BPI vs IAC

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 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.

Triple-V food services vs Filipino merchants insurance

Nasa NOTEBOOK!!!!!
CA Argo-Industrial Development Corp. vs CA

Facts:

Petitioner and the spouses Ramon and Paula Pugao entered into an agreement whereby the former
purchased from the latter two (2) parcels of land. Among the terms and conditions of the agreement
were that the titles to the lots shall be transferred to the petitioner upon full payment of the purchase
price and that the owner's copies of the certificates of titles thereto, and that title shall be deposited
shall be deposited in a safety deposit box of any bank. Petitioner and the Pugaos then rented Safety
Deposit Box of private respondent Security Bank and Trust Company.

Thereafter, a certain Mrs. Margarita Ramos offered to buy from the petitioner the two (2) lots. Mrs.
Ramos demanded the execution of a deed of sale which necessarily entailed the production of the
certificates of title. In view thereof, Aguirre, accompanied by the Pugaos, then proceeded to the
respondent Bank to open the safety deposit box and get the certificates of title. However, when opened
in the presence of the Bank's representative, the box yielded no such certificates.

Issue:

Is the contractual relation between a commercial bank and another party in a contract of rent of a
safety deposit box with respect to its contents placed by the latter one of bailor and bailee or one of
lessor and lessee?

Held:

The contract for the rent of the safety deposit box is not an ordinary contract of lease as defined in
Article 1643 of the Civil Code. However, We do not fully subscribe to its view that the same is a contract
of deposit that is to be strictly governed by the provisions in the Civil Code on deposit; the contract in
the case at bar is a special kind of deposit. It cannot be characterized as an ordinary contract of lease
under Article 1643 because the full and absolute possession and control of the safety deposit box 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. On the other hand,
the respondent Bank could not likewise open the box without the renter's key. In this case, the said key
had a duplicate which was made so that both renters could have access to the box.
People vs Puig and Porras

Facts:

On 7 November 2005, the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor’s Office filed before Branch 68 of the 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.

That on or about the 1st day of August, 2002, in the Municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [respondents], conspiring,
confederating, and helping one another, with grave abuse of confidence, being the Cashier and
Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge and/or consent of
the management of the Bank and with intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal and carry away the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00), Philippine
Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said bank in the aforesaid amount. The trial court did not
find the existence of probable cause that would have necessitated the issuance of a warrant of arrest

Following Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the RTC dismissed the
cases on 30 January 2006 and refused to issue a warrant of arrest against Puig and Porras. A motion for
reconsideration was filed bythe petioner and thereafter dismissed by the RTC. Petitioner went directly
to this Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT Banks deposits is considered as loans

Held:

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.

Petitioner also insists that the Informations sufficiently allege all the elements of the crime of
qualified theft, citing that a perusal of the Informations will show that they specifically allege that the
respondents were the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., respectively, and that
they took various amounts of money with grave abuse of confidence, and without the knowledge and
consent of the bank, to the damage and prejudice of the bank.

Parenthetically, respondents raise procedural issues. They challenge the petition on the ground
that a Petition for Review on Certiorari via Rule 45 is the wrong mode of appeal because a finding of
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest presupposes evaluation of facts and
circumstances, which is not proper under said Rule.

Petitioner motion for review was granted.

Serrano vs Central Bank

Facts:

On October 13, 1966 and December 12, 1966, petitioner made a time deposit, for one year with
6% interest, of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (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.

Petitioner denies the allegation that the Central Bank has the duty to exercise a most rigid and
stringent supervision of banks, implying that respondent Central Bank has to watch every move or
activity of all banks, including respondent Overseas Bank of Manila. Respondent central bank contends
that they only have limited degree of banking operations since the Monetary Board decided in its
Resolution No. 322, dated March 12, 1965, to prohibit the Overseas Bank of Manila from making new
loans and investments in view of its chronic reserve deficiencies against its deposit liabilities

Respondent Central Bank avers no knowledge of petitioner's claim that the properties given by
respondent Overseas Bank of Manila as additional collaterals to respondent Central Bank of the
Philippines for the former's overdrafts and emergency loans were acquired through the use of
depositors' money, including that of the petitioner and Concepcion Maneja
Issue: whether or not the Central Bank jointly and severally liable with respondent Overseas Bank of
Manila to the petitioner for the P350,000 time deposit made with the latter bank, with all interests due
therein.

Held: By the very nature of the claims and causes of action against respondents, they in reality are
recovery of time deposits plus interest from respondent Overseas Bank of Manila, and recovery of
damages against respondent Central Bank for its alleged failure to strictly supervise the acts of the other
respondent Bank and protect the interests of its depositors by virtue of the constructive trust created
when respondent Central Bank required the other respondent to increase its collaterals for its
overdrafts said emergency loans, said collaterals allegedly acquired through the use of depositors
money. These claims shoud be ventilated in the Court of First Instance of proper jurisdiction as We
already pointed out when this Court denied petitioner's motion to intervene in G.R. No. L-29352. Claims
of these nature are not proper in actions for mandamus and prohibition as there is no shown clear
abuse of discretion by the Central Bank in its exercise of supervision over the other respondent Overseas
Bank of Manila, and if there was, petitioner here is not the proper party to raise that question, but
rather the Overseas Bank of Manila, as it did in G.R. No. L-29352. Neither is there anything to prohibit in
this case, since the questioned acts of the respondent Central Bank (the acts of dissolving and liquidating
the Overseas Bank of Manila), which petitioner here intends to use as his basis for claims of damages
against respondent Central Bank, had been accomplished a long time ago.

Overseas Bank of Manila vs CA

Facts: On July 20, 1967, private respondent opened a one-year time deposit with petitioner bank in the
amount of P80,000.00 to mature on July 20, 1968 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However,
due to its distressed financial condition, petitioner was unable to pay Cordero his said time deposit
together with the interest. To enforce payment, Cordero instituted an action in the Court of First
Instance of Manila.

Petitioner, in its answer, raised as special defense the finding by the Monetary Board of its state of
insolvency. It cited the Resolution of August 1, 1968 of the Monetary Board which authorized
petitioner's board of directors to suspend all its operations, and the Resolution of August 13, 1968 of the
same Board, ordering the Superintendent of Banks to take over the assets of petitioner for purposes of
liquidation.
 Petitioner contended that although the Resolution of August 13, 1968 was then pending review
before the SC, it effectively barred or abated the action of respondent for even if judgment be ultimately
rendered in favor of Cordero, satisfaction thereof would not be possible in view of the restriction
imposed by the Monetary Board, prohibiting petitioner from issuing manager's and cashier's checks and
the provisions of Section 85 of Rep. Act 337, otherwise known as the General Banking Act, forbidding its
directors and officers from making any payment out of its funds after the bank had become insolvent. It
was further claimed that a judgment in favor of respondent would create a preference in favor of a
particular creditor to the prejudice of other creditors and/or depositors of petitioner bank.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and was denied by the lower court not satisfied he again bring
the merit of the case in the CA and CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Issue: whether or not interest on his time deposit during the period that petitioner was closed

Held:

Held: It is a matter of common knowledge which we take judicial notice of, that what enables a bank to
pay stipulated interest on money deposited with it is that thru the other aspects of its operation, it is
able to generate funds to cover the payment of such interest. Unless a bank can lend money, engage in
international transactions, acquire foreclosed mortgaged properties or their proceeds and generally
engage in other banking and financing activities, from which it can derive income, it is inconceivable
how it can carry on as a depository obligated to pay stipulated interest. ... Consequently, it should be
deemed read into every contract of deposit with a bank that the obligation to pay interest on the
deposit ceases the moment the operation of the bank is completely suspended by the duly constituted
authority, the Central Bank.

We consider it of trivial consequence that the stoppage of the bank's operations by the Central
Bank has been subsequently declared illegal by the Supreme Court, for before the Court's order, the
bank had no alternative under the law than to obey the orders of the Central Bank. Whatever be the
juridical significance of the subsequent action of the Supreme Court, the stubborn fact remained that
the petitioner was totally crippled from then on from earning the income needed to meet its obligations
to its depositors. If such a situation cannot, strictly speaking be legally denominated as "force majeure"
as maintained by private respondent, We hold it is a matter of simple equity that it be treated as such.
YHT Realty vs 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 McLouglin’s 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 hotel’s Undertaking is valid?

Held:

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.

• 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 guest’s 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.