Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v.

Ana Grace Rosales

G.R. No. 183204

January 13, 2014

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Digest by Urmenetskie

(ART. 1157 – Sources of Obligation)

FACTS:

 Petitioner Metrobank withheld the deposit of a depositor pursuant to a hold-out clause in the
contract between the bank and the depositor. The bank’s ground for withholding the deposit
was that the depositor committed a fraudulent transaction. Respondent Rosales denied taking
part in the fraudulent transaction.

ISSUE:

WON Petitioner Metrobank breached its contract with the respondent. (YES)

RULING:

The Court held that Metrobank’s reliance on the “Hold Out” clause in the Application and Agreement for
Deposit Account is misplaced.

The “Hold Out” clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation arising from any of the
sources of obligation enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code. The hold-out clause (which allowed
the bank to withhold the deposits) as provided in the contract was supposed to be purely for obligations
owed by the depositor to the bank. The case did not fall under the hold-out clause because the
depositor owed no obligation to the bank.

There are only five sources of obligations under the Civil Code and none of them were involved here.
There was only an allegation that there was a fraudulent transaction involved, but no obligation owed
by the depositor was established.

Though a criminal case was filed by the bank against the depositor, this is not enough to hold-out the
deposit of the depositor as there is no final judgement which would make the depositor liable under the
delict of the bank. Considering that the depositor is not liable under any of the 5 sources of obligations,
there was no legal basis for the bank to issue a hold-out order.