BarOps Case Digest

G.R. No. 171845

October 10, 2012

SPOUSES GODFREY and GERARDINA SERFINO vs. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, INC., now BPI FACTS: By way of settlement approved by the RTC Bacolod, the Spouses Serfino and Spouses Cortez executed a compromise agreement where the spouses Cortez, acknowledged their debt of P 108,245.71, eventually reduced to P155,000 with the promise that they would pay in full the judgment debt not later than April 23, 1996. To satisfy their debt, Magdalena Cortez bound herself to pay the debt in full out of her retirement benefits from the GSIS. In case of default, the debt may be executed against any of their properties. No payment was made on that date, and Godfrey Serfino discovered that Magdalena deposited her retirement benefits in the FEBTC savings account of her daughter in law, Grace Cortez. That same day, spouses Serfino’s counsel sent 2 letters to FEBTC informing them that the deposit in Grace’s name was owned by the spouses by virtue of an assignment made in their favor by the spouses Cortez. They asked that the bank prevent the deliver y of the said amount to either Grace or the spouses Cortez until its actual ownership has been resolved in court. An action to recover the money on deposit and payment for damages was filed by Serfino, with a prayer for preliminary attachment, but the next day, Grace withdrew P150,000 from her account. RTC ruled that the spouses Cortez and Grace liable for fraudulently diverting the amount due, but absolved FEBTC from any liability, declaring that the bank was not party to the compromise judgement.

The spouses Serfino contend this ruling, on the grounds of the virtue of 

the assignment of credit, credit , they claim ownership of the deposit, and that FEBTC was duty bound to protect their right by preventing the withdrawal of the deposit since the bank had been notified of the assignment and of their claim. ISSUE: Whether or not FEBTC is obligated to a third party who claims rights over a bank deposit standing in the name of another   person who is their depositor  RULING: No it is not. The terms of the compromise judgment between them did not convey an intent to to equate the assignment of  Magdalena’s retirement benefits (the credit) as the equivalent of th e payment of the debt due the spouses Serfino (the obligation). There was actually no assignment of credit as the compromise judgment merely identified the fund from which payment for the judgment debt would be sourced. That the compromise agreement authorizes recourse in case of  default on other executable properties of the spouses Cortez, to satisfy the judgment debt, further supports our conclusion that there was no assignment of Magdalena’s credit with the GSIS that would have extinguished the obligation. The Bank is also not liable for damages as there is no no law or legal right abused by it. it. Absent a law or a legal ruling of the Court, it has no option but to uphold the existing policy that recognizes the fiduciary nature of banking. It likewise rejects the adoption of a judicially-imposed rule giving third parties with unverified claims against the deposit of another a better right over the deposit. As current laws provide, the bank’s contractual relations are with its depositor, not with the third party. In the absence of any positive duty of the bank to an adverse claimant, there could be no breach that entitles the latter to moral damages. Petition DENIED. RTC Ruling is AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. 172149

February 8, 2010

SESSION DELIGHTS ICE CREAM AND FAST FOODS vs. CA FACTS: Adonis Flora filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Session Delights, which was ruled favourably by the Labor Arbiter. The decision ordered Session Delights to pay Flora back wages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, indemnity and attorney’s fees. Upon appeal, NLRC also ruled in favor of complainant. CA Decision affirmed but deleted the proportional 13

th

month pay and the award of indemnity (P5000) for failure to observe due process. In the course of the

execution of the judgement, the Finance Analyst submitted an updated computation of the award which included the proportionate amount of 13

th

month pay. This was objected by Session, claiming that this was not consistent with the

decision but the same was denied by NLRC. The CA, however, partially granted the petition by deleting the awarded proportionate 13th month pay. ISSUE: WON the updated computation was proper Held: Yes, the updated computation was proper. The issue in the case at bar is not the correctness of the awards, the finality of the CA’s judgment, nor the petitioner’s failure to appeal. Rather, it is the propriety of the computation of the awards made, whether this violated the principle of immutability of final judgments. The question is whether a re- computation in the course of execution, of the labor arbiter’s original computation of the awards made pegged as of the time the decision was rendered and confirmed with modification by a final CA decision, is legally proper. The Court held that under the terms of the decision under execution, no essential change is made by a re-computation as this step is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of dismissal declared in that decision. A re-computation (or an original computation, if no previous computation has been made) is a part of the law  – specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code and the established jurisprudence on this provision  – that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on until full satisfaction, as expressed under Article 279 of  the Labor Code. The re-computation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of the monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of the principle of  immutability of final judgments. Assailed decision is AFFIRMED. Labor Arbiter is asked to conduct another RE-COMPUTATION to determine actual award based on Court’s directives.