PEOPLE VS PUIG

The issue in this case is whether a contract of loan governs the deposits received
by the bank from its clients, making it the right party to institute the case against the
defendants.

FACTS:

One hundred twelve informations of Qualified Theft were filed against Puig and
Porras, as Cashier and Bookkeeper of Pototan Rural Bank, for having stolen and
appropriated for their own personal use the deposits they received from their clients. For
lack of probable cause, the informations were dismissed. On appeal, the public
prosecutor contended that the elements constituting the crime were properly alleged,
hence, probable cause should have been established. Respondents averred that the
proper party to institute the case should be the depositors themselves and not the bank
because the depositors were the owners of the deposits allegedly taken.

HELD:

The Court held that the Bank is the proper party to institute the case against Puig
and Porras. Article 1953 provides that a person who receives a loan of money or any
fungible thing is bound to pay in the same amount of the same kind and quality. Further,
Article 1980 provides that fixed, savings and current deposits of money in banks and
similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning loan. Since in a
contract of loan or mutuum, ownership is transferred to the borrower, then the Bank
became the owner of the money deposited by its clients. Rural Bank of Pototan was
indeed the real party in interest and rightfully instituted the case against Puig and Porras.