TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., ANTONIO I. MARTIN, and TERESITA SANTOS, Petitioners, v.

THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA,

HON. JOSE B. FLAMINIANO, ASST. CITY FISCAL FELIZARDO N. LOTA and CLEMENT DAVID, Respondents.
David invested several deposits with the Nation Savings and Loan Association [NSLA]. He said that he was induced into making said
investments by an Australian national who was a close associate of the petitioners [NSLA officials]. On March 1981, NSLA was placed
under receivershipby the Central Bank, so David filed claims for his and his sisters investments.
Guingona and Martin, upon Davids request, assumed the banks obligation to David by executing a joint promissory note.
David received a report that only a portion of his investments was entered in the NSLA records.
David charged petitioners with estafa and violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related regulations on foreign exchange
transactions.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the charges against them for lack of jurisdiction because David's claims allegedly comprised a
purely civil obligation, but the motion was denied. After the presentation of David's principal witness, petitioners filed this petition for
prohibition and injunction because:
Guingona: the transactions between David and NSLA were simple loans (civil obligations which were novated when Guingona and
Martin assumed them)
A TRO was issued ordering the respondents to refrain from proceeding with the preliminary investigation in I.S. No. 81-31938.
Held: It must be pointed out that when private respondent David invested his money on nine. and savings deposits with the aforesaid bank,
the contract that was perfected was a contract of simple loan or mutuum and not a contract of deposit. Thus, Article 1980 provides that:.
Fixed, savings, and current deposits of-money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan.
In the case of Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Morfe, Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions are
that true deposits. are considered simple loans and, as such, are not preferred credits
In Serrano vs. Central Bank of the Philippines ruled that Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits. They are really 'loans because
they earn interest. All kinds of bank deposits, whether fixed, savings, or current are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the law
on. Current and saving deposits, are loans to a bank because it can use the same.
Hence, the relationship between the private respondent and the Nation Savings and Loan Association is that of creditor and debtor;
consequently, the ownership of the amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank upon the perfection of the contract and it can make use of
the amount deposited for its banking operations, such as to pay interests on deposits and to pay withdrawals. While the Bank has the
obligation to return the amount deposited, it has, however, no obligation to return or deliver the same money that was deposited. And,
the failure of the Bank to return the amount deposited will not constitute estafa through misappropriation punishable under Article
315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it will only give rise to civil liability over which the public respondents have nojurisdiction.