Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Docshare - Tips - Deposit Own Digests PDF
Docshare - Tips - Deposit Own Digests PDF
A. Definition RATIO
• This Court finds no reason to disturb the ruling of both the trial court
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. THE INTERMEDIATE and the Appellate Court on the first cause of action. Petitioner must
APPELLATE COURT and ZSHORNACK be held liable for the unauthorized withdrawal of US$1,000.00 from
G.R. No. L-66826 August 19, 1988 private respondent's dollar account.
• As to the second cause of action: The bank is deemed to have
FACTS admitted not only Garcia's authority, but also the bank's power, to
• Rizaldy Zshornack initiated proceedings by filing in the CFI a enter into the contract in question.
complaint against Commercial Bank and Trust Company of the • The document which embodies the contract states that the
Philippines (COMTRUST) alleging four causes of action. Except for US$3,000.00 was received by the bank for safekeeping. The
the third cause of action, the CFI ruled in favor of Zshornack. The subsequent acts of the parties also show that the intent of the
bank appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court which modified parties was really for the bank to safely keep the dollars and to
the CFI decision absolving the bank from liability on the fourth cause return it to Zshornack at a later time.
of action. • The above arrangement is that contract defined under Article 1962,
• Undaunted, the bank comes to this Court praying that it be totally New Civil Code: a deposit is constituted from the moment a
absolved from any liability to Zshornack. person receives a thing belonging to another, with the
• Rizaldy Zshornack and his wife, Shirley Gorospe, maintained in obligation of safely keeping it and of returning the same. If the
COMTRUST, Quezon City Branch, a dollar savings account and a safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose
peso current account. of the contract, there is no deposit but some other contract.
• An application for a dollar draft was accomplished by Virgilio V. • Note that the object of the contract between Zshornack and
Garcia, Assistant Branch Manager of COMTRUST Quezon City, COMTRUST was foreign exchange. Hence, the transaction was
payable to a certain Leovigilda D. Dizon in the amount of $1,000.00. covered by Central Bank Circular No. 20, Restrictions on Gold and
• Garcia indicated that the amount was to be charged to Dollar Foreign Exchange Transactions.
Savings Acct. No. 25-4109, the savings account of the Zshornacks; • The parties did not intended to sell the US dollars to the Central
the charges for commission, documentary stamp tax and others Bank within one business day from receipt. Otherwise, the contract
totalling P17.46 were to be charged to Current Acct. No. 210465-29, of depositum would never have been entered into at all.
again, the current account of the Zshornacks. • Since the mere safekeeping of the greenbacks, without selling them
• On the same date, COMTRUST, under the signature of Virgilio V. to the Central Bank within one business day from receipt, is a
Garcia, issued a check payable to the order of Leovigilda D. Dizon in transaction which is not authorized by CB Circular No. 20, it must be
the sum of US $1,000 drawn on the Chase Manhattan Bank, New considered as one which falls under the general class of prohibited
York, with an indication that it was to be charged to Dollar Savings transactions. Hence, pursuant to Article 5 of the Civil Code, it is void,
Acct. No. 25-4109. having been executed against the provisions of a
• When Zshornack noticed the withdrawal of US$1,000.00 from his mandatory/prohibitory law. More importantly, it affords neither of the
account, he demanded an explanation from the bank. In answer, parties a cause of action against the other. "When the nullity
COMTRUST claimed that the peso value of the withdrawal was proceeds from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract, and
given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, Jr., brother of Rizaldy when the act constitutes a criminal offense, both parties being in pari
he (Ernesto) encashed with COMTRUST a cashier's check for delicto, they shall have no cause of action against each other. . ."
P8,450.00 issued by the Manila Banking Corporation payable to [Art. 1411, New Civil Code.] The only remedy is one on behalf of the
Ernesto. State to prosecute the parties for violating the law.
ISSUE
• Whether petitioner bank is liable to Zshornack. No. Zshornack
cannot recover under the second cause of action.
ISSUE
• Whether Consolidated Terminals Inc (CTI) as warehouseman was D. Modes of Extinguishment
entitled to the possession of the bales of cotton. No. CTI had no
cause of action. It was not the owner of the cotton. It was not a real THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO v. GREGORIO DE LA PEÑA
party of interest in the case. CTI was not sued for damages by the administrator of the estate of Father Agustin de la Peña
real party in interest. G.R. No. L-6913 November 21, 1913
RATIO FACTS
• CTI in this appeal contends that, as warehouseman, it was entitled to • This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the CFI,
the repossession of the bales of cotton; that Artex acted wrongfully in awarding to the plaintiff the sum of P6,641, with interest at the legal
depriving CTI of the possession of the merchandise because Artex rate from the beginning of the action.
presented a falsified delivery permit, and that Artex should pay • It is established in this case that the plaintiff is the trustee of a
damages to CTI. charitable bequest made for the construction of a leper hospital and
• The only statutory rule cited by CTI is section 10 of the Warehouse that father Agustin de la Peña was the duly authorized representative
Receipts Law which provides that "where a warehouseman delivers of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. The defendant is the
the goods to one who is not in fact lawfully entitled to the possession administrator of the estate of Father De la Peña.
of them, the warehouseman shall be liable as for conversion to all • In the year 1898 the books Father De la Peña, as trustee, showed
having a right of property or possession in the goods..." that he had on hand as such trustee the sum of P6,641, collected by
• We hold that CTI's appeal has not merit. Its amended complaint does him for the charitable purposes aforesaid.
not clearly show that, as warehouseman, it has a cause of action for • In the same year he deposited in his personal account P19,000 in
damages against Artex. The real parties interested in the bales of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo.
cotton were Luzon Brokerage Corporation as depositor, Paramount
• Shortly thereafter and during the war of the revolution, Father De la
Textile Mills, Inc. as consignee, Adolph Hanslik Cotton as shipper
Peña was arrested by the military authorities as a political prisoner,
and the Commissioners of Customs and Internal Revenue with
and while thus detained made an order on said bank in favor of the
RATIO
• In this jurisdiction, therefore, Father De la Peña's liability is
determined by those portions of the Civil Code which relate to
obligations. (Book 4, Title 1.)
• Although the Civil Code states that "a person obliged to give
something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to
a good father of a family" (art. 1094), it also provides, following the
principle of the Roman law, major casus est, cui humana infirmitas
resistere non potest, that "no one shall be liable for events which
could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were
inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in
the law or those in which the obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)
• By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his personal
funds De la Peña did not thereby assume an obligation different from
that under which he would have lain if such deposit had not been
made, nor did he thereby make himself liable to repay the money at
all hazards.
• If they had been forcibly taken from his pocket or from his house by
the military forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is
clear that under the provisions of the Civil Code he would have been
exempt from responsibility.
o The fact that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his
personal account does not add to his responsibility. Such
deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all
hazards.
• There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and
there was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the
deposit. While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do
or give a thing is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching
the results of which will be dangerous to his trust, to take all
reasonable means and measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to
temper the effects of those events, we do not feel constrained to hold