BPI Family Bank v.
Amado Franco and Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 12!"#
2 Novem$er 2%%&
'(C)RIN*+,-
The deposit of money in banks is governed by the Civil Code provisions on simple loan
or mutuum.
FAC),-
• 15 Aug 1989: Tevetesco Arrastre!tevedoring Co." #nc. opened a savings and current
account $ith %&#'% ( petitioner)  o
• *5 Aug: 'irst +etro #nvestment Corporation ('+#C) also opened a time deposit
account $, same branch of %&#'% (!an 'rancisco del +onte) in a series
of transactions
• -1 Aug: Amado 'ranco (respondent ) opened three (-) accounts (current" savings" and
timedeposit) $, %&#'%. Total amount of &*+ use to open these accounts is
traceable to a check issued by Tevesteco allegedly in consideration of respondent
'rancos introduction of /ladio Teves (looking for a conduit bank to facilitate
Tevetescos
 business transactions) to 0aime !ebastian (%&#'%s %ranch +anager). The &*+ is
 part of the &8+ debited by %&#'% from '+C#s time deposit account and
credited to Tevetescos current account pursuant to an Authority to 2ebit allegedly
signed by '+C#s officers $,c appears to be forged.
o Current: #nitial deposit of &5k  o
o !avings: #nitial deposit of &5k  the timedeposit of espondent 'ranco" damages" etc.
o Time deposit: &1+ $, maturity date of -1 Aug 199
• 3 !ept: Antonio 4ng" upon being sho$n the Authority to debit" personally declared his
signature to be a forgery.
• Tevetesco already effected several $ithdra$als from its current account amounting to
&-"355"31.53 including the &*+ paid to respondent 'ranco.
• 8 !ept: %&#'%" through !enior 6& !everino Cornamcion" instructed 0esus Arangorin
to debit 'rancos savings 7 current accounts for the amounts remaining therein but
the latters time deposit account couldnt be debited due to computer limitations.
• * checks dra$n by 'ranco against %&#'% current account $ere dishonored upon
 presentment for payment 7 stamped $, notation account under garnishment.
o arnished by virtue of an 4rder of Attachment issued by +akati TC in a
civil case filed by %&#'% against 'ranco" etc. to r ecover the &-
"355"31.53 (Tevetescos total $ithdra$als from its account)
o 2ishonored checks $ere issued by respondent 'ranco 7 presented
for  o$ns the deposits" it cannot prevent respondent 'ranco from demanding
 payment at %&#'% prior to 'rancos receipt of notice of garnishment. At the
time the notice dated * !ept $as served on %&#'%" respondent 'ranco has
yet to be impleaded in said case $here $rit of attachment $as issued. #t $as
only on 15 +ay 199 that respondent 'ranco $as impleaded.
The attachment $as subseuently lifted ho$ever the funds $ere not
released to
respondent 'ranco because petitioner %&#'% could not comply given that
the money has already been debited because of '+#Cs forgery
claim.
 petitioner %&#'%s computer that branch indicated that the current account
record $as not on file.
• As to respondent 'rancos savings account he agreed to an arrangement as a favor to
!ebastian $here &3; from said account $as temporarily transferred to 2omingo
<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
/mbassy.
!ebastian retained custody of <uiaoits savings account passbook to
 preserve respondent 'rancos deposits.
• 1 +ay 199: espondent 'ranco preterminated his time deposit account.
o &etitioner %&#'% deducted &>-"189 from the remaining balance of
the account representing advance interest paid to him.
• !everal cases have been filed and resolved pertaining to these transactions.
• &/T '&#'%s refusal to heed /! 'rancos demand to unfree?e his accounts
7 release his deposits gave rise to the latters filing a case $ith +anila TC.
• TC
o endered =udgment in favor of respondent 'ranco ordering &etitioner %&#
'% to pay sums of money.
• CA
+odified decision but &etitioner %&#'% still to pay interest deducted rom
I,,*-
@ho has a better right t o the deposits in respondent 'rancos accounts ( FRANC()
/*0'-
•  Bo doubt that petitioner %&#'% o$ns the deposited monies in the accounts
of respondent 'ranco" but not as a legal conseuence of its unauthori?ed transfer
of '+#Cs deposits to Tevetescos account.
o The deposit of money in banks is governed by the Civil Code provisions on
simple loan or mutuum.
o As there is a debtorcreditor relationship bet$een a bank and its depositor"
 petitioner '&#'% ultimately acuired o$nership of respondent 'rancos
deposits" but such o$nership is coupled $, a corresponding obligation to
pay him an eual amount on demand. Although petitioner %&#'%
payment of the formers obligation by dra$ing checks against his current
account or asking for the released of the funds in his savings account.
• @hen respondent 'ranco issued checks dra$n against his current account" he had
every right as creditor to epect that those checks $ould be honored by petitioner
%&# '% as debtor.