BPI Family Bank v.

Amado Franco and Court of Appeals respondent 'ranco because petitioner %&#'% could not comply given that
G.R. No. 12!"# the money has already
already been debited
debited because of '+#Cs
'+#Cs forgery claim.
2 Novem$er 2%%&  petitioner %&#'%s computer t hat branch indicated that the current account
record $as not on file.
'(C)RIN*+,- • As to respondent 'rancos savings account he agreed to an arrangement as a favor to
The deposit of money in banks is governed by the Civil Code provisions on simple loan or  !ebastian $here &3; from said account $as temporarily transferred to 2omingo
mutuum. <uiaoits savings account" sub=ect to its immediate return upon issuance of a certificate
of deposit $hich <uiaoit needed in connection $ith his visa application at the Tai$an
FAC),- /mbassy.
• 15 Aug 1989: Tevetesco Arrastre!tevedoring Co." #nc. opened a savings and current o !ebastian
!ebastian retained custody of <uiaoits
<uiaoits savings account passbook to
 petitioner )
account $ith %&#'% (( petitioner   preserve respondent 'rancos
'rancos deposits.
• *5 Aug: 'irst +etro #nvestment
#nvestment Corporation
Corporation ('+#C) also opened
opened a time deposit • 1 +ay 199: espondent 'ranco preterminated his time deposit account.
accoun
accountt $, samesame branch
branch of %&#'%
%&#'% (!an 'ranc
'rancisc
isco
o del +onte)
+onte) in a series
series of  o &etitioner
&etitioner %&#'% deducted &>-"189
&>-"189 from the remaining
remaining balance of the
transactions account representing advance interest paid to him.
• ( respondent )) opened three (-) accounts (current" savings" and
-1 Aug: Amado 'ranco (respondent  • !everal cases have been filed and resolved pertaining to these transactions.
timedeposit) $, %&#'%. Total amount of &*+ use to open these accounts is traceable • &/T '&#'%s refusal to heed /! 'rancos demand to unfree?e his accounts 7
to a check issued by Tevesteco allegedly in consideration of respondent 'rancos release his deposits gave rise to the latters filing a case $ith +anila TC.
introduction of /ladio Teves (looking for a conduit bank to facilitate Tevetescos • TC
 business transactions) to 0aime !ebastian (%&#'%s %ranch +anager). The &*+ is
o endered =udgment in favor of respondent 'ranco ordering &etitioner %&#
 part of the &8+ debited by %&#'% from '+C#s time deposit account and credited
'% to pay sums of money.
to Tevetescos current account pursuant to an Authority to 2ebit allegedly signed by
• CA
'+C#s officers $,c appears to be forged.
o +odified decision but &etitioner %&#'% still to pay interest deducted rom
o Current: #nitial deposit of &5k 
!avings: #nitial deposit of &5k  the timedeposit of espondent 'ranco" damages" etc.
o

o Time deposit: &1+ $, maturity date of -1 Aug 199

I,,*-
• 3 !ept: Antonio 4ng" upon being sho$n the Authority to debit" personally declared his @ho has a better right t o the deposits in respondent 'rancos accounts ( FRANC()
signature to be a forgery.
• Tevetesco already effected several $ithdra$als from its current account amounting to /*0'-
&-"355"31.53 including the &*+ paid to respondent 'ranco. •  Bo doubt that petitioner %&#'% o$ns the deposited monies in the accounts of 
• 8 !ept: %&#'%" through !enior 6& !everino Cornamcion" instructed 0esus Arangorin respondent 'ranco" but not as a legal conseuence of its unauthori?ed transfer of 
to debit 'rancos savings 7 current accounts for the amounts remaining therein but the '+#Cs deposits to Tevetescos
Tevetescos account.
latters time deposit account couldnt be debited due to computer limitations. o The deposit of money in banks is governed by the Civil Code provisions on
• * checks dra$n by 'ranco against %&#'% current account $ere dishonored upon simple loan or mutuum.
 presentment for payment 7 stamped stamped $, notation account under
under garnishment. o As there is a debtorcreditor relationship bet$een a bank and its depositor"
o arnished by virtue of an 4rder of Attachment issued by +akati TC in a  petitioner '&#'% ultimately acuired o$nership of respondent 'rancos
civil case filed by %&#'% against 'ranco" etc. to r ecover the &-"355"31.53 deposits" but such o$nership is coupled $, a corresponding obligation to pay
(Tevetescos
(Tevetescos total $ithdra$als from its account) him an eual
eual amount
amount on demand. Although
Although petitioner
petitioner %&#'% o$ns the
o 2ishonored
2ishonored checks $ere issued by respondentrespondent 'ranco
'ranco 7 presented
presented for  deposits" it cannot prevent respondent 'ranco from demanding payment of 
 payment at %&#'% prior to 'rancos receipt of notice of garnishment.
garnishment. At the the formers obligation by dra$ing checks against his current account or 
time the notice dated * !ept $as served on %&#'%" respondent 'ranco has asking for the released of the funds in his savings account.
yet to be impleaded in said case $here $rit of attachment $as issued. #t $as
• @hen respondent 'ranco issued checks dra$n against his current account" he had
only
only on 15 +ay 199 that that respon
responden
dentt 'ranco
'ranco $as implea
impleaded
ded.. The
every right as creditor to epect that those checks $ould be honored by petitioner %&#
attachment $as subseuently lifted ho$ever the funds $ere not released to
'% as debtor.