CASE US vs.

Igpuar a (1913)

TOPIC FACTS Effect Igpuara is a sales agent. Some sales if commission to be received from balanc Montillas sugar remained in Igpuaras e of possession. He in turn drew document commi payable on demand, it states: Factoid Credit transactions Case ssion We hold at the disposal of Eugenio retain Veraguth the sum of P2,498, the ed by balance from Juana Montilla's sugar. agent Iloilo, June 26, 1911, Jose Igpuara, for Ramirez and Co. When Viraguth demanded the amount, Igpuara was not able to return it. Thus, he was charged with estafa. Igpuara maintained that the document was a certificate of deposit which can be negotiated and that the amount in his possession is in a form of loan.

Notes

RTC Convicte d Igpuara and ordered him to pay the sum stated in the docume nt

CA

ISSUE WON the instrument is negotiable.

WON the money in Igpuaras possession was in the form of loan.

BPI vs. IAC (1988)

Effect if foreig n curren cy deposi ted is sold

Zshornack entrusted to COMTRUST, thru Garcia, US $3,000.00 cash for safekeeping, and that the agreement was embodied in a document, a copy of which was attached to and made part of the complaint. It was evidenced by a document stating: We acknowledged (sic) having received from you today the sum of US DOLLARS:

In favor if Zshorna ck

Modified the RTC decision . Held the bank liable to return the

WON Zshornack has a cause of action to recover the dollar deposited.

RULING It is erroneous to assert that the certificate of deposit in question is negotiable like any other commercial instrument: First, because every commercial instrument is not negotiable; and second, because only instruments payable to order are negotiable. Hence, this instrument not being to order but to bearer, it is not negotiable. It is also erroneous to assert that sum of money set forth in said certificate is, according to it, in the defendant's possession as a loan. In a loan the lender transmits to the borrower the use of the thing lent, while in a deposit the use of the thing is not transmitted, but merely possession for its custody or safekeeping. In order that the depositary may use or dispose of the things deposited, the depositor's consent is required, and then: The rights and obligations of the depositary and of the depositor shall cease, and the rules and provisions applicable to commercial loans, commission, or contract which took the place of the deposit shall be observed. (Art. 309, Code of Commerce.) The defendant has shown no authorization whatsoever or the consent of the depositary for using or disposing of the P2,498, which the certificate acknowledges, or any contract entered into with the depositor to convert the deposit into a loan, commission, or other contract. That demand was not made for restitution of the sum deposited, which could have been claimed on the same or the next day after the certificate was signed, does not operate against the depositor, or signify anything except the intention not to press it. Failure to claim at once or delay for sometime in demanding restitution of the things deposited, which was immediately due, does not imply such permission to use the thing deposited as would convert the deposit into a loan. 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

Credit transactions Case Factoid

Notes