BPI vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court GR# L-66826, August 19, 1988

CORTES, J:

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.

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

232 SCRA302
G.R. NO. 104612

MAY 10, 1994

FACTS: Private respondents Eastern Plywood Corporation and Benigno Lim as officer of the corporation,
had an “AND/OR” joint account with Commercial Bank and Trust Co (CBTC), the predecessor-in-interest
of petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands. Lim withdraw funds from such account and used it to open a
joint checking account (an “AND” account) with Mariano Velasco. When Velasco died in 1977, said joint
checking account had P662,522.87. By virtue of an Indemnity Undertaking executed by Lim and as
President and General Manager of Eastern withdrew one half of this amount and deposited it to one of
the accounts of Eastern with CBTC.

Eastern obtained a loan of P73,000.00 from CBTC which was not secured. However, Eastern and CBTC
executed a Holdout Agreement providing that the loan was secured by the “Holdout of the C/A No.
2310-001-42” referring to the joint checking account of Velasco and Lim.

Meanwhile, a judicial settlement of the estate of Velasco ordered the withdrawal of the balance of the
account of Velasco and Lim.

Asserting that the Holdout Agreement provides for the security of the loan obtained by Eastern and that
it is the duty of CBTC to debit the account of respondents to set off the amount of P73,000 covered by
the promissory note, BPI filed the instant petition for recovery. Private respondents Eastern and Lim,
however, assert that the amount deposited in the joint account of Velasco and Lim came from Eastern
and therefore rightfully belong to Eastern and/or Lim. Since the Holdout Agreement covers the loan of
P73,000, then petitioner can only hold that amount against the joint checking account and must return
the rest.

ISSUE: Whether BPI can demand the payment of the loan despite the existence of the Holdout
Agreement and whether BPI is still liable to the private respondents on the account subject of the
withdrawal by the heirs of Velasco.

RULING: Yes, for both issues. Regarding the first, the Holdout Agreement conferred on CBTC the power,
not the duty, to set off the loan from the account subject of the Agreement. When BPI demanded
payment of the loan from Eastern, it exercised its right to collect payment based on the promissory note,
and disregarded its option under the Holdout Agreement. Therefore, its demand was in the correct
order.

Regarding the second issue, BPI was the debtor and Eastern was the creditor with respect to the joint
checking account. Therefore, BPI was obliged to return the amount of the said account only to the
creditor. When it allowed the withdrawal of the balance of the account by the heirs of Velasco, it made
the payment to the wrong party. The law provides that payment made by the debtor to the wrong party
does not extinguish its obligation to the creditor who is without fault or negligence. Therefore, BPI was
still liable to the true creditor, Eastern.

MANUEL M. SERRANO, petitioner,

vs.

CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA; EMERITO M. RAMOS, SUSANA B.
RAMOS, EMERITO B. RAMOS, JR., JOSEFA RAMOS DELA RAMA, HORACIO DELA RAMA, ANTONIO B.
RAMOS, FILOMENA RAMOS LEDESMA, RODOLFO LEDESMA, VICTORIA RAMOS TANJUATCO, and TEOFILO
TANJUATCO, respondents.

February 14, 1980

FACTS

On October 13, 1966 and December 12, 1966, petitioner made a time deposit, for one year with 6%
interest, of 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.

The Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, that seeks the
establishment of joint and solidary liability to the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos, with
interest, against the respondents, on the alleged failure of the Overseas Bank of Manila to return the
time deposits made by petitioner. The petition was dismissed because of lack of merit.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner had the right to intervene and file a case against Central Bank of the
Philippines and Overseas Bank of Manila and its stockholders on the alleged failure of the Overseas Bank
of Manila to return the time deposits made by the depositors.

HELD

No. The court did not allow the petitioner to intervene in that case, on the ground that his claim as
depositor of the Overseas Bank of Manila should properly be ventilated in the Court of First Instance,
and if this Court were to allow Serrano to intervene as depositor in G.R. No. L-29352, thousands of other
depositors would follow and thus cause an avalanche of cases in this Court.
Furthermore, both parties overlooked one fundamental principle in the nature of bank deposits when
the petitioner claimed that there should be created a constructive trust in his favor when the respondent
Overseas Bank of Manila increased its collaterals in favor of respondent Central Bank for the former's
overdrafts and emergency loans, since these collaterals were acquired by the use of depositors' money.