G.R. No.

L-30511 February 14, 1980

MANUEL
M.
SERRANO, petitioner,
vs.
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA;
EMERITO M. RAMOS, SUSANA B. RAMOS, EMERITO B. RAMOS, JR., JOSEFA
RAMOS DELA RAMA, HORACIO DELA RAMA, ANTONIO B. RAMOS, FILOMENA
RAMOS LEDESMA, RODOLFO LEDESMA, VICTORIA RAMOS TANJUATCO, and
TEOFILO TANJUATCO, respondents.

SERRANO vs CENTRAL BANK, 96 SCRA 96

Petition for mandamus and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, that seeks the
establishment of joint and solidary liability to the amount of Three Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos, with interest, against respondent Central Bank of the Philippines
and Overseas Bank of Manila and its stockholders, on the alleged failure of the
Overseas Bank of Manila to return the time deposits made by petitioner and
assigned to him, on the ground that respondent Central Bank failed in its duty to
exercise strict supervision over respondent Overseas Bank of Manila to protect
depositors and the general public.
Facts:
Serrano had P350K worth of time deposits in Overseas Bank of Manila.
He made a series of encashment but was not successful. He filed a case against
Overseas Bank & he also included the Central Bank so that the latter may also be
jointly and severally liable. Serrano argued that the CB failed to supervise the acts
of Overseas Bank and protect the interests of its depositors by virtue of constructive
trust.
Issue:

W/N the Central Bank is liable?

Ruling:
No. There is no breach of trust from a banks failure to return the
subject matter of the deposit. Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits.
All kinds of bank deposits are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the
law on loans Art.1980. In reality the depositor is the creditor while the bank is the
debtor. Failure of the respondent bank to honor the time deposit is failure to pay its
obligation as a debtor.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against
petitioner.

DE LOS SANTOS vs TAN KHEY

O.G.No.26695-R, July 30, 1962
Facts:
Tan Khey was the owner of International Hotel located in Iloilo city. Romeo de
los Santos lodged in Tna Kheys hotel. After arrival, he left the hotel, depositing his
revolver and his bag with the person in charge in the hotel. When he returned to
the hotel, he took his revolver and his bag from the person in charge in the hotel
and proceeded to his room. He locked the door before sleeping.
When he woke up, he discovered that the door in his room was opened and
his bag and pants, wherein he placed his revolver , was missing. He reported the
matter to the Assistant Manager of the hotel, who in turn informed Tan Khey.
A secret service agent was sent to investigate and it was found that the wall
of the room occupied by De los Santos was only seven feet high with an open space
above through which one could enter from outside. De los Santos told the detective
that he lost his revolver.
Tan Khey disclaimed liability because De los Santos did not deposit his
properties with the manager despite a notice to that effect was posted in the hotel.
Tan Khey contended that to be liable under Article 1998 of the Civil Code, the
following conditions must concur:
1. Deposit of effects by travellers in hotel or inn
2. Notice given to hotel keepers or employees of the effects brought by
guests
3. Guest or travellers take the precautions which said hotel keepers or their
substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects.
Issue: Whether the hotel owner should be held liable for the loss of the effects of the
guest?
Rulng:
The Court ruled that the hotel owner should be liable for the loss of the
revolver, pants and bag of the guest.
Deposit
While the law speaks of deposit of effects by travellers in hotels or inns,
personal receipt by the innkeeper for safe keeping of effects is not necessaily meant
thereby. The reason therefor is the fact that it is the nature of business of an
innkeeper to provide not only lodging for travellers but also to security to their
persons and effects. The secuity mentioned is not confined to the effects actually
delivered to the innkeeper but also to all effects placed within the premises of the

hotel. This is because innkeepers by the neture of their business, have supervision
and controlof their inns and the premises threof.
It is not necessary that the effect was actually delivered but it is enough that
they are within the inn. If a guest and goods are within the inn, that is sufficient to
charge him.
The owner of a hotel may exonerate himself from liability by showing that the
guest has taken exclusive control of his own goods, but this must be exclusive
custody and control of a guest, and must not be held under the supervision and
care of the innkeeper,ey are kept in a room assigned to a guest or the other proper
depository in the house.
In this case, the guest deposited his effects in the hotel because they are in
his room and within the premises of the hotel, and therefore, within the supervision
and control of the hotel owner.

Notice
The Court ruled that there was no doubt that the person in charge had
knowledge of his revolver, the bag, and pants of the guest, De los Santos.
The requirement of notice being evidently for the purpose of closing the door to
fraudulent claims for non-existent articles, the lack thereof was fatal to De los
Santos claim for reparation for the loss of his eyeglass, ring, and cash.
Precautions
While an innkeeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices,
there can be no doubt of the innkeepers right to make such regulations in the
management of his inn as will more effectually secure the property of his guest and
operate as protection to himself, and that it is incumbent upon the guest, if he
means to hold the inkeeper ho his responsibility, to comply with any regulation that
is just and reasonable, when he is requested to do so.
However, in this case, the notice requiring actual deposit of the effects with
the manager was an unreasonable regulation. It was unreasonable to require the
guest to deposit his bag ,pants and revolver to the manager. De los Santos had
exercised the necessary diligence with respect to the care and vigilance of his
effects.