Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

G.R. No. 115324 February 19, 2003 Doronilla could assign or withdraw the money in Savings Account No.

Doronilla could assign or withdraw the money in Savings Account No. 10-1567 because he was the sole
proprietor of Sterela.5
PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (now FIRST INTERNATIONAL BANK), petitioner,
vs. HON. CA AND FRANKLIN VIVES, respondents. Private respondent tried to get in touch with Doronilla through Sanchez. On June 29, 1979, he received a
letter from Doronilla, assuring him that his money was intact and would be returned to him. On August
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated June 25, 1991 in
13, 1979, Doronilla issued a postdated check for Two Hundred Twelve Thousand Pesos (P212,000.00) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 11791 and of its Resolution2 dated May 5, 1994, denying the motion for reconsideration
favor of private respondent. However, upon presentment thereof by private respondent to the drawee
of said decision filed by petitioner Producers Bank of the Philippines.
bank, the check was dishonored. Doronilla requested private respondent to present the same check on
Sometime in 1979, private respondent Franklin Vives was asked by his neighbor and friend Angeles September 15, 1979 but when the latter presented the check, it was again dishonored.6
Sanchez to help her friend and townmate, Col. Arturo Doronilla, in incorporating his business, the Sterela
Private respondent referred the matter to a lawyer, who made a written demand upon Doronilla for the
Marketing and Services ("Sterela" for brevity). Specifically, Sanchez asked private respondent to deposit
return of his clients money. Doronilla issued another check for P212,000.00 in private respondents
in a bank a certain amount of money in the bank account of Sterela for purposes of its incorporation. She
favor but the check was again dishonored for insufficiency of funds.7
assured private respondent that he could withdraw his money from said account within a months time.
Private respondent asked Sanchez to bring Doronilla to their house so that they could discuss Sanchezs Private respondent instituted an action for recovery of sum of money in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
request.3 Pasig, Metro Manila against Doronilla, Sanchez, Dumagpi and petitioner. The case was docketed as Civil
Case No. 44485. He also filed criminal actions against Doronilla, Sanchez and Dumagpi in the RTC.
On May 9, 1979, private respondent, Sanchez, Doronilla and a certain Estrella Dumagpi, Doronillas
However, Sanchez passed away on March 16, 1985 while the case was pending before the trial court. On
private secretary, met and discussed the matter. Thereafter, relying on the assurances and
October 3, 1995, the RTC of Pasig, Branch 157, promulgated its Decision in Civil Case No. 44485, the
representations of Sanchez and Doronilla, private respondent issued a check in the amount of Two
dispositive portion of which reads:
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) in favor of Sterela. Private respondent instructed his wife, Mrs.
Inocencia Vives, to accompany Doronilla and Sanchez in opening a savings account in the name of Sterela IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing defendants Arturo J. Doronila,
in the Buendia, Makati branch of Producers Bank of the Philippines. However, only Sanchez, Mrs. Vives Estrella Dumagpi and Producers Bank of the Philippines to pay plaintiff Franklin Vives jointly and severally
and Dumagpi went to the bank to deposit the check. They had with them an authorization letter from
Doronilla authorizing Sanchez and her companions, "in coordination with Mr. Rufo Atienza," to open an
(a) the amount of P200,000.00, representing the money deposited, with interest at the legal rate from
account for Sterela Marketing Services in the amount of P200,000.00. In opening the account, the
the filing of the complaint until the same is fully paid;
authorized signatories were Inocencia Vives and/or Angeles Sanchez. A passbook for Savings Account No.
10-1567 was thereafter issued to Mrs. Vives.4 (b) the sum of P50,000.00 for moral damages and a similar amount for exemplary damages;

Subsequently, private respondent learned that Sterela was no longer holding office in the address (c) the amount of P40,000.00 for attorneys fees; and
previously given to him. Alarmed, he and his wife went to the Bank to verify if their money was still
(d) the costs of the suit.
intact. The bank manager referred them to Mr. Rufo Atienza, the assistant manager, who informed them
that part of the money in Savings Account No. 10-1567 had been withdrawn by Doronilla, and that SO ORDERED.8
only P90,000.00 remained therein. He likewise told them that Mrs. Vives could not withdraw said
Petitioner appealed the trial courts decision to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated June 25, 1991,
remaining amount because it had to answer for some postdated checks issued by Doronilla. According to
the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.9 It likewise denied with finality petitioners
Atienza, after Mrs. Vives and Sanchez opened Savings Account No. 10-1567, Doronilla opened Current
motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated May 5, 1994.10
Account No. 10-0320 for Sterela and authorized the Bank to debit Savings Account No. 10-1567 for the
amounts necessary to cover overdrawings in Current Account No. 10-0320. In opening said current On June 30, 1994, petitioner filed the present petition, arguing that
account, Sterela, through Doronilla, obtained a loan of P175,000.00 from the Bank. To cover payment
I.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE
thereof, Doronilla issued three postdated checks, all of which were dishonored. Atienza also said that
DEFENDANT DORONILLA AND RESPONDENT VIVES WAS ONE OF SIMPLE LOAN AND NOT
ACCOMMODATION;
II.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT PETITIONERS BANK MANAGER, MR. It argues further that petitioners Assistant Manager, Mr. Rufo Atienza, could not be faulted for allowing
RUFO ATIENZA, CONNIVED WITH THE OTHER DEFENDANTS IN DEFRAUDING PETITIONER (Sic. Should be Doronilla to withdraw from the savings account of Sterela since the latter was the sole proprietor of said
PRIVATE RESPONDENT) AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THE company. Petitioner asserts that Doronillas May 8, 1979 letter addressed to the bank, authorizing Mrs.
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE; Vives and Sanchez to open a savings account for Sterela, did not contain any authorization for these two
to withdraw from said account. Hence, the authority to withdraw therefrom remained exclusively with
III.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ADOPTING THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE REGIONAL
Doronilla, who was the sole proprietor of Sterela, and who alone had legal title to the savings
TRIAL COURT AND AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM, AS THE FINDINGS OF THE REGIONAL
account.17 Petitioner points out that no evidence other than the testimonies of private respondent and
TRIAL COURT WERE BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS;
Mrs. Vives was presented during trial to prove that private respondent deposited hisP200,000.00 in
IV.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE CITED DECISION IN SALUDARES Sterelas account for purposes of its incorporation.18 Hence, petitioner should not be held liable for
VS. MARTINEZ, 29 SCRA 745, UPHOLDING THE LIABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER FOR ACTS COMMITTED BY AN allowing Doronilla to withdraw from Sterelas savings account.1a\^/phi1.net
EMPLOYEE IS APPLICABLE;
Petitioner also asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial courts decision since the
V. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT findings of fact therein were not accord with the evidence presented by petitioner during trial to prove
THAT HEREIN PETITIONER BANK IS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH THE OTHER DEFENDANTS FOR that the transaction between private respondent and Doronilla was a mutuum, and that it committed no
THE AMOUNT OF P200,000.00 REPRESENTING THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT DEPOSIT, P50,000.00 FOR wrong in allowing Doronilla to withdraw from Sterelas savings account.19
MORAL DAMAGES, P50,000.00 FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, P40,000.00 FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND THE
Finally, petitioner claims that since there is no wrongful act or omission on its part, it is not liable for the
COSTS OF SUIT.11
actual damages suffered by private respondent, and neither may it be held liable for moral and
Private respondent filed his Comment on September 23, 1994. Petitioner filed its Reply thereto on exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees.20
September 25, 1995. The Court then required private respondent to submit a rejoinder to the reply.
Private respondent, on the other hand, argues that the transaction between him and Doronilla is not a
However, said rejoinder was filed only on April 21, 1997, due to petitioners delay in furnishing private
mutuum but an accommodation,21 since he did not actually part with the ownership of his P200,000.00
respondent with copy of the reply12 and several substitutions of counsel on the part of private
and in fact asked his wife to deposit said amount in the account of Sterela so that a certification can be
respondent.13 On January 17, 2001, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition and required
issued to the effect that Sterela had sufficient funds for purposes of its incorporation but at the same
the parties to submit their respective memoranda.14 Petitioner filed its memorandum on April 16, 2001
time, he retained some degree of control over his money through his wife who was made a signatory to
while private respondent submitted his memorandum on March 22, 2001.
the savings account and in whose possession the savings account passbook was given.22
Petitioner contends that the transaction between private respondent and Doronilla is a simple loan
He likewise asserts that the trial court did not err in finding that petitioner, Atienzas employer, is liable
(mutuum) since all the elements of a mutuum are present: first, what was delivered by private
for the return of his money. He insists that Atienza, petitioners assistant manager, connived with
respondent to Doronilla was money, a consumable thing; and second, the transaction was onerous as
Doronilla in defrauding private respondent since it was Atienza who facilitated the opening of Sterelas
Doronilla was obliged to pay interest, as evidenced by the check issued by Doronilla in the amount
current account three days after Mrs. Vives and Sanchez opened a savings account with petitioner for
of P212,000.00, or P12,000 more than what private respondent deposited in Sterelas bank
said company, as well as the approval of the authority to debit Sterelas savings account to cover any
account.15 Moreover, the fact that private respondent sued his good friend Sanchez for his failure to
overdrawings in its current account.23
recover his money from Doronilla shows that the transaction was not merely gratuitous but "had a
business angle" to it. Hence, petitioner argues that it cannot be held liable for the return of private
respondentsP200,000.00 because it is not privy to the transaction between the latter and Doronilla.16
There is no merit in the petition.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the Court of Appeals.25 Moreover, factual
filed with this Court. The Court has repeatedly held that it is not its function to analyze and weigh all over findings of courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive on this
again the evidence presented by the parties during trial.24 The Courts jurisdiction is in principle limited Court unless these findings are not supported by the evidence on record.26 There is no showing of any
misapprehension of facts on the part of the Court of Appeals in the case at bar that would require this Doronillas attempts to return to private respondent the amount of P200,000.00 which the latter
Court to review and overturn the factual findings of that court, especially since the conclusions of fact of deposited in Sterelas account together with an additional P12,000.00, allegedly representing interest on
the Court of Appeals and the trial court are not only consistent but are also amply supported by the the mutuum, did not convert the transaction from a commodatum into a mutuum because such was not
evidence on record. the intent of the parties and because the additional P12,000.00 corresponds to the fruits of the lending
of the P200,000.00. Article 1935 of the Civil Code expressly states that "[t]he bailee in commodatum
No error was committed by the Court of Appeals when it ruled that the transaction between private
acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits." Hence, it was only proper for Doronilla to remit to
respondent and Doronilla was a commodatum and not a mutuum. A circumspect examination of the
private respondent the interest accruing to the latters money deposited with petitioner.
records reveals that the transaction between them was a commodatum. Article 1933 of the Civil Code
distinguishes between the two kinds of loans in this wise: Neither does the Court agree with petitioners contention that it is not solidarily liable for the return of
private respondents money because it was not privy to the transaction between Doronilla and private
By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that
respondent. The nature of said transaction, that is, whether it is a mutuum or a commodatum, has no
the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a
bearing on the question of petitioners liability for the return of private respondents money because the
commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the
factual circumstances of the case clearly show that petitioner, through its employee Mr. Atienza, was
same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.
partly responsible for the loss of private respondents money and is liable for its restitution.
Commodatum is essentially gratuitous.
Petitioners rules for savings deposits written on the passbook it issued Mrs. Vives on behalf of Sterela
Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest. for Savings Account No. 10-1567 expressly states that

In commodatum, the bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned, while in simple loan, ownership "2. Deposits and withdrawals must be made by the depositor personally or upon his written authority
passes to the borrower. duly authenticated, and neither a deposit nor a withdrawal will be permitted except upon the production
of the depositor savings bank book in which will be entered by the Bank the amount deposited or
The foregoing provision seems to imply that if the subject of the contract is a consumable thing, such as
withdrawn."30
money, the contract would be a mutuum. However, there are some instances where a commodatum
may have for its object a consumable thing. Article 1936 of the Civil Code provides: Said rule notwithstanding, Doronilla was permitted by petitioner, through Atienza, the Assistant Branch
Manager for the Buendia Branch of petitioner, to withdraw therefrom even without presenting the
Consumable goods may be the subject of commodatum if the purpose of the contract is not the
passbook (which Atienza very well knew was in the possession of Mrs. Vives), not just once, but several
consumption of the object, as when it is merely for exhibition.
times. Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court found that Atienza allowed said withdrawals because
Thus, if consumable goods are loaned only for purposes of exhibition, or when the intention of the he was party to Doronillas "scheme" of defrauding private respondent:
parties is to lend consumable goods and to have the very same goods returned at the end of the period
X X X But the scheme could not have been executed successfully without the knowledge, help and
agreed upon, the loan is a commodatum and not a mutuum.
cooperation of Rufo Atienza, assistant manager and cashier of the Makati (Buendia) branch of the
The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded primordial consideration in defendant bank. Indeed, the evidence indicates that Atienza had not only facilitated the commission of
determining the actual character of a contract.27 In case of doubt, the contemporaneous and subsequent the fraud but he likewise helped in devising the means by which it can be done in such manner as to
acts of the parties shall be considered in such determination.28 make it appear that the transaction was in accordance with banking procedure.

As correctly pointed out by both the Court of Appeals and the trial court, the evidence shows that To begin with, the deposit was made in defendants Buendia branch precisely because Atienza was a key
private respondent agreed to deposit his money in the savings account of Sterela specifically for the officer therein. The records show that plaintiff had suggested that the P200,000.00 be deposited in his
purpose of making it appear "that said firm had sufficient capitalization for incorporation, with the bank, the Manila Banking Corporation, but Doronilla and Dumagpi insisted that it must be in defendants
promise that the amount shall be returned within thirty (30) days."29 Private respondent merely branch in Makati for "it will be easier for them to get a certification". In fact before he was introduced to
"accommodated" Doronilla by lending his money without consideration, as a favor to his good friend plaintiff, Doronilla had already prepared a letter addressed to the Buendia branch manager authorizing
Sanchez. It was however clear to the parties to the transaction that the money would not be removed Angeles B. Sanchez and company to open a savings account for Sterela in the amount of P200,000.00, as
from Sterelas savings account and would be returned to private respondent after thirty (30) days. "per coordination with Mr. Rufo Atienza, Assistant Manager of the Bank x x x" (Exh. 1). This is a clear
manifestation that the other defendants had been in consultation with Atienza from the inception of the that this account was opened three days later after the P200,000.00 was deposited. In spite of his
scheme. Significantly, there were testimonies and admission that Atienza is the brother-in-law of a disclaimer, the Court believes that Atienza was mindful and posted regarding the opening of the current
certain Romeo Mirasol, a friend and business associate of Doronilla.1awphi1.nt account considering that Doronilla was all the while in "coordination" with him. That it was he who
facilitated the approval of the authority to debit the savings account to cover any overdrawings in the
Then there is the matter of the ownership of the fund. Because of the "coordination" between Doronilla
current account (Exh. 2) is not hard to comprehend.
and Atienza, the latter knew before hand that the money deposited did not belong to Doronilla nor to
Sterela. Aside from such foreknowledge, he was explicitly told by Inocencia Vives that the money Clearly Atienza had committed wrongful acts that had resulted to the loss subject of this case. x x x.31
belonged to her and her husband and the deposit was merely to accommodate Doronilla. Atienza even
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers shall be held primarily and solidarily liable for damages
declared that the money came from Mrs. Vives.
caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. To hold the employer liable
Although the savings account was in the name of Sterela, the bank records disclose that the only ones under this provision, it must be shown that an employer-employee relationship exists, and that the
empowered to withdraw the same were Inocencia Vives and Angeles B. Sanchez. In the signature card employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the act complained of was
pertaining to this account (Exh. J), the authorized signatories were Inocencia Vives &/or Angeles B. committed.32 Case law in the United States of America has it that a corporation that entrusts a general
Sanchez. Atienza stated that it is the usual banking procedure that withdrawals of savings deposits could duty to its employee is responsible to the injured party for damages flowing from the employees
only be made by persons whose authorized signatures are in the signature cards on file with the bank. wrongful act done in the course of his general authority, even though in doing such act, the employee
He, however, said that this procedure was not followed here because Sterela was owned by Doronilla. may have failed in its duty to the employer and disobeyed the latters instructions.33
He explained that Doronilla had the full authority to withdraw by virtue of such ownership. The Court is
There is no dispute that Atienza was an employee of petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner did not deny
not inclined to agree with Atienza. In the first place, he was all the time aware that the money came
that Atienza was acting within the scope of his authority as Assistant Branch Manager when he assisted
from Vives and did not belong to Sterela. He was also told by Mrs. Vives that they were only
Doronilla in withdrawing funds from Sterelas Savings Account No. 10-1567, in which account private
accommodating Doronilla so that a certification can be issued to the effect that Sterela had a deposit of
respondents money was deposited, and in transferring the money withdrawn to Sterelas Current
so much amount to be sued in the incorporation of the firm. In the second place, the signature of
Account with petitioner. Atienzas acts of helping Doronilla, a customer of the petitioner, were obviously
Doronilla was not authorized in so far as that account is concerned inasmuch as he had not signed the
done in furtherance of petitioners interests34 even though in the process, Atienza violated some of
signature card provided by the bank whenever a deposit is opened. In the third place, neither Mrs. Vives
petitioners rules such as those stipulated in its savings account passbook.35It was established that the
nor Sanchez had given Doronilla the authority to withdraw.
transfer of funds from Sterelas savings account to its current account could not have been accomplished
Moreover, the transfer of fund was done without the passbook having been presented. It is an accepted by Doronilla without the invaluable assistance of Atienza, and that it was their connivance which was the
practice that whenever a withdrawal is made in a savings deposit, the bank requires the presentation of cause of private respondents loss.
the passbook. In this case, such recognized practice was dispensed with. The transfer from the savings
The foregoing shows that the Court of Appeals correctly held that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
account to the current account was without the submission of the passbook which Atienza had given to
petitioner is liable for private respondents loss and is solidarily liable with Doronilla and Dumagpi for the
Mrs. Vives. Instead, it was made to appear in a certification signed by Estrella Dumagpi that a duplicate
return of theP200,000.00 since it is clear that petitioner failed to prove that it exercised due diligence to
passbook was issued to Sterela because the original passbook had been surrendered to the Makati
prevent the unauthorized withdrawals from Sterelas savings account, and that it was not negligent in
branch in view of a loan accommodation assigning the savings account (Exh. C). Atienza, who
the selection and supervision of Atienza. Accordingly, no error was committed by the appellate court in
undoubtedly had a hand in the execution of this certification, was aware that the contents of the same
the award of actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit to private
are not true. He knew that the passbook was in the hands of Mrs. Vives for he was the one who gave it
respondent.
to her. Besides, as assistant manager of the branch and the bank official servicing the savings and current
accounts in question, he also was aware that the original passbook was never surrendered. He was also WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
cognizant that Estrella Dumagpi was not among those authorized to withdraw so her certification had no are AFFIRMED.
effect whatsoever.
SO ORDERED.
The circumstance surrounding the opening of the current account also demonstrate that Atienzas active
participation in the perpetration of the fraud and deception that caused the loss. The records indicate

Potrebbero piacerti anche