BM1808

NAME: Curada, Maria Teresita P._____ DATE: 03/20/2024 SCORE: _____________

CASE ANALYSIS

Analyze the following cases and answer the questions that follow. Write your answers on a separate sheet of paper. (3
items x 10 points)

Case 1

While making a deposit in a bank, Peter, a newspaper columnist, overheard a pretty bank teller informing a co- employee
that Paul, a well-known public official, has just a few hundred pesos in his bank account and that his next check will
bounce. Peter wrote this information in his newspaper column. Thus, Paul filed a complaint against Peter with the City
Fiscal of Manila for unlawfully disclosing information about his bank account.
Will the said suit prosper? Explain your answer.

Answer:
No. The suit against Peter will not prosper because merely writing regarding a vague, overheard remark of a bank
employee to a co-employee is not the disclosure contemplated and considered by law as a violation of Bank Secrecy.
Section 4 of Republic Act 1405 states that only acts of inquiry or a disclosure without express authority from the
depositor (and competent courts in the case of impeachment of public officials) shall be considered as violations of the
law on secrecy. Peter’s article does not constitute as such.

Furthermore, Section 3 of Republic Act 1405 states that it is unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution
to disclose any information concerning said deposits to anyone other than those named in Section 2 of the said law. Peter
is not an official of the banking institution in the case provided. Thus, the suit against him shall not prosper. If anyone
should be liable, it will be the bank employee who disclosed the information.

Case 2

Ericson, a well-known architect, is suffering from financial reverses. He has four (4) creditors with a total claim of P26
million. Despite his intention to pay these obligations, his current assets are insufficient to cover all of them. His creditors
are about to sue him. Consequently, he was constrained to file a petition for insolvency. Since Ericson was merely
forced by circumstances to petition the court to declare him insolvent, can the judge properly treat the
petition as one for involuntary insolvency? Explain your answer.

Answer:
No. The petition cannot be treated as one of involuntary insolvency because it was filed by Ericson himself, the debtor,
and not by his creditors. Section 20 of Insolvency Law states that in cases of involuntary insolvency, it is the creditors
who must initiate the declaration of the debtor's insolvency, not the debtor. In the case presented, the debtor, Ericson,
has personally filed an insolvency petition. As a result, the fact that Ericson intends to fulfill his obligations and only
filed for insolvency under duress does not classify his petition as involuntary insolvency.

Case 3

Daniel borrowed money from Carl. As security, Daniel executed a contract of pledge over his vessels which, however,
were not actually delivered to Carl but remained in Daniel’s possession who shall hold said property subject to the order
of the pledgee. Daniel defaulted. Pursuant to the terms of the pledge, Carl took possession of the vessels and sold the
same. Daniel contended that the pledge was not effective because there was only constructive and not actual delivery of
the vessels to Carl.
Is the contention of Daniel tenable? Explain your answer.

Answer:
No. Daniel's contention is not tenable. The law, Republic 1157, clearly states that the collateral must be handed over to
the creditor. In the case provided, Daniel, who is the debtor, did not transfer the collateral (vessels) to the creditor,
Carl. Furthermore, previous court rulings or jurisprudence have reinforced that possession can be achieved through
actual or constructive delivery.

In this case, while Daniel has the physical possession of the collateral items (the vessels) as the debtor and pledgor,
they are under the complete control of Carl as the creditor and pledgee of their agreement. Thus, Carl has the authority
to exercise full control over the property, such as the right to physically take possession of the vessels if Daniel fails to
meet his obligations. Since Daniel defaulted in his payments to Carl, the latter now has the right over the vessels. The
pledge between the parties remains legally binding, even if there was only constructive delivery of the vessels.

08 Task Performance 1 *Property of STI

Page 1 of 1