Guingona, Jr. v. City Fiscal of Manila,
G.R. No. L-60033. April 4, 1984
Facts:
- Clement David invested w/ Natl Savings
(NSLA) thru various accounts from ‘79-81
- 1981: NSLA placed under receivership by
Central Bank
- Accdg to NSLA not all
investments/deposits of David were all
recorded; he was not able to get all his
money
- Martin (bank pres) and Guingona issued
promissory notes but David still filed estafa
vs them
- Guingona et al filed petition for injunction &
prohibition to prevent fiscal from doing
prelim. Investigation vs them
Issue: WON a contract of loan or deposit is
the relation between David and the bank?
Ruling:
- Contract between them is that of a
contract of loan ( creditor and
debtor)
- Civil code: Fixed, savings, and
current deposits of-money in banks
and similar institutions shall be
governed by the provisions
concerning simple loan.
- Current and saving deposits, are
loans to a bank because it can use
the same.
- Estafa: not proper bec. In estafa
there is the obligation to deliver or
return the some money, goods or
personal property
Integrated Realty v. PNB, G.R. No.
L-60705 June 28, 1989
FACTS
- Raul Santos made a time depos with
OBM P500K and P200k; time depo
certs issued
- Santos and IRC filed a loan w/ PNB
P700K w/c he secured by executing
a Deed of Assignment of the 2 time
deposits.
- Santos and IRC failed to pay PNB
on time
- IRC and Santos replied loan was
deemed paid with the irrevocable
assignment of the time deposit
certificates.
- PNB filed to collect P700k plus
interest from Santos and IRS;
- RTC ruled in favor of PNB; On
appeal, the CA ordered OBM to pay
IRC and Santos whatever amts they
will to PNB with interest.
ISSUE: WON the loan was deemed paid by
virtue of the certs of depo
RULING
- Deed of assignment did not pay the
loan.
- If the intention of Santos and IRC
was to pay off the loan using the
Deed of Assignment of the time
depo certs, they would not have
issued promissory notes
- The deed of assign was considered
a pledge
- They remain liable to PNB to pay off
700k loan
Bank of the Philippine Islands v.
Intermediate Appellate Court
Facts:
- Comtrust bank received from Rizaldy
Zshornack the amount of US $3000 for
safekeeping.
- the contract signed by Zshornack and the
bank indicated the words “for safekeeping”
- Later on or over five months later,
Zshornack demanded the return of the
money
- bank refused saying amount was already
paid back through 2 separate deposits on
different dates to Zshornack’s accounts
Issue: WON the contract entered into is a
contract of depositum.
Ruling:
- Yes. .It was a contract of deposit.
- contract expressly states that the 3k USD
was for safekeeping
- deposit is to safekeep the thing deposited
with the intention of returning the same
- the 2 deposits to Zshornack’s accounts
constituted return of the thing deposited
Bishop of Jaro v. De La Pena
FACTS:
- Father De la Peña’s books showed
he received P6k++ to construct a
leper hospital.
- Father DLP deposited the money to
his personal HSBC account in Iloilo
& mixed it with his own money (total
19k)
- During the war, he was arrested
considered as an insurgent who
collected money for revolutionary
purposes & his money in the bank
was confiscated
- His money in the bank was
confiscated aConsequently, a
confiscation order was likewise
made on his personal account. The
order was to turn over the funds in
the bank to the US Government.
ISSUE: WON his estate is liable for the loss
of the money
RULING:
- his estate should not be liable for its loss
because the confiscation of his funds in the
bank is a fortuitous event that he could not
have foreseen. Article 1105 of the Civil
Code states that generally, one should not
be liable for fortuitous events.
Triple-V Food Services, Inc. v. Filipino
Merchants Insurance Company, Inc
FACTS:
- Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined Kamayan
Restaurant
- She left her company-issued car in the
restaurant’s parking using valet service; she
was issued a ticket
- Madriano (valet attendant) noticed car was
not in the parking slot and the key was also
not in the box. Car was not recovered.
- Crispa, her employer, filed a claim for the
loss of the car with FMCI (insurance)
- FMCI filed a case vs. Kamayan/Triple
Foods for damages -- said Triple V
exercised negligence and recklessnes when
the car was lost in its parking
- Triple V’s excuse: parking ticket served as
waiver for liability against loss
ISSUE: WON Triple-V Food Services, Inc.
is liable for the loss.
RULING:
- Yes, Triple V is liable bec. Contract
between it and De Asis was that of a
depositor and a depositary
- Triple V has the obligation of safely
keeping the car in the parking as the
deposited thing and returning the same.
- Petitioner cannot evade liability by using
the parking ticket because the clause in the
parking ticket was a contract of adhesion
wherein the customer had no participation
ordinary contract of lease because full and
absolute possession and control of the
safety deposit box was not given to the joint
renters.
Nevertheless, the principal function of
deposit is still present in the rent of safety
deposit box. Thus, the contract of rent of
safety deposit boxes are special kind of
deposit.

CA Agro-Industrial vs CA, G.R. No. 90027

March 3, 1993

Facts
- CA Agro entered into an agreement w/
Sps. Pugao for the purchase of 2 parcel of
land
- MOA states that the titles are to be kept in
a safety deposit bank in Security Bank and
will be released only after full payment
- safety depo box can only be opened by
using 2 keys: 1 from the bank & 1 from one
of the renters.CA Agro has 1 key (as renter)
and Pugao has 1 key (also as renter) and
the other key is to be kept by the bank
- A certain Mrs. Ramos offered to buy the
lots for a higher price and Aguirre (from CA
Agro) and the Pugaos went to the bank to
show the titles
- upon opening the box, they discovered the
titles were not there
- Mrs. Aguirre’s purchase did not push thru
because of the “missing titles” which
resulted in loss of profit for petitioner

Issue: What is the contractual relation

between the bank and the renters?

Ruling: The contract is a special kind of

deposit. The contract for the rent of safety
deposit cannot be characterized as an