23 Guingona Jr. v.

City of Fiscal of Manila (& Clement David)

60033 | 1984-04-04

G.R. No. L-

TOPIC: Bank deposits are irregular deposits; Bank not liable for estafa for failure to
pay deposit
FACTS: David, together with his sister, invested with the Nation Savings and Loan
Association (NSLA) the sum of P1,145,546.20 on forms of time deposits, savings
account deposits, dollar time deposit and receipt and guarantee of payment. When
Central Bank (CB) placed NSLA under receivership, David received a report from the
latter that only P305,821.92 of those investments were entered in the records of
NSLA; the respondents misappropriated the balance of the investments and violated
the Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related Central Bank regulations on foreign
exchange transactions. After demands, petitioner Guingona Jr. paid only
P200,000.00, which reduced the misappropriated amount to P959,078.14 and
US$75,000.00. David requested a promissory note to cover the balance of his
investments plus interest,which the petitioners executed.
ISSUE: WON the bank is liable for estafa for failure to pay deposits.
HELD: NO. Time and savings deposits with banks is a contract of simple loan and
not a contract of deposit. Article 1980 of the NCC provides that: "Fixed, savings, and
current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the
provisions concerning simple loan."
They are considered simple loans and, as such, are not preferred credits. Bank
deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits. They are really loans because they
earn interest. All kinds of bank deposits, whether fixed, savings, or current are to be
treated as loans and are to be covered by the law on loans. Current and savings
deposits are loans to a bank because it can use the same. Hence, the relationship
between the private respondent and the NSLA is that of creditor and debtor;
consequently, the ownership of the amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank
upon the perfection of the contract and it can make use of the amount deposited for
its banking operations, such as to pay interests on deposits and to pay withdrawals.
While the Bank has the obligation to return the amount deposited, it has, however,
no obligation to return or deliver the same money that was deposited. And, the
failure of the Bank to return the amount deposited will not constitute estafa through
misappropriation punishable under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code,
but it will only give rise to civil liability. In simple loan (mutuum), as contrasted to
commodatum, the borrower acquires ownership of the money, goods or personal
property borrowed. Being the owner, the borrower can dispose of the thing
borrowed (Article 248, Civil Code) and his act will not be considered
misappropriation thereof.
Mutuum
One of the parties delivers money or

Commadatum
One of the parties delivers to another,

other consumable thing, upon the

condition that the same amount of the
same kind and quality shall be paid
May be gratuitous or with a stipulation to
pay interest
Ownership passes to the borrower

either something not consumable so that

the latter may use the same for a certain
time and return it
Essentially gratuitous
Bailor retains the ownership of the thing
loaned