BPI vs. Intermediate Appellate Appellate Court GR# L-66826, August !, !88 "ats$ Rizaldy Rizaldy T. Zshornack Zshornack and his wife maintained maintained in COMTRUST COMTRUST a dollar savings account and a eso current account. !n alication for a dolla dollarr drat drat was accom accomlis lished hed "y #irgil #irgillo lo $arcia $arcia "ranch "ranch manage managerr of COMTRUST COMTRUST aya"le aya"le to a certain certain %eovigil %eovigilda da &izon. &izon. 'n the alication( alication( $arcia indicated that the amount was to "e charged to the dollar savings account of the Zshornacks. There wasa no indication of the name of the urchaser of the dollar draft. Comtrust issued a check aya"le to the order of &izon. )hen Zshornack noticed the withdrawal from his account( he demanded an e*laina e*lainaiton iton from the "ank. "ank. 'n its answer( Comtrust claimed that the eso value of the withdrawal was given to !tty. +rnesto Zshornac Zshornack( k( "rother "rother of Rizaldy Rizaldy.. )hen he encashed encashed with COMTRUST COMTRUST a cashiers cashiers check for ,-/0 issued issued "y the manila manila "anking "anking cororation cororation aya"le to +rnesto. Issue$ )hether the contract "etween etitioner and resondent "ank is a deosit1 %eld$ The %eld$ The document which em"odies the contract states that the US23(000.00 was received "y the "ank for safekeeing. The su"se4uent acts of the arties also show that the intent of the arties was really for the "ank to safely kee the dollars and to return it to Zshornack at a later time. Thus( Zshornack demanded the return of the money on May 50( 5678( or over 9ve months later. The a"ove arrangement is that contract de9ned under !rticle 568:( ;ew Civil Code( which reads< !rt. 568:. ! deosit is constituted from the moment a erson receives a thing "elonging to another( with the o"ligation of safely keeing it and of returning the same. 'f the safekeeing of the thing delivered is not the rincial rincial urose urose of the contract( contract( there there is no deosit "ut some other other contract.
insurer( herein resondent @iliino Merchants 'nsurance Comany( 'nc. Aaving indemni9ed Crisa for the loss of the su"Bect vehicle( @M'C'( as su"rogee to Crisa?s rights( 9led with the RTC at Makati City an action for damages against etitioner Trile># Trile># @ood @ood Services( 'nc. ,etitioner ,etitioner claimed that the comlaint failed to adduce facts to suort the allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the safekeeing and custody of the su"Bect vehicle. esides( when &e !sis availed the free arking sta" which contained a waiver of etitionerDs lia"ility in case of loss( she had there"y waived her rights. I++'$ )hether or not etitioner Trile># Trile># @ood Services( 'nc. is lia"le for the loss. %'L*$ The %'L*$ The Sureme Court Court ruled in the aErmative. aErmative. 'n a contract of deosit( a erson receives an o"Bect "elonging to another with the o"ligation of safely keeing it and returning the same. ! deosit may "e constituted even without any consideration. 't is not necessary that the deositary receives a fee "efore it "ecomes o"ligated to kee the item entrusted for safekeeing and to return it later to the deositor. deositor. ,etitioner cannot evade lia"ility "y arguing that neither a contract of deosit nor that of insurance( guaranty or surety for the l oss of the car was constituted when &e !sis availed of its free valet arking service.
CA Agro-Industrial vs CA, G.R. o. !0025 ar 7, !!7
"ats •
•
&RIPL'-( "))* +'R(IC'+ IC. vs. "ILIPI) 'RC%A&+ I+RAC' C)PA/ C)PA/,, GR. o. 6011, "e3ruar4 2, 2001 "AC&+$ Mary =o>!nne &e !sis dined at etitioner?s Kamayan Restaurant . &e !sis was using a Mitsu"ishi $alant Suer Saloon Model 566/ issued "y her emloyer Crisa Te*tile Te*tile 'nc.. On said date( &e !sis availed of the valet arking service of etitioner and entrusted her car key to etitioner?s valet counter. counter. !fterwards( a certain Madridano( valet attendant( noticed that the car was not in its arking slot and its key no longer in the "o* where valet attendants usually kee the keys of cars entrusted to them. The car was never recovered. recovered. Thereafter( Thereafter( Crisa 9led a claim against against its
•
•
,etitioner Fthrough its ,residentG urchased : arcels of land from souses ,ugao for ,3/0 H with a downayment of ,7/ H. ,er agreement( the land titles will "e transferred uon full ayment and will "e laced in a safety deosit "o* FS&G of any "ank. Moreover( the same could "e withdrawn only uon the Boint signatures of a reresentative of the ,etitioner and the ,ugaos uon full ayment of the urchase rice. Thereafter( ,etitioner ,etitioner and souses souses laced the titles in S& of Resondent Resond ent Security ank and signed a lease contract which su"stantially states that the ank will not assume lia"ility for the contents of the S&. Su"se4uently( : renter?s keys were given to the renters I one to the ,etitioner and the other to the ,ugaos. ! guard key remained in the
ossession of the Resondent ank. The S& can only "e oened using these : keys simultaneously.
Moreover( the renting out of the S&s is not indeendent from( "ut related to or in conBunction with( the rincial function of a contract of deosit the receiving in custody of funds( documents and other valua"le o"Bects for safekeeing.
•
!fterwards( a certain Mrs. Ramos oJered to "uy from the ,etitioner the : lots that would yield a ro9t of ,:-/H.
•
: Mrs. Ramos demanded the e*ecution of a deed of sale which necessarily entailed the roduction of the certi9cates of title. Thus( ,etitioner with the souses went to Resondent ank to retrieve the titles.
•
•
Aowever( when oened in the resence of the ank?s reresentative( the S& yielded no such certi9cates.
•
•
ecause of the delay in the reconstitution of the title( Mrs. Ramos withdrew her earlier oJer to urchase the lotsK as a conse4uence( the ,etitioner allegedly failed to realize the e*ected ro9t of ,:-/H.
•
;O. SC oined that it is void.
•
Aence( ,etitioner 9led a comlaint for damages against Resondent ank.
•
•
%ower courts ruled in favour of Resondent ank. Thus( this etition.
•
Issues$ 5
)hether or not the disuted contract is an ordinary contract of lease1
:
)hether or not the rovisions of the cited contract are valid1
3
)hether or not Resondent ank is lia"le for damages1
Ruling$ 5
3
$enerally( the Civil Code rovides that the deositary FResondent ankG would "e lia"le if ( in erforming its o"ligation( it is found guilty of fraud( negligence( delay or contravention of the tenor of the agreement. 'n the a"sence of any stiulation( the diligence of a good father of a family is to "e o"served. Aence( any stiulation e*emting the deositary from any lia"ility arising from the loss of the thing deosited on account of fraud( negligence or delay would "e void for "eing contrary to law and u"lic olicy Fwhich is resent in the disuted contractG Said rovisions are inconsistent with the Resondent ank?s resonsi"ility as a deositary under Section 7:FaG of the $eneral anking !ct.
;O. SC ruled that< •
•
no cometent roof was resented to show that Resondent ank was aware of the rivate agreement "etween the ,etitioner and the ,ugaos that the %and titles were withdrawa"le from the S& only uon "oth arties? Boint signatures( and that no evidence was su"mitted to reveal that the loss of the certi9cates of title was due to the fraud or negligence of the Resondent ank.
;o. SC ruled that it is a secial kind of deosit "ecause< •
•
•
the full and a"solute ossession and control of the S& was not given to the Boint renters I the ,etitioner and the ,ugaos. The guard key of the "o* remained with the Resondent ankK without this key( neither of the renters could oen the "o* and vice versa. 'n this case( the said key had a dulicate which was made so that "oth renters could have access to the "o*.
G.R. os. 5761-561 August 28, 2008 P')PL' )" &%' P%ILIPPI'+ vs. &'R'+I&A PIG and R)') P)RRA+ "ats$ On 7 ;ovem"er :00/( the 'loilo ,rovincial ,rosecutor?s OEce 9led "efore RTC in &umangas( 'loilo( 55: cases of Luali9ed Theft against resondents Teresita ,uig F,uigG and Romeo ,orras F,orrasG who were the Cashier and ookkeeer( resectively( of rivate comlainant Rural ank of ,ototan( 'nc. 't was alleged in the information that Teresita ,uig and Romeo ,orras took away ,5/(000 without the consent of the owner ank to the reBudice and damage of the "ank. The RTC dismissed the case for insuEciency of the information ruling that the real arties i n interest are the deositors>clients and not the "ank "ecause the "ank does not
ac4uire ownershi of the money deosited in it. Aence etitioner Rural ank went directly to the court via etition for certiorari. ,etitioner e*lains that under !rticle 56-0 of the ;ew Civil Code( 9*ed( savings( and current deosits of money in "anks and similar institutions shall "e governed "y the rovisions concerning simle loans. Corollary thereto( !rticle 56/3 of the same Code rovides that a erson who receives a loan of money or any other fungi"le thing ac4uires the ownershi thereof( and is "ound to ay to the creditor an e4ual amount of the same kind and 4uality. Thus( it osits that the deositors who lace their money with the "ank are considered creditors of the "ank. The "ank ac4uires ownershi of the money deosited "y its clients( making the money taken "y resondents as "elonging to the "ank. Issue$ )hether or not the ank ac4uired ownershi of the money deosited in it to "e a"le to hold the resondents lia"le for 4uali9ed theft which re4uires that there must "e taking of the money without the consent of the owners. %eld$ The etition is meritorious. anks where monies are deosited( are considered the owners thereof. This is very clear not only from the e*ress rovisions of the law( "ut from esta"lished Burisrudence. The relationshi "etween "anks and deositors has "een held to "e that of creditor and de"tor. !rticles 56/3 and 56-0 of the ;ew Civil Code( as aroriately ointed out "y etitioner( rovide as follows< !rticle 56/3.! erson who receives a loan of money or any other fungi"le thing ac4uires the ownershi thereof( and is "ound to ay to the creditor an e4ual amount of the same kind and 4uality. !rticle 56-0. @i*ed( savings( and current deosits of money in "anks and similar institutions shall "e governed "y the rovisions concerning loan. 'n a long line of cases involving Luali9ed Theft( the Court has 9rmly esta"lished the nature of ossession "y the ank of the money deosits therein( and the duties "eing erformed "y its emloyees who have custody of the money or have come into ossession of it. The Court has consistently considered the allegations in the 'nformation that such emloyees acted with grave a"use of con9dence( to the damage and reBudice of the ank( without articularly referring to it as owner of the money deosits( as suEcient to make out a case of Luali9ed Theft. 'n summary( the ank ac4uires ownershi of the money deosited "y its clientsK and the emloyees of the ank( who are entrusted with the ossession of money of the ank due to the con9dence reosed in them( occuy ositions of con9dence. The 'nformations( therefore( suEciently allege all the essential elements constituting the crime of Luali9ed Theft. )A+R+@OR+( remises considered( the ,etition for Review on Certiorari is here"y $R!;T+&. The Orders dated 30 =anuary :008 and 6 =une :008 of the RTC dismissing Criminal cases ;o. 0/>30/ to 0/>358/ are R+#+RS+& and S+T !S'&+. •
•
+'RRA) vs C'&RAL BA
"ats$ Serrano had ,3/0H worth of time deosits in Overseas ank of Manila. Ae made a series of encashment "ut was not successful. Ae 9led a case against Overseas ank N he also included the Central ank so that the latter may also "e Bointly and severally lia"le. Serrano argued that the C failed to suervise the acts of Overseas ank and rotect the interests of its deositors "y virtue of constructive trust. Issue$
); the Central ank is lia"le1
Ruling$ ;o. There is no "reach of trust from a "ankDs failure to return the su"Bect matter of the deosit. ank deosits are in the nature of irregular deosits. !ll kinds of "ank deosits are to "e treated as loans and are to "e covered "y the law on loans !rt.56-0. 'n reality the deositor is the creditor while the "ank is the de"tor. @ailure of the resondent "ank to honor the time deosit is failure to ay its o"ligation as a de"tor.
/%& R'AL&/ C)RP)RA&I) (+. CA, GR. o. 26580, "e3ruar4 5, 2001 "AC&+$ Maurice Mcloughlin is an !ustralian hilanthroist( "usinessman( and a tourist. 'n his various tris from !ustralia going to diJerent countries( one of which is the ,hiliines( he would stay in Troicana 'nn which is owned "y PAT Realty Cor. !fter series of transactions with the inn as deositary of his "elongings( he noticed that his money and several Bewelries would "e either reduced or lost. Ae then decided to 9le an action against Troicana and its innkeeers. Aowever( the latter argued that they have no lia"ility with regard to the loss "y virtue of the undertaking signed "y Mcloughlin. Such undertaking is a waiver of the innDs lia"ility in case of any loss. The RTC and C! "oth decided that such undertaking is null and void as contrary to the e*ress rovisions of the law. Aence( the etition. I++'$ )hether or not the su"Bect undertaking is null and void %'L*$ The court ruled in the aErmative. !rt. :003 of the Civil Code rovides that( the hotelkeeer cannot free himself from resonsi"ility "y osting notices to the eJect that he is not lia"le for the articles "rought "y the guest. !ny stiulation "etween the hotel>keeer and the guest where"y the resonsi"ility of the former as set forth in !rticles 566- to :005 is suressed or diminished shall "e void. /%& Realt4 v. CA "AC&+$ •
Resondent Mc%oughlin would stay at Troicana Aotel every time he is here in the ,hiliines and would rent a safety deosit "o*.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The safety deosit "o* could only "e oened through the use of : keys( one of which is given to the registered guest( and the other remaining in the ossession of the management of the hotel. Mc%oughlin allegedly laced the following in his safety deosit "o* Q : enveloes containing US &ollars( one enveloe containing !ustralian &ollars( %etters( credit cards( "ank"ooks and a check"ook. )hen he went a"road( a few dollars were missing and the Bewelry he "ought was likewise missing. +ventually( he confronted %ainez and ,aiyam who admitted that Tan oened the safety deosit "o* wi th the key assigned to him. Mc%oughlin went u to his room where Tan was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen Mc%ouglinDs key and was a"le to oen the safety deosit "o* with the assistance of %oez( ,aiyam and %ainez. %oez alsto told Mc%oughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to Mc%ouglin while the latter was aslee. Mc%oughlin insisted that it must "e the hotel who must assume resonsi"ility for the loss he suJered. %oez refused to accet resonsi"ility relying on the conditions for renting the safety deosit "o* entitled Undertaking @or the Use of Safety &eosit o*
I++'$ )hether the hotelDs Undertaking is valid1 %' L*< ;O
•
•
•
!rticle :003 was incororated in the ;ew Civil Code as an e*ression of u"lic olicy recisely to aly to situations such as that resented in this case. The hotel "usiness like the common carrierDs "usiness is im"ued with u"lic interest. Catering to the u"lic( hotelkeeers are "ound to rovide not only lodging for hotel guests and security to their ersons and "elongings. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the "usiness. The law in turn does not allow such duty to the u"lic to "e negated or diluted "y any contrary stiulation in so>called undertakings that ordinarily aear in reared forms imosed "y hotel keeers on guests for their signature. 'n an early case F&e %os Santos v. Tan HheyG( C! ruled that to hold hotelkeeers or innkeeer lia"le for the eJects of their guests( it i s not necessary that they "e actually delivered to the innkeeers or their emloyees. 't is enough that such eJects are within the hotel or inn. )ith greater reason should the lia"ility of the hotelkeeer "e enforced when the missing items are taken without the guestDs knowledge and consent from a safety deosit "o* rovided "y the hotel itself( as in this case. ,aragrahs F:G and FG of the undertaking manifestly contravene !rticle :003( CC for they allow Troicana to "e released from lia"ility arising from any loss in the contents andor use of the safety deosit "o* for any cause whatsoever. +vidently( the undertaking was intended to "ar any claim against Troicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deosit "o* whether or not negligence was incurred "y Troicana or its emloyees.
