sum of P240,000 from his
account leaving a balance of P57,793.45. A day after, TAN deposited the amount of
P50,000 making his existing balance in the amount of P107,793.45, because
he has issued several checks to his business partners. However, his
suppliers and business partners went back to him alleging that the checks he
issued bounced for insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, respondent informed
petitioner to take positive steps regarding the matter for he has adequate
and sufficient funds to pay the amount of the subject checks. Nonetheless,
petitioner did not bother nor offer any apology regarding the incident. Respondent Tan
filed a Complaint for Damages on December 19, 1990, with the RTC against
petitioner. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent and ordered
petitioner to pay damages and attorney’s fees. Appellate court affirmed the lower
court’s decision. CA ruled that the bank should not have authorized the
withdrawal of the value of the deposited check prior to its clearing. Petitioner
filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner has the right to debit the amount of the dishonored check from the
account of respondent on the ground that the check was withdrawn by respondent prior
to its clearing
HELD:
The Petition has no merit.
The real issue here is not so much the right of petitioner to debit
respondent’s account but, rather, the manner in which it exercised such
right. Banks are granted by law the right to debit the value of a dishonored
check from a depositor’s account but they must do so with the highest degree of care,
so as not to prejudice the depositor unduly. The degree of diligence required of banks is
more than that of a good father of a family where the fiduciary nature of their
relationship with their depositors is concerned.

In this case, petitioner did not treat respondent’s account with the highest degree of
care. Respondent withdrew his money upon the advice of petitioner that his money was
already cleared. It is petitioner’s premature authorization of the withdrawal
that caused the respondent’s account balance to fall to insufficient levels, and
the subsequent dishonor of his own checks for lack of funds
YHT Realty Corp, et al vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 126780. February 17, 2005

Facts: MAURICE McLaughlin is an Australian national who comes to the Philippines for business.
During his trips he stays in Tropicana Copacobana, a hotel recommended to him by Brunhilda
Tan. McLaughlin deposited cash (American and Australian dollars) and jewelry to the safety
deposit box of the Hotel. The safety deposit box cannot be opened unless the key of the guest
and that of the management are present. Lainez and Payam are employees of Tropicana who is
charged with the custody of the keys. Thereafter, McLaughlin found out that some of the
money and jewelry he deposited were missing. Lainez and Payam admitted that they assisted
Tan to open his deposit box. Tan admitted that she stole McLaughlin’s keys. Tan executed a
promissory note to cover the amount of the stolen money and jewelry. McLaughlin wanted to
make the management liable.

Issue: Whether or not a hotel may evade liability for the loss of items left with it for safekeeping
by its guests, by having these guests execute written waivers holding the establishment or its
employees free from blame for such loss in light of Article 2003 of the Civil Code which voids
such waivers.

Held: The issue of whether the ―Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box‖ executed by
McLoughlin is tainted with nullity presents a legal question appropriate for resolution in this
petition. Notably, both the trial court and the appellate court found the same to be null and
void. We find no reason to reverse their common conclusion. Article 2003 is controlling, thus:
Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper 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[37] is suppressed or diminished shall be void. 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 carrier’s 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.

Under the law, the hotel-keeper 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. (Art. 2003, NCC).Article 2003 was
incorporated in the New Civil Code as an expression of public policy precisely. The hotel
business like the common carrier’s business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the
public, hotel-keepers 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. (YHT Realty Corp. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 126780, February 17,
2005).

MANUEL M. SERRANO, petitioner,

vs.

CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA; EMERITO

M. RAMOS, SUSANA B. RAMOS, EMERITO B. RAMOS, JR., JOSEFA RAMOS
DELA RAMA, HORACIO DELA RAMA, ANTONIO B. RAMOS, FILOMENA RAMOS
LEDESMA, RODOLFO LEDESMA, VICTORIA RAMOS TANJUATCO, and TEOFILO
TANJUATCO, respondents.

February 14, 1980

FACTS

On October 13, 1966 and December 12, 1966, petitioner made a time deposit, for
one year with 6% interest, of P150,000.00 with the respondent Overseas Bank of
Manila. Concepcion Maneja also made a time deposit, for one year with 6-½%
interest, on March 6, 1967, of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with
the same respondent Overseas Bank of Manila. On August 31, 1968, Concepcion
Maneja, married to Felixberto M. Serrano, assigned and conveyed to petitioner
Manuel M. Serrano, her time deposit of P200,000.00 with respondent Overseas
Bank of Manila.

Notwithstanding series of demands for encashment of the aforementioned time

deposits from the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila, dating from December 6,
1967 up to March 4, 1968, not a single one of the time deposit certificates was
honored by respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.
The Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition, with preliminary
injunction, that seeks the establishment of joint and solidary liability to the
amount of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos, with interest, against the
respondents, on the alleged failure of the Overseas Bank of Manila to return the
time deposits made by petitioner. The petition was dismissed because of lack of
merit.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner had the right to intervene and file a case against
Central Bank of the Philippines and Overseas Bank of Manila and its stockholders
on the alleged failure of the Overseas Bank of Manila to return the time deposits
made by the depositors.

HELD

No. The court did not allow the petitioner to intervene in that case, on the ground
that his claim as depositor of the Overseas Bank of Manila should properly be
ventilated in the Court of First Instance, and if this Court were to allow Serrano to
intervene as depositor in G.R. No. L-29352, thousands of other depositors would
follow and thus cause an avalanche of cases in this Court.

Furthermore, both parties overlooked one fundamental principle in the nature of

bank deposits when the petitioner claimed that there should be created a
constructive trust in his favor when the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila
increased its collaterals in favor of respondent Central Bank for the former's
overdrafts and emergency loans, since these collaterals were acquired by the use
of depositors' money.

Teofisto Guingona, Jr., Antonio Martin, and Teresita Santos vs. The City Fiscal of
Manila, Hon. Jose Flaminiano, Asst. City Fiscal Felizardo Lota and

Facts:
From March 1979 to March 1981, Clement David made several investments with the
National Savings and Loan Association. On March 21, 1981, the bank was placed under
receivership by the Bangko Sentral. Upon David’s request, petitioners Guingona and
Martin issued a joint promissory note, absorbing the obligations of the bank. On July 17,
1981, they divided the indebtedness. David filed a complaint for estafa and violation of
Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related regulations regarding foreign exchange
transactions before the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila. Petitioners filed the herein
petition for prohibition and injunction with a prayer for immediate issuance of restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the public respondents to proceed
with the preliminary investigation on the ground that the petitioners’ obligation is civil in
nature.

Issue:

(1) Whether the contract between NSLA and David is a contract of depositor a contract
of loan, which answer determines whether the City Fiscal has the jurisdiction to file a
case for estafa

(2) Whether there was a violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364

Held:

(1) When private respondent David invested his money on nine. and savings deposits
with the aforesaid bank, the contract that was perfected was a contract of simple loan
or mutuum and not a contract of deposit. Hence, the relationship between the private
respondent and the Nation Savings and Loan Association is that of creditor and debtor;
consequently, the ownership of the amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank upon
the perfection of the contract and it can make use of the amount deposited for its
banking operations, such as to pay interests on deposits and to pay withdrawals. While
the Bank has the obligation to return theamount deposited, it has, however, no
obligation to return or deliver the same money that was deposited. And, the failure of
the Bank to return the amount deposited will not constitute estafa through
misappropriation punishable under Article 315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but
it will only give rise to civil liability over which the public respondents have no jurisdiction.

But even granting that the failure of the bank to pay the time and savings deposits of
private respondent David would constitute a violation of paragraph 1(b) of Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code, nevertheless any incipient criminal liability was deemed
avoided, because when the aforesaid bank was placed under receivership by the
Central Bank, petitioners Guingona and Martin assumed the obligation of the bank to
private respondent David, thereby resulting in the novation of the original contractual
obligation arising from deposit into a contract of loan and converting the original trust
relation between the bank and private respondent David into an ordinary debtor-creditor
relation between the petitioners and private respondent. Consequently, the failure of the
bank or petitioners Guingona and Martin to pay the deposits of private respondent
would not constitute a breach of trust but would merely be a failure to pay the obligation
as a debtor. Moreover, while it is true that novation does not extinguish criminal liability,
it may however, prevent the rise of criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the filing
of the criminal information in court. In the case at bar, there is no dispute that petitioners
Guingona and Martin executed a promissory note on June 17, 1981 assuming the
obligation of the bank to private respondent David; while the criminal complaint for
estafa was filed on December 23, 1981 with the Office of the City Fiscal. Hence, it is
clear that novation occurred long before the filing of the criminal complaint with the
Office of the City Fiscal. Consequently, as aforestated, any incipient criminal liability
would be avoided but there will still be a civil liability on the part of petitioners Guingona
and Martin to pay the assumed obligation.

(2) Petitioner Guingona merely accommodated the request of the Nation Savings and
loan Association in order to clear the bank draft through his dollar account because the
bank did not have a dollar account. Immediately after the bank draft was cleared,
petitioner Guingona authorized Nation Savings and Loan Association to withdraw the
same in order to be utilized by the bank for its operations. It is safe to assume that the
U.S. dollars were converted first into Philippine pesos before they were accepted and
deposited in Nation Savings and Loan Association, because the bank is presumed to
have followed the ordinary course of the business which is to accept deposits in
Philippine currency only, and that the transaction was regular and fair, in the absence of
a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

In conclusion, considering that the liability of the petitioners is purely civil in nature and
that there is no clear showing that they engaged in foreign exchange transactions, We
hold that the public respondents acted without jurisdiction when they investigated the
charges against the petitioners. Consequently, public respondents should be restrained
from further proceeding with the criminal case for to allow the case to continue, even if
the petitioners could have appealed to the Ministry of Justice, would work great injustice
to petitioners and would render meaningless the proper administration of justice.

People v Puig & Porras

Facts
A case of Qualified Theft was filed against the respondents. This was filed by the Iloilo
provincial prosecutor, for the private complainant, Rural Bank of Potoan. It was alleged
in the complaint that Puig was the cashier and Porras was the Bookkeeper in the said
bank, and that they took away money amounting to P15,000 without the consent of the
bank owner, to the prejudice of the bank.
However, the RT' dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of the information ruling that
the real parties in interest are the depositors)clients and not thebank because the bank
does not acquire ownership of the money deposited in it. It also denied the MR.
Issue:
WON the bank was the owner and thus, the real party in interest/
Held & Rationale
Yes. Under Art 1980 of the CC, “fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks
shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loans.
And Art 1953 provides that “a person who receives a loan of money 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. Allegations
in the Information that suchemployees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the
damage andpre%udice of the Bank, without particularly referring to it as owner of the
money deposits, as sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft.