PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GR No.

115324

FACTS: Sometime in 1979, private respondent Franklin Vives, upon request oI his Iriend
Angeles Sanchez and relying on the assurance that he could withdraw his money within a
month`s time, issued a check in the amount oI Two Hundred Thousand Pesos in Iavor oI Sterela
Marketing and Services owned by one Col. Arturo Doronilla. Subsequently, private respondent
and his wiIe Iound out that Sterela can`t be Iound on the address previously given to then, so
they went to petitioner Producer`s Bank oI the Philippines to veriIy iI their money was still
intact. They were inIormed that part oI the amount had been withdrawn by Doronilla and that the
latter instructed the bank to debit Irom the savings account the amount and deposit it in his
current account Private respondent Iiled an action Ior recovery oI sum oI money against
Doronilla, Sanchez, Dumagpi and petitioner. The trial court ruled in Iavour oI herein private
respondents. On appeal oI the case, the appellate court aIIirmed the decision oI the RTC.

Petitioner contends that the transaction between private respondent and Doronilla is a simple
loan (mutuum) since all the elements oI a mutuum are present: Iirst, what was delivered by
private respondent to Doronilla was money, a consumable thing; and second, the transaction was
onerous as Doronilla was obliged to pay interest. Hence, petitioner argues that it cannot be held
liable because it is not privy to the transaction between the latter and Doronilla. Private
respondent, on the other hand, argues that the transaction between him and Doronilla is not a
mutuum but an accommodation, since he did not actually part with the ownership oI
his P200,000.00 but retained some degree oI control over his money through his wiIe who was
made a signatory to the savings account and in whose possession the savings account passbook
was given.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contract between Sanchez and Doronilla and Vives is a contract oI
commodatum, thus making petitioner Bank liable.

HELD: Supreme Court held that the contract is commodatum. Although in view oI Article 1933
oI the Civil Code, the object in commodatum is non-consumable, but Article 1936 oI the Civil
Code provides 'Consumable goods may be the subject oI commodatum iI the purpose oI the
contract is not the consumption oI the object, as when it is merely Ior exhibition. Thus, iI
consumable goods are loaned only Ior purposes oI exhibition or when the intention oI the parties
is to lend consumable goods and to have the very same goods returned at the end oI the period
agreed upon, the loan is commodatum and not a mutuum. The evidence shows that private
respondent merely "accommodated" Doronilla by lending his money without consideration, as a
Iavor to his good Iriend Sanchez. It was however clear to the parties to the transaction that the
money would not be removed Irom Sterela`s savings account and would be returned to private
respondent aIter thirty (30) days.