1. Republic of the Philippines vs.
Jose Bagtas
GR No. L-17474, October 25, 1962
“Liability of Bailee in Contract of Commodatum”
The general rule is that the bailee will not be liable for the loss of the thing through a
fortuitous event. However, article 1942 of the civil code provides for the exceptions, such as: (1)
if the bailee devotes the thing to any purpose different from that for which it has been loaned; (2)
If he keeps the thing longer than the period stipulated or after the accomplishment of the use for
which the commodatum has been constituted; (3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with
appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation exempting the bailee from responsibility in case
of fortuitous event; (4) If he lends or leases the thing to a third person, who is not a part of his
household; and (5) If, being able to save either the thing borrowed or his own thing, he chose to
have the latter.
In this case, Jose Bagtas borrowed three bulls from the Bureau of Animal Industry, and it
has corresponding appraised value. After the expiry of the contract, he tried to keep the bulls in
his custody despite the demand for its return. He was able to return the two bulls while the other
was shot in a Huk raid. Hence, his estate was made liable for the value of the bull which was not
returned.
2. Carolyn Garcia vs. Rica Marie Thio
Gr No. 154878, March 16, 2007
“Perfection of Contract of Mutuum”
In a contract of mutuum the delivery of the thing perfects the contract, it does not require
physical possession of what is lent. It is enough that it is placed under the control or possession of
the debtor.
In this case, a check was issued by petitioner under the name of Santiago and was
delivered to respondent. Upon default in the payment of the principal loan, petitioner filed case
against respondent. In her defense, she said that the checks were never placed at her disposal,
thus, she cannot be held liable for the loan. However, the court said that delivery is the act by
which the res or substance thereof is placed within the actual or constructive possession or
control of another. Although the respondent did not physically receive the proceeds of the checks,
these were placed in her control and possession under an agreement whereby she actually re-lent
the amounts to Santiago.
3. Saura Import and Export vs. Development Bank of the Philippines
GR. No. L-24968, April 27, 1972
“Extinguishment of Contract of Mutuum”
Mutuum contracts are only perfected upon the actual delivery of the object of the
contract. Notwithstanding the fact that all documentary requirements have been signed, mutual
desistance prior delivery of the object, as signified by the acts of the parties, may terminate the
contract.
In this case, Saura Import filed for a loan from the bank. Despite the fact that the loan
documents were already signed, the parties were not able to fully agree as regards the terms of the
contract. Since the plaintiff was not in position to comply with the conditions of the creditor,
asked for the mortgage be cancelled which was done. The court said that the action taken by both
parties was in the nature of mutual desistance, where what Manresa terms “mutuo disensonso”
which is a mode of extinguishing obligations. It is a concept that derives from the principle that
since mutual agreement can create a contract, mutual disagreement by the parties can cause its
extinguishment.
4. People of the Philippines vs. Teresita Puig
GR Nos. 173654-765, August 28, 2008
“Relationship between a bank and its Client”
The nature of the relationship between a bank and its client is that of a debtor and
creditor. The bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients, and the employees
of the bank, who are entrusted with the possession of money of the bank due to the confidence
reposed in them, occupy positions of confidence.
In this case, the bank filed cases of qualified theft against its employees for taking
money from various accounts of its clients. The court ruled that, under articles 1980 and 1953 of
the Civil Code, it is clear that the banks acquire ownership of money deposited by its clients.
Thus, the bank was correct in charging its employees with qualified theft.
5. BPI Family Bank vs. Amado Franco
GR No. 123498, November 23, 2007
“Obligation of Banks to its Clients”
The creditor-debtor relationship that exists between clients and banks is coupled with an
obligation to pay its clients what it owed to them upon demand. Banks do not have a right to
unilaterally freeze the assets of its clients on mere suspicion.
In this case, Franco opened a saving account with BPI and deposited checks that were
issued by Tevesteco. Later on, the bank found out that the signatures on the checks were
forgeries, thus, they place the account of Franco under garnishment. The court ruled that although
the bank owned the money deposited to them, it did not have the right to retain possession of it
when demand was made.
6. Makati Shangri la Hotel vs. Ellen Johanne Harper
Gr No. 189998, August 29, 2012
“Liability of Hotelkeeper”
In this case, the deceased checked-in with the hotel and was murdered inside his room. It
was found out that the murderer was able to trespass into the hotel room of the victim. The heirs
of the deceased files a case against the hotel, in their defense, they said that the death of the
victim is due to his own negligence. The court ruled in favor of the heirs and state that hotel
business is imbued with public interest, thus, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging
for their guests but also security to the persons and its belongings. Therefore, hotels and inns are
bound to apply greater degree of care and responsibility when lives and personal safety of their
guests are involved.
