1)Bank of the Phil. Islands vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court

FACTS:

The original parties to this case were Rizaldy Zshornack and the COMTRUST. In 1980,
BPI absorbed COMTRUST through a corporate merger, and was substituted as party
to the case.

Zshornack entrusted to COMTRUST (BPI), thru Garcia, US$3,000.00 cash (popularly

known as greenbacks) for safekeeping. When he requested the return of the money
COMTRUST explained that money was sold and the peso proceeds amounting were
deposited to Zshornack’s current account.

Aside from asserting that the US$3,000.00 was properly credited to Zshornack’s
current account at prevailing conversion rates, BPI now posits another ground to
defeat private respondent’s claim. It now argues that the contract embodied in
the document is the contract of depositum, which banks do not enter into. The
bank alleges that Garcia exceeded his powers when he entered into the
transaction. Hence, it is claimed, the bank cannot be liable under the contract,
and the obligation is purely personal to Garcia.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contract embodied in the document is the contract of
depositum

RULING:

The document which embodies the contract states that the US$3,000.00 was
received by the bank for safekeeping. The subsequent acts of the parties also
show that the intent of the parties was really for the bank to safely keep the
dollars and to return it to Zshornack at a later time. Thus, Zshornack demanded the
return of the money over five months later.

The above arrangement is that contract defined under Article 1962, New Civil
Code, which reads:
Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing
belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and for returning the
same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the
contract, there is no deposit but some other contract.
2) CA AgroIndustrial Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

FACTS:

Petitioner (through its President Aguirre) and the spouses Pugao entered into an
agreement whereby the former purchased from the latter two parcels of land for
a consideration of P350,625.00. Of this amount, P75,725.00 was paid as
downpayment while the balance was covered by three postdated checks. They
have agreed that the titles to the lots shall be transferred to the petitioner upon
full payment of the purchase price and that the owner's copies of TCT shall be
deposited in a safety deposit box of any bank. The same could be withdrawn only
upon the joint signatures of a representative of the petitioner and the Pugaos upon
full payment of the purchase price. Petitioner and the Pugaos then rented Safety
Deposit Box of private respondent Security Bank.

Thereafter, a certain Mrs. Margarita Ramos offered to buy from the petitioner the
two lots. In view thereof, Aguirre and the Pugaos, proceeded to the respondent
Bank to open the safety deposit box and get the certificates of title. However,
when opened the box yielded no such certificates. Because of the delay in the
reconstitution of the title, Mrs. Ramos withdrew her earlier offer to purchase the
lots; as a consequence thereof, the petitioner allegedly failed to realize the
expected profit of P280,500.00. Hence, the latter filed a complaint for damages
against the respondent Bank

Respondent bank argued that the petitioner has no cause of action because of
paragraphs 13 and 14 of the contract of lease ; corollarily, loss of any of the items
or articles contained in the box could not give rise to an action against it.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the contract is of deposit
2) Whether or not the bank can exempt itself from liability

RULING:
1) It is a special contract of deposit. The court agree with the petitioner’s
contention that the contract for the rent of the safety deposit box is not an
ordinary contract of lease as defined in Article 1643 of the Civil Code.
However, the contract in the case at bar is a special kind of deposit. It
cannot be characterized as an ordinary contract of lease under Article 1643
because the full and absolute possession and control of the safety deposit
box Was not given to the joint renters
2) No, it cannot exempt itself. In this case, since the relation is a contractual one,
the parties may by special contract define their respective duties or provide
for increasing or limiting the liability of the deposit company, provided such
contract is not in violation of law or public policy. xxx The company, in
renting safe deposit boxes, cannot exempt itself from liability for loss of the
contents by its own fraud or negligence or that of its agents or servants,
and if a provision of the contract may be construed as an attempt to do
so, it will be held ineffective for the purpose.
 3) Sia vs. Court of Appeals

FACTS:

The plaintiff rented Safety Deposit Box from the defendant bank in Binondo wherein
he placed his collection of stamps. The said safety deposit box leased by the plaintiff
was at the bottom or at the lowest level of the safety deposit boxes of the
defendant bank. During the floods that took place in 1985 and 1986, floodwater
entered into the defendant bank’s premises, seeped into the safety deposit box
leased by the plaintiff and caused, according to the plaintiff, damage to his stamps
collection.

The defendant bank rejected the plaintiff’s claim for compensation for his damaged
stamps collection, so, the plaintiff instituted an action for damages against the
defendant bank. The defendant bank denied liability on the basis of the ‘Rules
and Regulations Governing the Lease of Safe Deposit Boxes’.

The defendant bank also contended that its contract with the plaintiff over safety
deposit box No. 54 was one of lease and not of deposit and, therefore, governed
by the lease agreement.

ISSUE: Whether or not the bank can be exempted from liability for the damges

RULING:

No. Although flooding could be considered a fortuitous event, failure of the bank
to give notice to the renter of such fact makes it liable for damages, its negligence
caused to aggravate injury or damage to the renter.

SBTC was aware of the floods of 1985 and 1986; it also knew that the floodwaters
inundated the room where Safe Deposit Box No. 54 was located. In view thereof,
it should have lost no time in notifying the petitioner in order that the box could
have been opened to retrieve the stamps, thus saving the same from further
deterioration and loss. In this respect, it failed to exercise the reasonable care and
prudence expected of a good father of a family, thereby becoming a party to the
aggravation of the injury or loss. Accordingly, the aforementioned fourth
characteristic of a fortuitous event is absent x x x The destruction or loss of the
stamp collection which was, in the language of the trial court, the “product of 27
years of patience and diligence” caused the petitioner pecuniary loss; hence, he
must be compensated therefor.
 4) Serrano vs. Central Bank of the Philippines

FACTS:

On 1966 , the petitioner made a P150,000.00 time deposit (1 yr with 6% interest) with the
respondent Overseas Bank of Manila. Concepcion Maneja also made a P200,000.00 time
deposit on 1967, (1 yr with 6.5% interest) on the same bank. On 1968, Concepcion
Maneja, married to Felixberto Serrano, assigned and conveyed to petitioner Manuel
Serrano, her time deposit of P200,000.00 with respondent bank. Notwithstanding series of
demands for encashment of the said time deposits, not a single one of the time deposit
certificates was honored by respondent Bank.

The petitioner filed a case against Overseas Bank due to its the failure to return the Tim
deposits made by him and assigned to him. He likewise filed a case against Central Bank
due to its failure to exercise strict supervision over respondent bank to protect depositors
and the general public.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contract is of deposit

RULING:

Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits. They are really loans because they
earn interest. All kinds of bank deposits, whether fixed, savings, or current are to be
treated as loans and are to be covered by the law on loans. Current and savings deposits
are loans to a bank because it can use the same. The petitioner here in making time
deposits that earn interests with respondent Overseas Bank of Manila was in reality a
creditor of the respondent Bank and not a depositor.The respondent Bank was in turn a
debtor of petitioner. Failure of the respondent Bank to honor the time deposit is failure to
pay its obligation as a debtor and not a breach of trust arising from a depositary’s failure
to return the subject matter of the deposit
 5) Guingona, Jr. vs. City Fiscal of Manila

FACTS:

David made several investment with the NSLA (P1,145,546.20- time deposits,
P13,531.94- savings account (jointly with his sister, Denise Kuhne), US$10,000.00- time
deposit, US$15,000.00). He was induced into making the aforestated investments by
Robert Marshall, an Australian national, who was allegedly a close associate of
petitioner Guingona (NSLA President), petitioner Martin (NSLA Executive VicePresident)
and petitioner Santos, (NSLA General Manager)

NSLA was placed under receivership by the Central Bank, thus David filed claims
therewith for his investments and those of his sister. David received a report from
the Central Bank that only P305,821.92 of those investments were entered in the
records of NSLA; that, therefore, the respondents misappropriated the balance of
the investments.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contract between NSLA and David is a contract of deposit or a
contract of loan (to determine whether the City Fiscal has the jurisdiction to file a case
for estafa)

RULING:

It must be pointed out that when private respondent David invested his money on
time and savings deposits with the aforesaid bank, the contract that was perfected
was a contract of simple loan or mutuum and not a contract of deposit.

Hence, the relationship between the private respondent and the Nation Savings
and Loan Association is that of creditor and debtor; consequently, the ownership of
the amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank upon the perfection of the
contract and it can make use of the amount deposited for its banking operations,
such as to pay interests on deposits and to pay withdrawals. While the Bank has
the obligation to return the amount deposited, it has, however, no obligation to
return or deliver the same money that was deposited, And, the failure of the Bank
to return the amount deposited will not constitute estafa through misappropriation
punishable under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it will only
give rise to civil liability over which the public respondents have no jurisdiction.
 6) TRIPLEV vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS

FACTS:

De Asis dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant at Quezon City. She was using a
Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995, assigned to her by her employer Crispa. On
said date, De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and entrusted her car
key to petitioner's valet counter. A corresponding parking ticket was issued as receipt for
the car. The car was then parked by petitioner's valet attendant, Madridano, at the
designated parking area. Few minutes later, Madridano noticed that the car was not in
its parking slot and its key no longer in the box where they usually keep the keys. The car
was never recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein
respondent FMCI. Having indemnified Crispa in the amount of P669.500 for the loss of the
subject vehicle, FMICI, as subrogee to Crispa's rights, filed an action for damages against
petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc.

Petitioner argued that in accepting the complimentary valet parking service, De Asis
received a parking ticket whereunder it is so provided that "[Management and staff will
not be responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor of valuables
contained therein", a provision which is an explicit waiver of any right to claim indemnity
for the loss of the car; and that De Asis knowingly assumed the risk of loss when she
allowed petitioner to park her vehicle, adding that its valet parking service did not
include extending a contract of insurance or warranty for the loss of the vehicle.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was a depositary of the subject vehicle

RULING:

Yes, the petitioner was a depositary of the subject vehicle.

When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioners valet attendant while eating at
petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant, the former expected the car's safe return at the end of
her meal. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same car. Petitioner
cannot evade liability by arguing that neither a contract of deposit nor that of insurance,
guaranty or surety for the loss of the car was constituted when De Asis availed of its free
valet parking service.

In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with the

obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same. A deposit may be constituted
even without any consideration. It is not necessary that the depositary receives a fee
before it becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for safekeeping and to return it
later to the depositor.
 7) YHT Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

FACTS:

Private respondent McLoughlin, an Australian businessman philanthropist, used to stay

at Sheraton Hotel in the Philippines before he met Tan. Tan befriended McLoughlin
by showing him around and doing his charitable activities for the poor. Tan convinced
McLoughlin to transfer from Sheraton Hotel to Tropicana where Lainez (manager),
Payam and Danilo Lopez (custodian of keys for safey deposit boxes) were employed.
McLoughlin rented a safety deposit box during his stay at the said hotel.

As a tourist, McLoughlin was aware that the safety deposit box could only be
opened through the use of two keys, one for the guest, and the other for the
management. When a registered guest wished to open his safety deposit box, he
alone could personally request the management who then would assign one of its
employees to accompany and assist him in opening the safety deposit box.

McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box: USD 15K (2
envelopes), USD 10k (1 envelope) and USD 5k (1 envelope); AUD 10K (1 envelope); letters
and credit cards (2 envelopes); 2 bankbooks; and a checkbook.

Before leaving for a brief trip to Hongkong, McLoughlin took the envelopes containing
USD 5K and AUD 10K, passport and credit cards from the safety deposit box. However,
upon his arrival in Hongkong, he noticed that the envelope has AUD 2K missing. He
thought it was just a result of bad accounting.

After returning to Manila, he checked out of Tropicana and left for Australia. When
he arrived in Australia, he discovered that the envelope with USD 10K was short of
ASD 5K He also noticed that the jewelry which he bought in Hongkong and stored
was likewise missing.

When McLoughlin came back to the Philippines, he asked Lainez if some money
and/or jewelry which he had lost were found and returned to her or to the
management. However, Lainez told him that none were turned over to the
management. He again registered at Tropicana and rented a safety deposit box.
He placed therein USD 15K (1envelope), AUD 10K (1 envelope) and his traveling
papers/documents. When McLoughlin requested Lainez and Payam to open his
safety deposit box, he noticed that there are USD 15K, USD 2k and AUD 4.5K missing

McLoughlin confronted the employees and eventually it turned out that Tan had stolen
McLoughlin’s key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the assistance
of Lopez, Payam and Lainez. Consequently, Tan wrote on a piece of paper a
promissory note for the lost items, signed by Lopez as a witness. Despite the execution
of promissory note by Tan, McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must
assume responsibility for the loss he suffered. However, Lopez refused to accept the
responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the safety deposit box.
ISSUE:

Whether a hotel may evade liability for the loss of items left with it for safekeeping
by its guests, by having these guests execute written waivers

RULING:

No, the hotel may not evade liability.

Article 2002 exempts the hotelkeeper from liability if the loss is due to the acts of
his guest, his family, or visitors. This provision presupposes that the hotelkeeper is
not guilty of concurrent negligence or has not contributed in any degree to the
occurrence of the loss. A depositary is not responsible for the loss of goods by
theft, unless his actionable negligence contributes to the loss.

However, in this case, the responsibility of securing the safety deposit box was shared
not only by the guest himself but also by the management since two keys are
necessary to open the safety deposit box. Without the assistance of hotel
employees, the loss would not have occurred. Thus, Tropicana was guilty of
concurrent negligence in allowing Tan, who was not the registered guest, to open
the safety deposit box of McLoughlin, even assuming that the latter was also guilty
of negligence in allowing another person to use his key. To rule otherwise would
result in undermining the safety of the safety deposit boxes in hotels for the
management will be given imprimatur to allow any person, under the pretense of
being a family member or a visitor of the guest, to have access to the safety
deposit box without fear of any liability that will attach thereafter in case such
person turns out to be a complete stranger. This will allow the hotel to evade
responsibility for any liability incurred by its employees in conspiracy with the guest’s
relatives and visitors.