G.R. No.

L-60033 April 4, 1984

TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., ANTONIO I. MARTIN, and TERESITA

SANTOS, petitioners,
vs.
THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, HON. JOSE B. FLAMINIANO, ASST. CITY
FISCAL FELIZARDO N. LOTA and CLEMENT DAVID, respondents.

FACTS: David invested with the Nation Savings and Loan Association,
(hereinafter called NSLA) and he was induced into making the aforestated
investments by Robert Marshall an Australian national who was allegedly a close
associate of petitioner Guingona Jr., then NSLA President. On March 21, 1981
NSLA was placed under receivership by the Central Bank, so that David filed
claims therewith for his investments and those of his sister. David received a
report from the Central Bank that only P305,821.92 were entered in the records
of NSLA out of the millions he invested. Hence, David filed a estafa case before
the City Fiscal of Manila against petitioner for misappropriated the balance of the
investments, at the same time violating Central Bank Circular No. 364 and
related Central Bank regulations on foreign exchange transactions.
ISSUE: whether public respondents acted without jurisdiction when they
investigated the charges (estafa and violation of CB Circular No. 364 and related
regulations regarding foreign exchange transactions)

RULING: Yes. 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 of the New Civil Code provides
that:têñ.£îhqwâ£

Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of-money in

banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions
concerning simple loan.

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 no- jurisdiction.