CASE DIGEST: METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY VS ROSALES

Published by admin on July 3, 2014 | Leave a response

THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, vs
ANA GRACE ROSALES AND YO YUK TO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 183204 January 13, 2014
PONENTE: Del Castillo
FACTS:
Petitioner Metrobank is a domestic banking corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the Philippines. Respondent Rosales is the owner of a
travel
agency while Yo Yuk To is her mother.
In 2000, respondents opened a Joint Peso Account10 with petitioner�s Pritil-
Tondo Branch.
In May 2002, respondent Rosales accompanied her client Liu Chiu Fang, a
Taiwanese National applying for a retiree�s visa from the Philippine Leisure and
Retirement Authority (PLRA), to petitioner�s branch in Escolta to open a savings
account. Since Liu Chiu Fang could speak only in Mandarin, respondent Rosales acted

LAW TECH WORLD

Law, Technology and the World
HOME LAW NOTES + PH ELECTIONS + CASE DIGESTS + TRAVEL GAMES +
TOYS
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/07/metropolitan-bank-and-trust-company-vs-
rosales/ 15/01/2019, 2C14 PM
Page 1 of 6
as an interpreter for her.
On March 3, 2003, respondents opened with petitioner�s Pritil-Tondo Branch a
Joint Dollar Account with an initial deposit of US$14,000.00.
On July 31, 2003, petitioner issued a �Hold Out� order against respondents�
accounts.
On September 3, 2003, petitioner, through its Special Audit Department Head
Antonio Ivan Aguirre, filed before the Office of the Prosecutor of Manila a
criminal case
for Estafa through False Pretences, Misrepresentation, Deceit, and Use of Falsified

Documents.
Respondent Rosales, however, denied taking part in the fraudulent and
unauthorized withdrawal from the dollar account of Liu Chiu Fang.
On December 15, 2003, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila issued a
Resolution dismissing the criminal case for lack of probable cause. On September
10,
2004, respondents filed before the RTC of Manila a complaint for Breach of
Obligation
and Contract with Damages.
ISSUE:
Whether Metrobank breached its contract with respondents.
HELD:
YES. The Court held that Metrobank�s reliance on the �Hold Out� clause in the
Application and Agreement for Deposit Account is misplaced.
Bank deposits, which are in the nature of a simple loan or
mutuum, must be paid upon demand by the depositor.
The �Hold Out� clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation
arising from any of the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 1157 of the
Civil
Code, to wit: law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict. In this
case,
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/07/metropolitan-bank-and-trust-company-vs-
rosales/ 15/01/2019, 2C14 PM
Page 2 of 6
petitioner failed to show that respondents have an obligation to it under any law,
contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict. And although a criminal case was
filed
by petitioner against respondent Rosales, this is not enough reason for petitioner
to
issue a �Hold Out� order as the case is still pending and no final judgment of
conviction
has been rendered against respondent Rosales.
In fact, it is significant to note that at the time petitioner issued the �Hold
Out�
order, the criminal complaint had not yet been filed. Thus, considering that
respondent
Rosales is not liable under any of the five sources of obligation, there was no
legal basis
for petitioner to issue the �Hold Out� order. Accordingly, we agree with the
findings of
the RTC and the CA that the �Hold Out� clause does not apply in the instant case.
In view of the foregoing, the Court found that petitioner is guilty of breach of
contract when it unjustifiably refused to release respondents� deposit despite
demand.
Having breached its contract with respondents, petitioner is liable for damages.
FALLO:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed April 2, 2008
Decision and the May 30, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
89086 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Case Criminal Branches
RELATED ARTICLES:
Case Digest: Fil-Estate Properties vs Spouses Ronquillo
Case Digest: MARCIANO TAN v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL BANK 552 SCRA (2008)
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/07/metropolitan-bank-and-trust-company-vs-
rosales/ 15/01/2019, 2C14 PM
Page 3 of 6
Share this:
Posted in Case Digest
LEAVE A REPLY
Comment
Obligations and Contracts MCQs � Set 1
Case Digest: MEDIAN CONTAINER CORPORATION v. METROPOLITAN
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
Case Digest: NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF SAUDI ARABIA v.
COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION
Case Digest: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DEANG MARKETING
CORPORATION et al.
0
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/07/metropolitan-bank-and-trust-company-vs-
rosales/ 15/01/2019, 2C14 PM
Page 4 of 6
Name * Email *
POST COMMENT
.. PREVIOUS NEXT ..
Website
SEARCH
POPULAR POSTS
Pokemon Revolution: How to Get to Giovanni in Silph Co Maze (26,986)
Pokemon Revolution: Eevee Mission at Game Corner Guide (19,696)
Pokemon Revolution: How to Get HM01 � Cut (13,611)
2014 Case Digest: Arigo v. Swift (12,738)
Pokemon Revolution: How to Get to Articuno in Seafoam Island (12,107)
Be the first of your friends to like this
Law Tech World
575 likes
Like Page
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/07/metropolitan-bank-and-trust-company-vs-
rosales/ 15/01/2019, 2C14 PM
Page 5 of 6
Privacy Policy
2017 Case Digest: Estipona v. Lobrigo and People (10,236)
2015 Case Digest: Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (10,042)
2014 Case Digest: Sameer Overseas Placement Agency� (7,834)
2015 Case Digest: Kalaw v. Fernandez (MR) (7,537)
Pokemon Revolution: SS Anne Ticket and Bill�s� (7,296)
This work by Law Tech World is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.
Copyright � 2019 Law Tech World.
Powered by WordPress and Live Wire.
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/07/metropolitan-bank-and-trust-company-vs-
rosales/ 15/01/2019, 2C14 PM
Page 6 of 6