BPI v. Franco

December 13, 2018 | Author: Stephanie Griar | Category: Deposit Account, Transaction Account, Cheque, Debit Card, Payments
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

CredTrans digest...


BPI Family Bank v. Amado Franco and Court of Appeals G.R. No. 12!"# 2 Novem$er 2%%& '(C)RIN*+,The deposit of money in banks is governed by the Civil Code provisions on simple loan or  mutuum.


15 Aug 1989: Tevetesco Arrastre!tevedoring Co." #nc. opened a savings and current account $ith %&#'% (( petitioner   petitioner ) *5 Aug: 'irst +etro #nvestment #nvestment Corporation Corporation ('+#C) also opened opened a time deposit accoun accountt $, same same branch branch of %&#'% %&#'% (!an 'ranc 'rancisc isco o del +onte) +onte) in a series series of  transactions -1 Aug: Amado 'ranco (respondent  ( respondent )) opened three (-) accounts (current" savings" and timedeposit) $, %&#'%. Total amount of &*+ use to open these accounts is traceable to a check issued by Tevesteco allegedly in consideration of respondent 'rancos introduction of /ladio Teves (looking for a conduit bank to facilitate Tevetescos  business transactions) to 0aime !ebastian (%&#'%s %ranch +anager). The &*+ is  part of the &8+ debited by %&#'% from '+C#s time deposit account and credited to Tevetescos current account pursuant to an Authority to 2ebit allegedly signed by '+C#s officers $,c appears to be forged. Current: #nitial deposit of &5k  o !avings: #nitial deposit of &5k  o Time deposit: &1+ $, maturity date of -1 Aug 199 o 3 !ept: Antonio 4ng" upon being sho$n the Authority to debit" personally declared his signature to be a forgery. Tevetesco already effected several $ithdra$als from its current account amounting to &-"355"31.53 including the &*+ paid to respondent 'ranco. 8 !ept: %&#'%" through !enior 6& !everino Cornamcion" instructed 0esus Arangorin to debit 'rancos savings 7 current accounts for the amounts remaining therein but the latters time deposit account couldnt be debited due to computer limitations. * checks dra$n by 'ranco against %&#'% current account $ere dishonored upon  presentment for payment 7 stamped stamped $, notation account under under garnishment. arnished by virtue of an 4rder of Attachment issued by +akati TC in a o civil case filed by %&#'% against 'ranco" etc. to r ecover the &-"355"31.53 (Tevetescos (Tevetescos total $ithdra$als from its account) 2ishonored 2ishonored checks $ere issued by respondent respondent 'ranco 'ranco 7 presented presented for  o  payment at %&#'% prior to 'rancos receipt of notice of garnishment. garnishment. At the time the notice dated * !ept $as served on %&#'%" respondent 'ranco has yet to be impleaded in said case $here $rit of attachment $as issued. #t $as only only on 15 +ay 199 that that respon responden dentt 'ranco 'ranco $as implea impleaded ded.. The attachment $as subseuently lifted ho$ever the funds $ere not released to

• •

respondent 'ranco because petitioner %&#'% could not comply given that the money has already already been debited debited because of '+#Cs '+#Cs forgery claim.  petitioner %&#'%s computer t hat branch indicated that the current account record $as not on file. As to respondent 'rancos savings account he agreed to an arrangement as a favor to !ebastian $here &3; from said account $as temporarily transferred to 2omingo -"189 from the remaining remaining balance of the o account representing advance interest paid to him. !everal cases have been filed and resolved pertaining to these transactions. &/T '&#'%s refusal to heed /! 'rancos demand to unfree?e his accounts 7 release his deposits gave rise to the latters filing a case $ith +anila TC. TC endered =udgment in favor of respondent 'ranco ordering &etitioner %&# o '% to pay sums of money. CA +odified decision but &etitioner %&#'% still to pay interest deducted rom o the timedeposit of espondent 'ranco" damages" etc.

I,,*@ho has a better right t o the deposits in respondent 'rancos accounts ( FRANC() /*0'•

 Bo doubt that petitioner %&#'% o$ns the deposited monies in the accounts of  respondent 'ranco" but not as a legal conseuence of its unauthori?ed transfer of  '+#Cs deposits to Tevetescos Tevetescos account. The deposit of money in banks is governed by the Civil Code provisions on o simple loan or mutuum. As there is a debtorcreditor relationship bet$een a bank and its depositor" o  petitioner '&#'% ultimately acuired o$nership of respondent 'rancos deposits" but such o$nership is coupled $, a corresponding obligation to pay him an eual eual amount amount on demand. Although Although petitioner petitioner %&#'% o$ns the deposits" it cannot prevent respondent 'ranco from demanding payment of  the formers obligation by dra$ing checks against his current account or  asking for the released of the funds in his savings account. @hen respondent 'ranco issued checks dra$n against his current account" he had every right as creditor to epect that those checks $ould be honored by petitioner %&# '% as debtor.

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.