Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 330 views

    Producers Bank of The Philippines V CA Digest 2

    Uploaded by

    Angel Urbano
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) The transaction between Vives and Doronilla was a commodatum, not a mutuum, since Vives did not intend to relinquish ownership of the money and retained some control over it. 2) The additional P12,000 in the check did not convert the transaction to a mutuum. 3) Producer's Bank was liable to Vives even though it was not directly involved in the transaction, because its assistant manager facilitated the fraudulent withdrawal from the account.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Producers Bank of The Philippines V CA Digest 2

    Uploaded by

    Angel Urbano
    330 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) The transaction between Vives and Doronilla was a commodatum, not a mutuum, since Vives did not intend to relinquish ownership of the money and retained some control over it. 2) The additional P12,000 in the check did not convert the transaction to a mutuum. 3) Producer's Bank was liable to Vives even though it was not directly involved in the transaction, because its assistant manager facilitated the fraudulent withdrawal from the account.

    Original Description:

    credit transactions

    Original Title

    Producers Bank of the Philippines v CA Digest 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that: 1) The transaction between Vives and Doronilla was a commodatum, not a mutuum, since Vives did not intend to relinquish ownership of the money and retained some control over it. 2) The additional P12,000 in the check did not convert the transaction to a mutuum. 3) Producer's Bank was liable to Vives even though it was not directly involved in the transaction, because its assistant manager facilitated the fraudulent withdrawal from the account.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    330 views2 pages

    Producers Bank of The Philippines V CA Digest 2

    Uploaded by

    Angel Urbano
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) The transaction between Vives and Doronilla was a commodatum, not a mutuum, since Vives did not intend to relinquish ownership of the money and retained some control over it. 2) The additional P12,000 in the check did not convert the transaction to a mutuum. 3) Producer's Bank was liable to Vives even though it was not directly involved in the transaction, because its assistant manager facilitated the fraudulent withdrawal from the account.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Producers Bank of the Philippines vs CA (2003)

    Facts: Doronilla is in the process of incorporating his business and to comply with one of the requirements of
    incorporation, he caused Vives to issue a check which was then deposited in Doronillas savings account. It was agreed
    that Vives can withdraw his money in a months time. However, what Doronilla did was to open a current account and
    instructed the bank to debit from the savings account and deposit it in his current account. So when Vives checked the
    savings account, the money was gone.
    Claims:
    Petitioner:
    1. The transaction between private respondent and Doronilla is a simple loan (mutuum) since all the elements of
    amutuum are present: first, what was delivered by private respondent to Doronilla was money, a consumable
    thing; and second, the transaction was onerous as Doronilla was obliged to pay interest, as evidenced by the
    check issued by Doronilla in the amount of P212,000.00, or P12,000 more than what private respondent
    deposited in Sterelas bank account.
    2. Petitioners Assistant Manager, Mr. Rufo Atienza, could not be faulted for allowing Doronilla to withdraw from
    the savings account of Sterela since the latter was the sole proprietor of said company. Petitioner asserts
    that Doronillas May 8, 1979 letter addressed to the bank, authorizing Mrs. 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 Doronilla, who was the sole
    proprietor of Sterela, and who alone had legal title to the savings account. Petitioner points out that no
    evidence other than the testimonies of private respondent and Mrs. Vives was presented during trial to prove
    that private respondent deposited his P200,000.00 in Sterelas account for purposes of its
    incorporation. Hence, petitioner should not be held liable for allowing Doronilla to withdraw from Sterelas
    savings account.
    3. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial courts decision since the findings of fact therein were not
    accord with the evidence presented by petitioner during trial to prove that the transaction between private
    respondent and Doronilla was a mutuum, and that it committed no wrong in allowing Doronilla to withdraw
    .
    from Sterelas savings account
    4. Petitioner claims that since there is no wrongful act or omission on its part, it is not liable for the actual
    damages suffered by private respondent, and neither may it be held liable for moral and exemplary damages
    as well as attorneys fees.
    Respondent:
    [21]

    1. the transaction between him and Doronilla is not a mutuum but an accommodation, since he did not actually
    part with the ownership of his P200,000.00 and in fact asked his wife to deposit said amount in the account of
    Sterela so that a certification can be issued to the effect that Sterela had sufficient funds for purposes of its
    incorporation but at the same time, he retained some degree of control over his money through his wife who was
    made a signatory to the savings account and in whose possession the savings account passbook was given.
    2. The trial court did not err in finding that petitioner, Atienzas employer, is liable for the return of his money. He
    insists that Atienza, petitioners assistant manager, connived with Doronilla in defrauding private respondent since
    it was Atienza who facilitated the opening of Sterelas current account three days after Mrs. Vives and Sanchez
    opened a savings account with petitioner for said company, as well as the approval of the authority to debit
    Sterelas savings account to cover any overdrawings in its current account.
    Issue/s: (1)WON the transaction is a commodatum or a mutuum. COMMODATUM.
    (2) WON the fact that there is an additional P 12,000 (allegedly representing interest) inthe amount to be returned to Vives
    converts the transaction from commodatum tomutuum. NO.
    (3)WON Producers Bank is solidarily liable to Vives, considering that it was not privy tothe transaction between Vives and
    Doronilla. YES.
    Held/Ratio:
    Supreme Court held that the contract is a commodatum. Although in a commodatum, the object is a non-consumable
    thing, there are instances where a consumable thing may be the object of a commodatum, such as when the purpose is
    not for consumption of the object but merely for exhibition (Art. 1936). Thus, if consumable goods are loaned only for
    purposes of exhibition, or when the intention of the parties is to lend consumable goods and to have the very same goods
    returned at the end of the period agreed upon, the loan is a commodatum and not a mutuum.

    You might also like