23 Guingona Jr. v. City of Fiscal of Manila (& Clement David) G.R. No.

L-60033 | 1984-04-04

TOPIC: Bank deposits are irregular deposits; Bank not liable for estafa for failure to pay deposit

FACTS: David, together with his sister, invested with the Nation Savings and Loan Association (NSLA) the
sum of P1,145,546.20 on forms of time deposits, savings account deposits, dollar time deposit and
receipt and guarantee of payment. When Central Bank (CB) placed NSLA under receivership, David
received a report from the latter that only P305,821.92 of those investments were entered in the
records of NSLA; the petitioners (executive officers of NSLA) misappropriated the balance of the
investments and violated the Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related Central Bank regulations on
foreign exchange transactions. After demands, petitioner Guingona Jr. paid only P200,000.00, which
reduced the misappropriated amount to P959,078.14 and US$75,000.00. David requested a promissory
note to cover the balance of his investments plus interest,which the petitioners executed.

ISSUE: WON the bank is liable for estafa for failure to pay deposits.

HELD: NO. Time and savings deposits with banks is a contract of simple loan and not a contract of
deposit. Article 1980 of the NCC provides that: "Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks
and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan."

They are considered simple loans and, as such, are not preferred credits. 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 loans.
Current and savings deposits are loans to a bank because it can use the same. Hence, the relationship
between the private respondent and the NSLA 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. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it will only give rise to civil liability. In simple
loan (mutuum), as contrasted to commodatum, the borrower acquires ownership of the money, goods
or personal property borrowed. Being the owner, the borrower can dispose of the thing borrowed
(Article 248, Civil Code) and his act will not be considered misappropriation thereof.

Mutuum
One of the parties delivers money or other
consumable thing, upon the condition that the
same amount of the same kind and quality shall be
paid
May be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay
interest
Ownership passes to the borrower
Commadatum
One of the parties delivers to another, either
something not consumable so that the latter may
use the same for a certain time and return it
Essentially gratuitous
Bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned