Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (now BPI) thing (in this case, the credit due from a third person) by the debtor to the
Assignment of Credits, NCC 1624-1635|Brion creditor is accepted as the equivalent of the performance of the obligation.
4. The terms of the compromise judgment between them did not convey an intent
● By way of settlement approved by the RTC, the Spouses Serfino and Spouses to equate the assignment of Magdalena’s retirement benefits (the credit) as the
Cortez executed a compromise agreement where spouses Cortez, acknowledged equivalent of the payment of the debt due the spouses Serfino (the obligation).
their debt 108K eventually reduced to P155K with the promise that they would 5. There was no assignment of credit as the compromise judgment merely
pay in full the judgment debt. identified the fund from which payment for the judgment debt would be
● To satisfy their debt, Magdalena Cortez bound herself to pay the debt in full out sourced.
of her retirement benefits from the GSIS. 6. That the compromise agreement authorizes recourse in case of default on other
● In case of default, the debt maybe executed against any of their properties. executable properties of the spouses Cortez, to satisfy the judgment debt, shows
● No payment was made on agreed date, and Godfrey Serfino discovered that that there was no assignment of Magdalena’s credit with the GSIS that would
Magdalena deposited her retirement benefits in the FEBTC savings account of have extinguished the obligation.
her daughter in law, Grace Cortez. 7. The Bank is also not liable for damages as there is no law or legal right abused by
● That same day, spouses Serfino’s counsel sent 2 letters to FEBTC informing them it. Absent a law or a legal ruling of the Court, it has no option but to uphold the
that the deposit in Grace’s name was owned by the spouses by virtue of an existing policy that recognizes the fiduciary nature of banking.
assignment made in their favor by the spouses Cortez. 8. It likewise rejects the adoption of a judicially-imposed rule giving third parties
● They asked that the bank to prevent the delivery of the said amount to either with unverified claims against the deposit of another a better right over the
Grace or the spouses Cortez until its actual ownership has been resolved in court. deposit.
● An action to recover the money on deposit and payment for damages was filed 9. As current laws provide, the bank’s contractual relations are with its depositor,
by Serfino, with a prayer for preliminary attachment, but the next day, Grace not with the third party. In the absence of any positive duty of the bank to an
withdrew P150K from her account. adverse claimant, there could be no breach that entitles the latter to moral
● RTC ruled that the spouses Cortez and Grace liable for fraudulently diverting the damages.
amount due, but absolved FEBTC from any liability, declaring that the bank was
not party to the compromise judgement.
● The spouses Serfino, on the grounds of the virtue of the assignment of credit,
claim ownership of the deposit, and that FEBTC was duty bound to protect their
right by preventing the withdrawal of the deposit since the bank had been
notified of the assignment and of their claim.