BPI v.

IAC & Zshornack

FACTS: A contract of depositum was entered into by Garcia, on behalf of COMTRUST (BPI), wherein he
received US $3,000 (foreign exchange) from Zshornack for safekeeping. Later on or over five months later,
Zshornack demanded the return of the money but the bank refused alleging that the amount was sold and
transferred to her current account. BPI contended that the parties entered into a contract of depositum which
banks do not enter into. Thus, Garcia exceeded his powers when he entered into the contract on behalf of the
bank, hence, the bank cannot be liable under the contract.
ISSUE: Whether or not BPI is liable when Garcia entered into the contract on behalf of the bank
RULING: Yes, The document which embodies the contract was received by the bank for safekeeping as
contemplated in Art. 1962 of the NCC. However, the contract is covered by Central Bank Circular No. 20 on
restrictions on gold and foreign exchange transactions. Safekeeping of foreign currency without selling them to
the Central Bank is a prohibited transaction. Pursuant to NCC 5, it is void. Hence, Zhornack, underthe principal
of in pari delicto, cannot recover.