a) Obligations arising from contracts

• METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. ANA GRACE ROSALES AND YO YUK TO, G.R. No.
183204, January 13, 2014

FACTS

Petitioner Metropolitan Bank and trust Company a Domestic Banking Corporation duly organize and
existing under the laws of the Philippines. Also, the respondent, Ana Grace Rosales, is the proprietor of
the travel agency China Golden Bridge Travel Services, and Yo Yuk is the respondent’s mother.

In 2002, respondent Rosales went with her client Liu Chiu Fang, a Taiwanese National applying for a
retiree's visa from the Philippine Leisure and Retirement Authority (PLRA), to petitioner's department in
Escolta to open a reserve funds account, as required by the PLRA.[13] Since Liu Chiu Fang seem speak
only in Mandarin, respondent Rosales acted as an translator for her.

March 3, 2003, respondents opened with petitioner's Pritil-Tondo Branch a Joint Dollar Account[15] with
an beginning deposit of US$14,000.00.

July 31,2003 Petitioner issued “Hold Out” Order against the respondents.

The reason why the “Hold Out” order was issued, though, was not explained by the petitioner.
Petitioner charged that respondents have no cause of action because it includes a valid reason for
issuing the "Hold Out" order. It affirmed that due to the false conspire of respondent Rosales, it was
compelled to repay Liu Chiu Fang the sum of US$75,000.0050 and to record a criminal complaint for
Estafa against respondent Rosales

ISSUES

Whether or not the Metropolitan Breached its contract with respondents Rosales.

RULINGS

The Court held that Metrobank's reliance on the “Hold Out” clause within the Application and
Agreement for Deposit Account is lost. The depositor must be reimbursed upon request for bank
deposits, which have the characteristics of a basic loan or mutuum.

The "Hold Out" clause applies as it were in the event that there's a substantial and existing commitment
emerging from any of the sources of commitment identified in Article 1157[79]of the Civil Code, to wit:
law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict. In this case, solicitor failed to appear that
respondents have an commitment to it under any law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict.
And in spite of the fact that a criminal case was recorded by solicitor against respondent Rosales, usually
not sufficient reason for petitioner to issue a "HOLD OUT" order