3 & 4 - Lending Act and Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4.
Deposits
G.R. No. 159912 UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Petitioner, - versus SPOUSES SAMUEL and ODETTE BELUSO, Respondents. August 17, 2007 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to annul the Court of Appeals Decision[1] dated 21 January 2003 and its Resolution[2] dated 9 September 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 67318. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution affirmed in turn the Decision[3] dated 23 March 2000 and Order[4] dated 8 May 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65 of Makati City, in Civil Case No. 99-314, declaring void the interest rate provided in the promissory notes executed by the respondents Spouses Samuel and Odette Beluso (spouses Beluso) in favor of petitioner United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). The procedural and factual antecedents of this case are as follows: On 16 April 1996, UCPB granted the spouses Beluso a Promissory Notes Line under a Credit Agreement whereby the latter could avail from the former credit of up to a maximum amount of P1.2 Million pesos for a term ending on 30 April 1997. The spouses Beluso constituted, other than their promissory notes, a real estate mortgage over parcels of land in Roxas City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. T-31539 and T-27828, as additional security for the obligation. The Credit Agreement was subsequently amended to increase the amount of the Promissory Notes Line to a maximum of P2.35 Million pesos and to extend the term thereof to 28 February 1998. The spouses Beluso availed themselves of the credit line under the following Promissory Notes: PN # Date of PN Maturity Date Amount Secured 8314-96-00083-3 29 April 1996 27 August 1996 P 700,000 8314-96-00085-0 2 May 1996 30 August 1996 P 500,000 8314-96-000292-2 20 November 1996 20 March 1997 P 800,000
Page 1 of 31
The three promissory notes were renewed several times. On 30 April 1997, the payment of the principal and interest of the latter two promissory notes were debited from the spouses Belusos account with UCPB; yet, a consolidated loan for P1.3 Million was again released to the spouses Beluso under one promissory note with a due date of 28 February 1998. To completely avail themselves of the P2.35 Million credit line extended to them by UCPB, the spouses Beluso executed two more promissory notes for a total of P350,000.00: PN # Date of PN Maturity Date Amount Secured 97-00363-1 11 December 1997 28 February 1998 P 200,000 98-00002-4 2 January 1998 28 February 1998
Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

P 150,000 However, the spouses Beluso alleged that the amounts covered by these last two promissory notes were never released or credited to their account and, thus, claimed that the principal indebtedness was only P2 Million. In any case, UCPB applied interest rates on the different promissory notes ranging from 18% to 34%. From 1996 to February 1998 the spouses Beluso were able to pay the total sum of P763,692.03. From 28 February 1998to 10 June 1998, UCPB continued to charge interest and penalty on the obligations of the spouses Beluso, as follows: PN # (102 days) Amount Secured 36% Interest P 170,034.71 Penalty 28% (2 days) 30.41% (102 days) P 1,462,124.54 98-00002-4 P 150,000 33%
Page 2 of 31
The spouses Beluso, however, failed to make any payment of the foregoing amounts. Total 97-00363-1 P 200,000 31% 36% P 225,313.24 97-00366-6 P 700,000 30.17% (7 days) 32.786% (102 days) P 795,294.72 97-00368-2 P 1,300,000 On 23 March 2000, the RTC ruled in favor of the spouses Beluso, disposing of the case as follows: PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the interest rate used by [UCPB] void and the foreclosure and Sheriffs Certificate of Sale void. [UCPB] is hereby ordered to return to [the spouses Beluso] the properties subject of the foreclosure; to pay [the spouses Beluso] the amount of P50,000.00 by way of attorneys fees; and to pay the costs of suit. [The spouses Beluso] are hereby ordered to pay [UCPB] the sum of P1,560,308.00.[5] On 8 May 2000, the RTC denied UCPBs Motion for Reconsideration,[6] prompting UCPB to appeal the RTC Decision with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated March 23, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati City in Civil Case No. 99-314 is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that defendant-appellant UCPB is not liable for attorneys fees or the costs of suit.[7] On 2 September 1998, UCPB demanded that the spouses Beluso pay their total obligation of P2,932,543.00 plus 25% attorneys fees, but the spouses Beluso failed to comply therewith. On 28 December 1998, UCPB foreclosed the properties mortgaged by the spouses Beluso to secure their credit line, which, by that time, already ballooned to P3,784,603.00. On 9 February 1999, the spouses Beluso filed a Petition for Annulment, Accounting and Damages against UCPB with the RTC of Makati City.

On 9 September 2003, the Court of Appeals denied UCPBs Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. UCPB thus filed the present petition, submitting the following issues for our resolution: I WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH DECLARED VOID THE PROVISION ON INTEREST RATE AGREED UPON BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS II WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE COMPUTATION BY THE TRIAL COURT OF RESPONDENTS INDEBTEDNESS AND ORDERED RESPONDENTS TO PAY PETITIONER THE AMOUNT OF ONLY ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHT PESOS (P1,560,308.00) III WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH ANNULLED THE FORECLOSURE BY PETITIONER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES DUE TO AN ALLEGED INCORRECT COMPUTATION OF RESPONDENTS INDEBTEDNESS IV WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH FOUND PETITIONER LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT V
Page 3 of 31
UCPB asserts that this is a reversible error, and claims that while the interest rate was not numerically quantified in the face of the promissory notes, it was nonetheless categorically fixed, at the time of execution thereof, at the rate indicative of the DBD retail rate. UCPB contends that said provision must be read with another stipulation in the promissory notes subjecting to review the interest rate as fixed: The interest rate shall be subject to review and may be increased or decreased by the LENDER considering among others the prevailing financial and monetary conditions; or the rate of interest and charges which other banks or financial institutions charge or offer to charge for similar accommodations; and/or the resulting profitability to the LENDER after due consideration of all dealings with the BORROWER.[10] In this regard, UCPB avers that these are valid reference rates akin to a prevailing rate or prime rate allowed by this Court in Polotan v. Court of Appeals.[11] Furthermore, UCPB argues that even if the proviso as determined by the branch head is considered void, such a declaration would not ipso facto render the connecting clause indicative of DBD retail rate void in view of the separability clause of the Credit Agreement, which reads: Section 9.08 Separability Clause. If any one or more of the provisions contained in this AGREEMENT, or documents executed in connection herewith shall be declared invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired.[12] According to UCPB, the imposition of the questioned interest rates did not infringe on the principle of mutuality of contracts, because the spouses Beluso had the liberty to choose whether or not to renew their credit line at the new interest rates pegged by petitioner.[13] UCPB also claims that assuming there was any defect in the mutuality of the contract at the time of its inception, such defect was cured by the subsequent conduct of the spouses Beluso in availing themselves of the credit line from April 1996 to February 1998 without airing any protest with respect to the interest rates imposed by UCPB. According to UCPB, therefore, the spouses Beluso are in estoppel.[14] We agree with the Court of Appeals, and find no merit in the contentions of UCPB.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO ORDER THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING[8] Validity of the Interest Rates The Court of Appeals held that the imposition of interest in the following provision found in the promissory notes of the spouses Beluso is void, as the interest rates and the bases therefor were determined solely by petitioner UCPB: FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I, and/or We, on or before due date, SPS. SAMUEL AND ODETTE BELUSO (BORROWER), jointly and severally promise to pay to UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (LENDER) or order at UCPB Bldg., Makati Avenue, Makati City, Philippines, the sum of ______________ PESOS, (P_____), Philippine Currency, with interest thereon at the rate indicative of DBD retail rate or as determined by the Branch Head.[9]
Article 1308 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1308. The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them. We applied this provision in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,[15] where we held: In order that obligations arising from contracts may have the force of law between the parties, there must be mutuality between the parties based on their essential equality. A contract containing a condition which makes its fulfillment dependent exclusively upon the uncontrolled will of one of the contracting parties, is void (Garcia vs. Rita Legarda, Inc., 21 SCRA 555). Hence, even assuming that the P1.8 million loan agreement between the PNB and the private respondent gave the PNB a license (although in fact there was none) to increase the interest rate at will during the term of the loan, that license would have been null and void for being violative of the principle of mutuality essential in contracts. It would have invested the loan

agreement with the character of a contract of adhesion, where the parties do not bargain on equal footing, the weaker partys (the debtor) participation being reduced to the alternative to take it or leave it (Qua vs. Law Union & Rock Insurance Co., 95 Phil. 85). Such a contract is a veritable trap for the weaker party whom the courts of justice must protect against abuse and imposition. The provision stating that the interest shall be at the rate indicative of DBD retail rate or as determined by the Branch Head is indeed dependent solely on the will of petitioner UCPB. Under such provision, petitioner UCPB has two choices on what the interest rate shall be: (1) a rate indicative of the DBD retail rate; or (2) a rate as determined by the Branch Head. As UCPB is given this choice, the rate should be categorically determinable in both choices. If either of these two choices presents an opportunity for UCPB to fix the rate at will, the bank can easily choose such an option, thus making the entire interest rate provision violative of the principle of mutuality of contracts. Not just one, but rather both, of these choices are dependent solely on the will of UCPB. Clearly, a rate as determined by the Branch Head gives the latter unfettered discretion on what the rate may be. The Branch Head may choose any rate he or she desires. As regards the rate indicative of the DBD retail rate, the same cannot be considered as valid for being akin to a prevailing rate or prime rate allowed by this Court in Polotan. The interest rate in Polotan reads: The Cardholder agrees to pay interest per annum at 3% plus the prime rate of Security Bank and Trust Company. x x x.[16] In this provision in Polotan, there is a fixed margin over the reference rate: 3%. Thus, the parties can easily determine the interest rate by applying simple arithmetic. On the other hand, the provision in the case at bar does not specify any margin above or below the DBD retail rate. UCPB can peg the interest at any percentage above or below the DBD retail rate, again giving it unfettered discretion in determining the interest rate. The stipulation in the promissory notes subjecting the interest rate to review does not render the imposition by UCPB of interest rates on the obligations of the spouses Beluso valid. According to said stipulation: The interest rate shall be subject to review and may be increased or decreased by the LENDER considering among others the prevailing financial and monetary conditions; or the rate of interest and charges which other banks or financial institutions charge or offer to charge for similar accommodations; and/or the resulting profitability to the LENDER after due consideration of all dealings with the BORROWER.[17] It should be pointed out that the authority to review the interest rate was given UCPB alone as the lender. Moreover, UCPB may apply the considerations enumerated in this provision as it wishes. As worded in the above provision, UCPB may give as much weight as it desires to each of the following considerations: (1) the prevailing financial and monetary condition; (2) the rate of interest and charges which other banks or financial institutions charge or offer to charge for similar accommodations; and/or (3) the resulting profitability to the LENDER (UCPB) after due consideration of all dealings with the BORROWER (the spouses Beluso). Again, as in the case of the interest rate provision, there is no fixed margin above or below these considerations.
Page 4 of 31
In view of the foregoing, the Separability Clause cannot save either of the two options of UCPB as to the interest to be imposed, as both options violate the principle of mutuality of contracts. UCPB likewise failed to convince us that the spouses Beluso were in estoppel. Estoppel cannot be predicated on an illegal act. As between the parties to a contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel if it is prohibited by law or is against public policy.[18] The interest rate provisions in the case at bar are illegal not only because of the provisions of the Civil Code on mutuality of contracts, but also, as shall be discussed later, because they violate the Truth in Lending Act. Not disclosing the true finance charges in connection with the extensions of credit is, furthermore, a form of deception which we cannot countenance. It is against the policy of the State as stated in the Truth in Lending Act: Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to protect its citizens from a lack of awareness of the true cost of credit to the user by assuring a full disclosure of such cost with a view of preventing the uninformed use of credit to the detriment of the national economy.[19] Moreover, while the spouses Beluso indeed agreed to renew the credit line, the offending provisions are found in the promissory notes themselves, not in the credit line. In fixing the interest rates in the promissory notes to cover the renewed credit line, UCPB still reserved to itself the same two options (1) a rate indicative of the DBD retail rate; or (2) a rate as determined by the Branch Head. Error in Computation UCPB asserts that while both the RTC and the Court of Appeals voided the interest rates imposed by UCPB, both failed to include in their computation of the outstanding obligation of the spouses Beluso the legal rate of interest of 12% per annum. Furthermore, the penalty charges were also deleted in the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals. Section 2.04, Article II on Interest and other Bank Charges of the subject Credit Agreement, provides: Section 2.04 Penalty Charges. In addition to the interest provided for in Section 2.01 of this ARTICLE, any principal obligation of the CLIENT hereunder which is not paid when due shall be subject to a penalty charge of one percent (1%) of the amount of such obligation per month computed from due date until the obligation is paid in full. If the bank accelerates teh (sic) payment of availments hereunder pursuant to ARTICLE VIII hereof, the penalty charge shall be used on the total principal amount outstanding and unpaid computed from the date of acceleration until the obligation is paid in full.[20] Paragraph 4 of the promissory notes also states: In case of non-payment of this Promissory Note (Note) at maturity, I/We, jointly and severally, agree to pay an additional sum equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total due on the Note as attorneys fee, aside from the expenses and costs of collection whether actually incurred or not, and a penalty charge of one percent (1%) per month on the total amount due and unpaid from date of default until fully paid.[21]

Petitioner further claims that it is likewise entitled to attorneys fees, pursuant to Section 9.06 of the Credit Agreement, thus: If the BANK shall require the services of counsel for the enforcement of its rights under this AGREEMENT, the Note(s), the collaterals and other related documents, the BANK shall be entitled to recover attorneys fees equivalent to not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total amounts due and outstanding exclusive of costs and other expenses.[22] Another alleged computational error pointed out by UCPB is the negation of the Compounding Interest agreed upon by the parties under Section 2.02 of the Credit Agreement: Section 2.02 Compounding Interest. Interest not paid when due shall form part of the principal and shall be subject to the same interest rate as herein stipulated.[23] and paragraph 3 of the subject promissory notes: Interest not paid when due shall be added to, and become part of the principal and shall likewise bear interest at the same rate.[24] UCPB lastly avers that the application of the spouses Belusos payments in the disputed computation does not reflect the parties agreement. The RTC deducted the payment made by the spouses Beluso amounting to P763,693.00 from the principal of P2,350,000.00. This was allegedly inconsistent with the Credit Agreement, as well as with the agreement of the parties as to the facts of the case. In paragraph 7 of the spouses Belusos Manifestation and Motion on Proposed Stipulation of Facts and Issues vis--vis UCPBs Manifestation, the parties agreed that the amount of P763,693.00 was applied to the interest and not to the principal, in accord with Section 3.03, Article II of the Credit Agreement on Order of the Application of Payments, which provides: Section 3.03 Application of Payment. Payments made by the CLIENT shall be applied in accordance with the following order of preference: 1. Accounts receivable and other out-of-pocket expenses 2. Front-end Fee, Origination Fee, Attorneys Fee and other expenses of collection; 3. Penalty charges; 4. Past due interest; 5. Principal amortization/Payment in arrears; 6. Advance interest; 7. Outstanding balance; and 8. All other obligations of CLIENT to the BANK, if any.[25]
Page 5 of 31
Thus, according to UCPB, the interest charges, penalty charges, and attorneys fees had been erroneously excluded by the RTC and the Court of Appeals from the computation of the total amount due and demandable from spouses Beluso. The spouses Belusos defense as to all these issues is that the demand made by UCPB is for a considerably bigger amount and, therefore, the demand should be considered void. There being no valid demand, according to the spouses Beluso, there would be no default, and therefore the interests and penalties would not commence to run. As it was likewise improper to foreclose the mortgaged properties or file a case against the spouses Beluso, attorneys fees were not warranted. We agree with UCPB on this score. Default commences upon judicial or extrajudicial demand.[26] The excess amount in such a demand does not nullify the demand itself, which is valid with respect to the proper amount. A contrary ruling would put commercial transactions in disarray, as validity of demands would be dependent on the exactness of the computations thereof, which are too often contested. There being a valid demand on the part of UCPB, albeit excessive, the spouses Beluso are considered in default with respect to the proper amount and, therefore, the interests and the penalties began to run at that point. As regards the award of 12% legal interest in favor of petitioner, the RTC actually recognized that said legal interest should be imposed, thus: There being no valid stipulation as to interest, the legal rate of interest shall be charged.[27] It seems that the RTC inadvertently overlooked its non-inclusion in its computation. The spouses Beluso had even originally asked for the RTC to impose this legal rate of interest in both the body and the prayer of its petition with the RTC: 12. Since the provision on the fixing of the rate of interest by the sole will of the respondent Bank is null and void, only the legal rate of interest which is 12% per annum can be legally charged and imposed by the bank, which would amount to only about P599,000.00 since 1996 up to August 31, 1998. xxxx WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petiitoners pray for judgment or order: xxxx 2. By way of example for the public good against the Banks taking unfair advantage of the weaker party to their contract, declaring the legal rate of 12% per annum, as the imposable rate of interest up to February 28, 1999 on the loan of 2.350 million.[28] All these show that the spouses Beluso had acknowledged before the RTC their obligation to pay a 12% legal interest on their loans. When the RTC failed to include the 12% legal interest in its computation, however, the spouses Beluso merely defended in the appellate courts this noninclusion, as the same was beneficial to them. We see, however, sufficient basis to impose a

12% legal interest in favor of petitioner in the case at bar, as what we have voided is merely the stipulated rate of interest and not the stipulation that the loan shall earn interest. We must likewise uphold the contract stipulation providing the compounding of interest. The provisions in the Credit Agreement and in the promissory notes providing for the compounding of interest were neither nullified by the RTC or the Court of Appeals, nor assailed by the spouses Beluso in their petition with the RTC. The compounding of interests has furthermore been declared by this Court to be legal. We have held in Tan v. Court of Appeals,[29] that: Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 2212, interest due and unpaid shall not earn interest. However, the contracting parties may by stipulation capitalize the interest due and unpaid, which as added principal, shall earn new interest. As regards the imposition of penalties, however, although we are likewise upholding the imposition thereof in the contract, we find the rate iniquitous. Like in the case of grossly excessive interests, the penalty stipulated in the contract may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.[30] We find the penalty imposed by UCPB, ranging from 30.41% to 36%, to be iniquitous considering the fact that this penalty is already over and above the compounded interest likewise imposed in the contract. If a 36% interest in itself has been declared unconscionable by this Court,[31] what more a 30.41% to 36% penalty, over and above the payment of compounded interest? UCPB itself must have realized this, as it gave us a sample computation of the spouses Belusos obligation if both the interest and the penalty charge are reduced to 12%. As regards the attorneys fees, the spouses Beluso can actually be liable therefor even if there had been no demand. Filing a case in court is the judicial demand referred to in Article 1169[32] of the Civil Code, which would put the obligor in delay. The RTC, however, also held UCPB liable for attorneys fees in this case, as the spouses Beluso were forced to litigate the issue on the illegality of the interest rate provision of the promissory notes. The award of attorneys fees, it must be recalled, falls under the sound discretion of the court.[33] Since both parties were forced to litigate to protect their respective rights, and both are entitled to the award of attorneys fees from the other, practical reasons dictate that we set off or compensate both parties liabilities for attorneys fees. Therefore, instead of awarding attorneys fees in favor of petitioner, we shall merely affirm the deletion of the award of attorneys fees to the spouses Beluso. In sum, we hold that spouses Beluso should still be held liable for a compounded legal interest of 12% per annum and a penalty charge of 12% per annum. We also hold that, instead of awarding attorneys fees in favor of petitioner, we shall merely affirm the deletion of the award of attorneys fees to the spouses Beluso. Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale Properties of spouses Beluso had been foreclosed, titles to which had already been consolidated on 19 February 2001 and 20 March 2001 in the name of UCPB, as the spouses Beluso failed to exercise their right of redemption which expired on 25 March 2000. The RTC,
Page 6 of 31
however, annulled the foreclosure of mortgage based on an alleged incorrect computation of the spouses Belusos indebtedness. UCPB alleges that none of the grounds for the annulment of a foreclosure sale are present in the case at bar. Furthermore, the annulment of the foreclosure proceedings and the certificates of sale were mooted by the subsequent issuance of new certificates of title in the name of said bank. UCPB claims that the spouses Belusos action for annulment of foreclosure constitutes a collateral attack on its certificates of title, an act proscribed by Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, which provides: Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. The spouses Beluso retort that since they had the right to refuse payment of an excessive demand on their account, they cannot be said to be in default for refusing to pay the same. Consequently, according to the spouses Beluso, the enforcement of such illegal and overcharged demand through foreclosure of mortgage should be voided. We agree with UCPB and affirm the validity of the foreclosure proceedings. Since we already found that a valid demand was made by UCPB upon the spouses Beluso, despite being excessive, the spouses Beluso are considered in default with respect to the proper amount of their obligation to UCPB and, thus, the property they mortgaged to secure such amounts may be foreclosed. Consequently, proceeds of the foreclosure sale should be applied to the extent of the amounts to which UCPB is rightfully entitled. As argued by UCPB, none of the grounds for the annulment of a foreclosure sale are present in this case. The grounds for the proper annulment of the foreclosure sale are the following: (1) that there was fraud, collusion, accident, mutual mistake, breach of trust or misconduct by the purchaser; (2) that the sale had not been fairly and regularly conducted; or (3) that the price was inadequate and the inadequacy was so great as to shock the conscience of the court.[34] Liability for Violation of Truth in Lending Act The RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, imposed a fine of P26,000.00 for UCPBs alleged violation of Republic Act No. 3765, otherwise known as the Truth in Lending Act. UCPB challenges this imposition, on the argument that Section 6(a) of the Truth in Lending Act which mandates the filing of an action to recover such penalty must be made under the following circumstances: Section 6. (a) Any creditor who in connection with any credit transaction fails to disclose to any person any information in violation of this Act or any regulation issued thereunder shall be liable to such person in the amount of P100 or in an amount equal to twice the finance charge required by such creditor in connection with such transaction, whichever is greater, except that such liability shall not exceed P2,000 on any credit transaction. Action to recover such penalty may be brought by such person within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation, in any court of competent jurisdiction. x x x (Emphasis ours.)

According to UCPB, the Court of Appeals even stated that [a]dmittedly the original complaint did not explicitly allege a violation of the Truth in Lending Act and no action to formally admit the amended petition [which expressly alleges violation of the Truth in Lending Act] was made either by [respondents] spouses Beluso and the lower court. x x x.[35] UCPB further claims that the action to recover the penalty for the violation of the Truth in Lending Act had been barred by the one-year prescriptive period provided for in the Act. UCPB asserts that per the records of the case, the latest of the subject promissory notes had been executed on 2 January 1998, but the original petition of the spouses Beluso was filed before the RTC on 9 February 1999, which was after the expiration of the period to file the same on 2 January 1999. On the matter of allegation of the violation of the Truth in Lending Act, the Court of Appeals ruled: Admittedly the original complaint did not explicitly allege a violation of the Truth in Lending Act and no action to formally admit the amended petition was made either by [respondents] spouses Beluso and the lower court. In such transactions, the debtor and the lending institutions do not deal on an equal footing and this law was intended to protect the public from hidden or undisclosed charges on their loan obligations, requiring a full disclosure thereof by the lender. We find that its infringement may be inferred or implied from allegations that when [respondents] spouses Beluso executed the promissory notes, the interest rate chargeable thereon were left blank. Thus, [petitioner] UCPB failed to discharge its duty to disclose in full to [respondents] Spouses Beluso the charges applicable on their loans.[36] We agree with the Court of Appeals. The allegations in the complaint, much more than the title thereof, are controlling. Other than that stated by the Court of Appeals, we find that the allegation of violation of the Truth in Lending Act can also be inferred from the same allegation in the complaint we discussed earlier: b.) In unilaterally imposing an increased interest rates (sic) respondent bank has relied on the provision of their promissory note granting respondent bank the power to unilaterally fix the interest rates, which rate was not determined in the promissory note but was left solely to the will of the Branch Head of the respondent Bank, x x x.[37] The allegation that the promissory notes grant UCPB the power to unilaterally fix the interest rates certainly also means that the promissory notes do not contain a clear statement in writing of (6) the finance charge expressed in terms of pesos and centavos; and (7) the percentage that the finance charge bears to the amount to be financed expressed as a simple annual rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation.[38] Furthermore, the spouses Belusos prayer for such other reliefs just and equitable in the premises should be deemed to include the civil penalty provided for in Section 6(a) of the Truth in Lending Act. UCPBs contention that this action to recover the penalty for the violation of the Truth in Lending Act has already prescribed is likewise without merit. The penalty for the violation of the act is P100 or an amount equal to twice the finance charge required by such creditor in connection with such transaction, whichever is greater, except that such liability shall not exceed P2,000.00 on any credit transaction.[39] As this penalty depends on the finance charge required of the borrower, the borrowers cause of action would only accrue when such finance charge is
Page 7 of 31
required. In the case at bar, the date of the demand for payment of the finance charge is 2 September 1998, while the foreclosure was made on 28 December 1998. The filing of the case on 9 February 1999 is therefore within the one-year prescriptive period. UCPB argues that a violation of the Truth in Lending Act, being a criminal offense, cannot be inferred nor implied from the allegations made in the complaint.[40] Pertinent provisions of the Act read: Sec. 6. (a) Any creditor who in connection with any credit transaction fails to disclose to any person any information in violation of this Act or any regulation issued thereunder shall be liable to such person in the amount of P100 or in an amount equal to twice the finance charge required by such creditor in connection with such transaction, whichever is the greater, except that such liability shall not exceed P2,000 on any credit transaction. Action to recover such penalty may be brought by such person within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation, in any court of competent jurisdiction. In any action under this subsection in which any person is entitled to a recovery, the creditor shall be liable for reasonable attorneys fees and court costs as determined by the court. xxxx (c) Any person who willfully violates any provision of this Act or any regulation issued thereunder shall be fined by not less than P1,000 or more than P5,000 or imprisonment for not less than 6 months, nor more than one year or both. As can be gleaned from Section 6(a) and (c) of the Truth in Lending Act, the violation of the said Act gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Section 6(c) considers a criminal offense the willful violation of the Act, imposing the penalty therefor of fine, imprisonment or both. Section 6(a), on the other hand, clearly provides for a civil cause of action for failure to disclose any information of the required information to any person in violation of the Act. The penalty therefor is an amount of P100 or in an amount equal to twice the finance charge required by the creditor in connection with such transaction, whichever is greater, except that the liability shall not exceed P2,000.00 on any credit transaction. The action to recover such penalty may be instituted by the aggrieved private person separately and independently from the criminal case for the same offense. In the case at bar, therefore, the civil action to recover the penalty under Section 6(a) of the Truth in Lending Act had been jointly instituted with (1) the action to declare the interests in the promissory notes void, and (2) the action to declare the foreclosure void. This joinder is allowed under Rule 2, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, which provides: SEC. 5. Joinder of causes of action.A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions: (a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties; (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;

(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and (d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. In attacking the RTCs disposition on the violation of the Truth in Lending Act since the same was not alleged in the complaint, UCPB is actually asserting a violation of due process. Indeed, due process mandates that a defendant should be sufficiently apprised of the matters he or she would be defending himself or herself against. However, in the 1 July 1999 pre-trial brief filed by the spouses Beluso before the RTC, the claim for civil sanctions for violation of the Truth in Lending Act was expressly alleged, thus: Moreover, since from the start, respondent bank violated the Truth in Lending Act in not informing the borrower in writing before the execution of the Promissory Notes of the interest rate expressed as a percentage of the total loan, the respondent bank instead is liable to pay petitioners double the amount the bank is charging petitioners by way of sanction for its violation.[41] In the same pre-trial brief, the spouses Beluso also expressly raised the following issue: b.) Does the expression indicative rate of DBD retail (sic) comply with the Truth in Lending Act provision to express the interest rate as a simple annual percentage of the loan?[42] These assertions are so clear and unequivocal that any attempt of UCPB to feign ignorance of the assertion of this issue in this case as to prevent it from putting up a defense thereto is plainly hogwash. Petitioner further posits that it is the Metropolitan Trial Court which has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the alleged violation of the Truth in Lending Act, considering that the present action allegedly involved a single credit transaction as there was only one Promissory Note Line. We disagree. We have already ruled that the action to recover the penalty under Section 6(a) of the Truth in Lending Act had been jointly instituted with (1) the action to declare the interests in the promissory notes void, and (2) the action to declare the foreclosure void. There had been no question that the above actions belong to the jurisdiction of the RTC. Subsection (c) of the above-quoted Section 5 of the Rules of Court on Joinder of Causes of Action provides: (c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein. Furthermore, opening a credit line does not create a credit transaction of loan or mutuum, since the former is merely a preparatory contract to the contract of loan or mutuum. Under such credit line, the bank is merely obliged, for the considerations specified therefor, to lend to the other party amounts not exceeding the limit provided. The credit transaction thus occurred not when the credit line was opened, but rather when the credit line was availed of. In the case at bar, the violation of the Truth in Lending Act allegedly occurred not when the parties executed the Credit
Page 8 of 31
Agreement, where no interest rate was mentioned, but when the parties executed the promissory notes, where the allegedly offending interest rate was stipulated. UCPB further argues that since the spouses Beluso were duly given copies of the subject promissory notes after their execution, then they were duly notified of the terms thereof, in substantial compliance with the Truth in Lending Act. Once more, we disagree. Section 4 of the Truth in Lending Act clearly provides that the disclosure statement must be furnished prior to the consummation of the transaction: SEC. 4. Any creditor shall furnish to each person to whom credit is extended, prior to the consummation of the transaction, a clear statement in writing setting forth, to the extent applicable and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board, the following information: (1) the cash price or delivered price of the property or service to be acquired; (2) the amounts, if any, to be credited as down payment and/or trade-in; (3) the difference between the amounts set forth under clauses (1) and (2) (4) the charges, individually itemized, which are paid or to be paid by such person in connection with the transaction but which are not incident to the extension of credit; (5) the total amount to be financed; (6) the finance charge expressed in terms of pesos and centavos; and (7) the percentage that the finance bears to the total amount to be financed expressed as a simple annual rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation. The rationale of this provision is to protect users of credit from a lack of awareness of the true cost thereof, proceeding from the experience that banks are able to conceal such true cost by hidden charges, uncertainty of interest rates, deduction of interests from the loaned amount, and the like. The law thereby seeks to protect debtors by permitting them to fully appreciate the true cost of their loan, to enable them to give full consent to the contract, and to properly evaluate their options in arriving at business decisions. Upholding UCPBs claim of substantial compliance would defeat these purposes of the Truth in Lending Act. The belated discovery of the true cost of credit will too often not be able to reverse the ill effects of an already consummated business decision. In addition, the promissory notes, the copies of which were presented to the spouses Beluso after execution, are not sufficient notification from UCPB. As earlier discussed, the interest rate provision therein does not sufficiently indicate with particularity the interest rate to be applied to the loan covered by said promissory notes. Forum Shopping

UCPB had earlier moved to dismiss the petition (originally Case No. 99-314 in RTC, Makati City) on the ground that the spouses Beluso instituted another case (Civil Case No. V-7227) before the RTC of Roxas City, involving the same parties and issues. UCPB claims that while Civil Case No. V-7227 initially appears to be a different action, as it prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or injunction to stop foreclosure of spouses Belusos properties, it poses issues which are similar to those of the present case.[43] To prove its point, UCPB cited the spouses Belusos Amended Petition in Civil Case No. V-7227, which contains similar allegations as those in the present case. The RTC of Makati denied UCPBs Motion to Dismiss Case No. 99-314 for lack of merit. Petitioner UCPB raised the same issue with the Court of Appeals, and is raising the same issue with us now. The spouses Beluso claim that the issue in Civil Case No. V-7227 before the RTC of Roxas City, a Petition for Injunction Against Foreclosure, is the propriety of the foreclosure before the true account of spouses Beluso is determined. On the other hand, the issue in Case No. 99-314 before the RTC of Makati City is the validity of the interest rate provision. The spouses Beluso claim that Civil Case No. V-7227 has become moot because, before the RTC of Roxas City could act on the restraining order, UCPB proceeded with the foreclosure and auction sale. As the act sought to be restrained by Civil Case No. V-7227 has already been accomplished, the spouses Beluso had to file a different action, that of Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale, Case No. 99-314 with the RTC, Makati City. Even if we assume for the sake of argument, however, that only one cause of action is involved in the two civil actions, namely, the violation of the right of the spouses Beluso not to have their property foreclosed for an amount they do not owe, the Rules of Court nevertheless allows the filing of the second action. Civil Case No. V-7227 was dismissed by the RTC of Roxas City before the filing of Case No. 99-314 with the RTC of Makati City, since the venue of litigation as provided for in the Credit Agreement is in Makati City. Rule 16, Section 5 bars the refiling of an action previously dismissed only in the following instances: SEC. 5. Effect of dismissal.Subject to the right of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of section 1 hereof shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim. (n) Improper venue as a ground for the dismissal of an action is found in paragraph (c) of Section 1, not in paragraphs (f), (h) and (i): SECTION 1. Grounds.Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: (a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party; (b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim; (c) That venue is improperly laid; (d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
Page 9 of 31
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; (f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; (h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiffs pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished; (i) That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and (j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.[44] (Emphases supplied.) When an action is dismissed on the motion of the other party, it is only when the ground for the dismissal of an action is found in paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) that the action cannot be refiled. As regards all the other grounds, the complainant is allowed to file same action, but should take care that, this time, it is filed with the proper court or after the accomplishment of the erstwhile absent condition precedent, as the case may be. UCPB, however, brings to the attention of this Court a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the spouses Beluso on 15 January 1999 with the RTC of Roxas City, which Motion had not yet been ruled upon when the spouses Beluso filed Civil Case No. 99-314 with the RTC of Makati. Hence, there were allegedly two pending actions between the same parties on the same issue at the time of the filing of Civil Case No. 99-314 on 9 February 1999 with the RTC of Makati. This will still not change our findings. It is indeed the general rule that in cases where there are two pending actions between the same parties on the same issue, it should be the later case that should be dismissed. However, this rule is not absolute. According to this Court in Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals[45]: In these cases, it is evident that the first action was filed in anticipation of the filing of the later action and the purpose is to preempt the later suit or provide a basis for seeking the dismissal of the second action. Even if this is not the purpose for the filing of the first action, it may nevertheless be dismissed if the later action is the more appropriate vehicle for the ventilation of the issues between the parties. Thus, in Ramos v. Peralta, it was held: [T]he rule on litis pendentia does not require that the later case should yield to the earlier case. What is required merely is that there be another pending action, not a prior pending action. Considering the broader scope of inquiry involved in Civil Case No. 4102 and the location of the property involved, no error was committed by the lower court in deferring to the Bataan courts jurisdiction. Given, therefore, the pendency of two actions, the following are the relevant considerations in determining which action should be dismissed: (1) the date of filing, with preference generally given to the first action filed to be retained; (2) whether the action sought to be dismissed was filed merely to preempt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its

dismissal; and (3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties. In the case at bar, Civil Case No. V-7227 before the RTC of Roxas City was an action for injunction against a foreclosure sale that has already been held, while Civil Case No. 99-314 before the RTC of Makati City includes an action for the annulment of said foreclosure, an action certainly more proper in view of the execution of the foreclosure sale. The former case was improperly filed in Roxas City, while the latter was filed in Makati City, the proper venue of the action as mandated by the Credit Agreement. It is evident, therefore, that Civil Case No. 99314 is the more appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties, as compared to Civil Case No. V-7227. Thus, we rule that the RTC of Makati City was not in error in not dismissing Civil Case No. 99-314. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: 1. In addition to the sum of P2,350,000.00 as determined by the courts a quo, respondent spouses Samuel and Odette Beluso are also liable for the following amounts: a. Penalty of 12% per annum on the amount due[46] from the date of demand; and b. Compounded legal interest of 12% per annum on the amount due[47] from date of demand; 2. The following amounts shall be deducted from the liability of the spouses Samuel and Odette Beluso: a. Payments made by the spouses in the amount of P763,692.00. These payments shall be applied to the date of actual payment of the following in the order that they are listed, to wit: G.R. No. L-66826 August 19, 1988 i. penalty charges due and demandable as of the time of payment; BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, ii. interest due and demandable as of the time of payment; vs. iii. principal amortization/payment in arrears as of the time of payment;
Page 10 of 31
3. The foreclosure of mortgage is hereby declared VALID. Consequently, the amounts which the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ordered respondents to pay, as modified in this Decision, shall be deducted from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale. SO ORDERED. [32] Article 1169 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may exist: (1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or (2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; or (3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform. In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ZSHORNACK respondents. iv. outstanding balance. Pacis & Reyes Law Office for petitioner. b. Penalty under Republic Act No. 3765 in the amount of P26,000.00. This amount shall be deducted from the liability of the spouses Samuel and Odette Beluso on 9 February 1999 to the following in the order that they are listed, to wit: i. penalty charges due and demandable as of time of payment; ii. interest due and demandable as of the time of payment; iii. principal amortization/payment in arrears as of the time of payment; iv. outstanding balance. The original parties to this case were Rizaldy T. Zshornack and the Commercial Bank and Trust Company of the Philippines [hereafter referred to as COMTRUST.] In 1980, the Bank of the Philippine Islands (hereafter referred to as BPI absorbed COMTRUST through a corporate merger, and was substituted as party to the case. Rizaldy Zshornack initiated proceedings on June 28,1976 by filing in the Court of First Instance of Rizal Caloocan City a complaint against COMTRUST alleging four causes of action. Ernesto T. Zshornack, Jr. for private respondent. CORTES, J.:

Except for the third cause of action, the CFI ruled in favor of Zshornack. The bank appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court which modified the CFI decision absolving the bank from liability on the fourth cause of action. The pertinent portions of the judgment, as modified, read: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court renders judgment as follows: 1. Ordering the defendant COMTRUST to restore to the dollar savings account of plaintiff (No. 25-4109) the amount of U.S $1,000.00 as of October 27, 1975 to earn interest together with the remaining balance of the said account at the rate fixed by the bank for dollar deposits under Central Bank Circular 343; 2. Ordering defendant COMTRUST to return to the plaintiff the amount of U.S. $3,000.00 immediately upon the finality of this decision, without interest for the reason that the said amount was merely held in custody for safekeeping, but was not actually deposited with the defendant COMTRUST because being cash currency, it cannot by law be deposited with plaintiffs dollar account and defendants only obligation is to return the same to plaintiff upon demand; xxx xxx xxx 5. Ordering defendant COMTRUST to pay plaintiff in the amount of P8,000.00 as damages in the concept of litigation expenses and attorneys fees suffered by plaintiff as a result of the failure of the defendant bank to restore to his (plaintiffs) account the amount of U.S. $1,000.00 and to return to him (plaintiff) the U.S. $3,000.00 cash left for safekeeping. Costs against defendant COMTRUST. SO ORDERED. [Rollo, pp. 47-48.] Undaunted, the bank comes to this Court praying that it be totally absolved from any liability to Zshornack. The latter not having appealed the Court of Appeals decision, the issues facing this Court are limited to the banks liability with regard to the first and second causes of action and its liability for damages. 1. We first consider the first cause of action, On the dates material to this case, Rizaldy Zshornack and his wife, Shirley Gorospe, maintained in COMTRUST, Quezon City Branch, a dollar savings account and a peso current account. On October 27, 1975, an application for a dollar draft was accomplished by Virgilio V. Garcia, Assistant Branch Manager of COMTRUST Quezon City, payable to a certain Leovigilda D. Dizon in the amount of $1,000.00. In the application, Garcia indicated that the amount was to be charged to Dollar Savings Acct. No. 25-4109, the savings account of the Zshornacks; the charges for commission, documentary stamp tax and others totalling P17.46 were to be charged to Current Acct. No. 210465-29, again, the current account of the Zshornacks. There was no indication of the name of the purchaser of the dollar draft. On the same date, October 27,1975, COMTRUST, under the signature of Virgilio V. Garcia, issued a check payable to the order of Leovigilda D. Dizon in the sum of US $1,000 drawn on
Page 11 of 31
the Chase Manhattan Bank, New York, with an indication that it was to be charged to Dollar Savings Acct. No. 25-4109. When Zshornack noticed the withdrawal of US$1,000.00 from his account, he demanded an explanation from the bank. In answer, COMTRUST claimed that the peso value of the withdrawal was given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, Jr., brother of Rizaldy, on October 27, 1975 when he (Ernesto) encashed with COMTRUST a cashiers check for P8,450.00 issued by the Manila Banking Corporation payable to Ernesto. Upon consideration of the foregoing facts, this Court finds no reason to disturb the ruling of both the trial court and the Appellate Court on the first cause of action. Petitioner must be held liable for the unauthorized withdrawal of US$1,000.00 from private respondents dollar account. In its desperate attempt to justify its act of withdrawing from its depositors savings account, the bank has adopted inconsistent theories. First, it still maintains that the peso value of the amount withdrawn was given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, Jr. when the latter encashed the Manilabank Cashiers Check. At the same time, the bank claims that the withdrawal was made pursuant to an agreement where Zshornack allegedly authorized the bank to withdraw from his dollar savings account such amount which, when converted to pesos, would be needed to fund his peso current account. If indeed the peso equivalent of the amount withdrawn from the dollar account was credited to the peso current account, why did the bank still have to pay Ernesto? At any rate, both explanations are unavailing. With regard to the first explanation, petitioner bank has not shown how the transaction involving the cashiers check is related to the transaction involving the dollar draft in favor of Dizon financed by the withdrawal from Rizaldys dollar account. The two transactions appear entirely independent of each other. Moreover, Ernesto Zshornack, Jr., possesses a personality distinct and separate from Rizaldy Zshornack. Payment made to Ernesto cannot be considered payment to Rizaldy. As to the second explanation, even if we assume that there was such an agreement, the evidence do not show that the withdrawal was made pursuant to it. Instead, the record reveals that the amount withdrawn was used to finance a dollar draft in favor of Leovigilda D. Dizon, and not to fund the current account of the Zshornacks. There is no proof whatsoever that peso Current Account No. 210-465-29 was ever credited with the peso equivalent of the US$1,000.00 withdrawn on October 27, 1975 from Dollar Savings Account No. 25-4109. 2. As for the second cause of action, the complaint filed with the trial court alleged that on December 8, 1975, Zshornack entrusted to COMTRUST, thru Garcia, US $3,000.00 cash (popularly known as greenbacks) for safekeeping, and that the agreement was embodied in a document, a copy of which was attached to and made part of the complaint. The document reads: Makati Cable Address: Philippines COMTRUST COMMERCIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY of the Philippines

Quezon City Branch December 8, 1975 MR. RIZALDY T. ZSHORNACK &/OR MRS SHIRLEY E. ZSHORNACK
Page 12 of 31
desired: (1) to question the authority of Garcia to bind the corporation; and (2) to deny its capacity to enter into such contract. [See, E.B. Merchant v. International Banking Corporation, 6 Phil. 314 (1906).] No sworn answer denying the due execution of the document in question, or questioning the authority of Garcia to bind the bank, or denying the banks capacity to enter into the contract, was ever filed. Hence, the bank is deemed to have admitted not only Garcias authority, but also the banks power, to enter into the contract in question. In the past, this Court had occasion to explain the reason behind this procedural requirement.
Sir/Madam: We acknowledged (sic) having received from you today the sum of US DOLLARS: THREE THOUSAND ONLY (US$3,000.00) for safekeeping. Received by: (Sgd.) VIRGILIO V. GARCIA It was also alleged in the complaint that despite demands, the bank refused to return the money. In its answer, COMTRUST averred that the US$3,000 was credited to Zshornacks peso current account at prevailing conversion rates. It must be emphasized that COMTRUST did not deny specifically under oath the authenticity and due execution of the above instrument. During trial, it was established that on December 8, 1975 Zshornack indeed delivered to the bank US $3,000 for safekeeping. When he requested the return of the money on May 10, 1976, COMTRUST explained that the sum was disposed of in this manner: US$2,000.00 was sold on December 29, 1975 and the peso proceeds amounting to P14,920.00 were deposited to Zshornacks current account per deposit slip accomplished by Garcia; the remaining US$1,000.00 was sold on February 3, 1976 and the peso proceeds amounting to P8,350.00 were deposited to his current account per deposit slip also accomplished by Garcia. Aside from asserting that the US$3,000.00 was properly credited to Zshornacks current account at prevailing conversion rates, BPI now posits another ground to defeat private respondents claim. It now argues that the contract embodied in the document is the contract of depositum (as defined in Article 1962, New Civil Code), which banks do not enter into. The bank alleges that Garcia exceeded his powers when he entered into the transaction. Hence, it is claimed, the bank cannot be liable under the contract, and the obligation is purely personal to Garcia. Before we go into the nature of the contract entered into, an important point which arises on the pleadings, must be considered. The second cause of action is based on a document purporting to be signed by COMTRUST, a copy of which document was attached to the complaint. In short, the second cause of action was based on an actionable document. It was therefore incumbent upon the bank to specifically deny under oath the due execution of the document, as prescribed under Rule 8, Section 8, if it The reason for the rule enunciated in the foregoing authorities will, we think, be readily appreciated. In dealing with corporations the public at large is bound to rely to a large extent upon outward appearances. If a man is found acting for a corporation with the external indicia of authority, any person, not having notice of want of authority, may usually rely upon those appearances; and if it be found that the directors had permitted the agent to exercise that authority and thereby held him out as a person competent to bind the corporation, or had acquiesced in a contract and retained the benefit supposed to have been conferred by it, the corporation will be bound, notwithstanding the actual authority may never have been granted Whether a particular officer actually possesses the authority which he assumes to exercise is frequently known to very few, and the proof of it usually is not readily accessible to the stranger who deals with the corporation on the faith of the ostensible authority exercised by some of the corporate officers. It is therefore reasonable, in a case where an officer of a corporation has made a contract in its name, that the corporation should be required, if it denies his authority, to state such defense in its answer. By this means the plaintiff is apprised of the fact that the agents authority is contested; and he is given an opportunity to adduce evidence showing either that the authority existed or that the contract was ratified and approved. [Ramirez v. Orientalist Co. and Fernandez, 38 Phil. 634, 645- 646 (1918).] Petitioners argument must also be rejected for another reason. The practical effect of absolving a corporation from liability every time an officer enters into a contract which is beyond corporate powers, even without the proper allegation or proof that the corporation has not authorized nor ratified the officers act, is to cast corporations in so perfect a mold that transgressions and wrongs by such artificial beings become impossible [Bissell v. Michigan Southern and N.I.R. Cos 22 N.Y 258 (1860).] To say that a corporation has no right to do unauthorized acts is only to put forth a very plain truism but to say that such bodies have no power or capacity to err is to impute to them an excellence which does not belong to any created existence with which we are acquainted. The distinction between power and right is no more to be lost sight of in respect to artificial than in respect to natural persons. [Ibid.] Having determined that Garcias act of entering into the contract binds the corporation, we now determine the correct nature of the contract, and its legal consequences, including its enforceability. The document which embodies the contract states that the US$3,000.00 was received by the bank for safekeeping. The subsequent acts of the parties also show that the intent of the parties was really for the bank to safely keep the dollars and to return it to Zshornack at a later time, Thus, Zshornack demanded the return of the money on May 10, 1976, or over five months later.

The above arrangement is that contract defined under Article 1962, New Civil Code, which reads: Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and of returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other contract. Note that the object of the contract between Zshornack and COMTRUST was foreign exchange. Hence, the transaction was covered by Central Bank Circular No. 20, Restrictions on Gold and Foreign Exchange Transactions, promulgated on December 9, 1949, which was in force at the time the parties entered into the transaction involved in this case. The circular provides: xxx xxx xxx 2. Transactions in the assets described below and all dealings in them of whatever nature, including, where applicable their exportation and importation, shall NOT be effected, except with respect to deposit accounts included in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of this paragraph, when such deposit accounts are owned by and in the name of, banks. (a) Any and all assets, provided they are held through, in, or with banks or banking institutions located in the Philippines, including money, checks, drafts, bullions bank drafts, deposit accounts (demand, time and savings), all debts, indebtedness or obligations, financial brokers and investment houses, notes, debentures, stocks, bonds, coupons, bank acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security, expressed in foreign currencies, or if payable abroad, irrespective of the currency in which they are expressed, and belonging to any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or corporation residing or located within the Philippines; (b) Any and all assets of the kinds included and/or described in subparagraph (a) above, whether or not held through, in, or with banks or banking institutions, and existent within the Philippines, which belong to any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or corporation not residing or located within the Philippines; (c) Any and all assets existent within the Philippines including money, checks, drafts, bullions, bank drafts, all debts, indebtedness or obligations, financial securities commonly dealt in by bankers, brokers and investment houses, notes, debentures, stock, bonds, coupons, bank acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security expressed in foreign currencies, or if payable abroad, irrespective of the currency in which they are expressed, and belonging to any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or corporation residing or located within the Philippines. xx xxx xxx 4. (a) All receipts of foreign exchange shall be sold daily to the Central Bank by those authorized to deal in foreign exchange. All receipts of foreign exchange by any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or
Page 13 of 31
corporation shall be sold to the authorized agents of the Central Bank by the recipients within one business day following the receipt of such foreign exchange. Any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or corporation, residing or located within the Philippines, who acquires on and after the date of this Circular foreign exchange shall not, unless licensed by the Central Bank, dispose of such foreign exchange in whole or in part, nor receive less than its full value, nor delay taking ownership thereof except as such delay is customary; Provided, further, That within one day upon taking ownership, or receiving payment, of foreign exchange the aforementioned persons and entities shall sell such foreign exchange to designated agents of the Central Bank. xxx xxx xxx 8. Strict observance of the provisions of this Circular is enjoined; and any person, firm or corporation, foreign or domestic, who being bound to the observance thereof, or of such other rules, regulations or directives as may hereafter be issued in implementation of this Circular, shall fail or refuse to comply with, or abide by, or shall violate the same, shall be subject to the penal sanctions provided in the Central Bank Act. xxx xxx xxx Paragraph 4 (a) above was modified by Section 6 of Central Bank Circular No. 281, Regulations on Foreign Exchange, promulgated on November 26, 1969 by limiting its coverage to Philippine residents only. Section 6 provides: SEC. 6. All receipts of foreign exchange by any resident person, firm, company or corporation shall be sold to authorized agents of the Central Bank by the recipients within one business day following the receipt of such foreign exchange. Any resident person, firm, company or corporation residing or located within the Philippines, who acquires foreign exchange shall not, unless authorized by the Central Bank, dispose of such foreign exchange in whole or in part, nor receive less than its full value, nor delay taking ownership thereof except as such delay is customary; Provided, That, within one business day upon taking ownership or receiving payment of foreign exchange the aforementioned persons and entities shall sell such foreign exchange to the authorized agents of the Central Bank. As earlier stated, the document and the subsequent acts of the parties show that they intended the bank to safekeep the foreign exchange, and return it later to Zshornack, who alleged in his complaint that he is a Philippine resident. The parties did not intended to sell the US dollars to the Central Bank within one business day from receipt. Otherwise, the contract of depositum would never have been entered into at all. Since the mere safekeeping of the greenbacks, without selling them to the Central Bank within one business day from receipt, is a transaction which is not authorized by CB Circular No. 20, it must be considered as one which falls under the general class of prohibited transactions. Hence, pursuant to Article 5 of the Civil Code, it is void, having been executed against the provisions of a mandatory/prohibitory law. More importantly, it affords neither of the parties a cause of action against the other. When the nullity proceeds from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract, and the act constitutes a criminal offense, both parties being in pari delicto, they shall have no cause of action against each other [Art. 1411, New Civil Code.] The only remedy is one on behalf of the State to prosecute the parties for violating the law.

We thus rule that Zshornack cannot recover under the second cause of action. 3. Lastly, we find the P8,000.00 awarded by the courts a quo as damages in the concept of litigation expenses and attorneys fees to be reasonable. The award is sustained. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner is ordered to restore to the dollar savings account of private respondent the amount of US$1,000.00 as of October 27, 1975 to earn interest at the rate fixed by the bank for dollar savings deposits. Petitioner is further ordered to pay private respondent the amount of P8,000.00 as damages. The other causes of action of private respondent are ordered dismissed. SO ORDERED.
Page 14 of 31
was taken from the bank by the military authorities by virtue of such order, was confiscated and turned over to the Government. While there is considerable dispute in the case over the question whether the P6,641 of trust funds was included in the P19,000 deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, a careful examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the United States. That branch of the law known in England and America as the law of trusts had no exact counterpart in the Roman law and has none under the Spanish law. In this jurisdiction, therefore, Father De la Peas liability is determined by those portions of the Civil Code which relate to obligations. (Book 4, Title 1.) Although the Civil Code states that a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family (art. 1094), it also provides, following the principle of the Roman law, major casus est, cui humana infirmitas resistere non potest, that no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares. (Art. 1105.) By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his personal funds De la Pea did not thereby assume an obligation different from that under which he would have lain if such deposit had not been made, nor did he thereby make himself liable to repay the money at all hazards. If the had been forcibly taken from his pocket or from his house by the military forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is clear that under the provisions of the Civil Code he would have been exempt from responsibility. The fact that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards. We do not enter into a discussion for the purpose of determining whether he acted more or less negligently by depositing the money in the bank than he would if he had left it in his home; or whether he was more or less negligent by depositing the money in his personal account than he would have been if he had deposited it in a separate account as trustee. We regard such discussion as substantially fruitless, inasmuch as the precise question is not one of negligence. There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the deposit. While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do or give a thing is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching the results of which will be dangerous to his trust, to take all reasonable means and measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do not feel constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally legal, he is culpably negligent in selecting one whereas he would not have been if he had selected the other. The court, therefore, finds and declares that the money which is the subject matter of this action was deposited by Father De la Pea in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said money was forcibly taken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of the insurrection; and that said Father De la Pea was not responsible for its loss.
G.R. No. L-6913 November 21, 1913 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO DE LA PEA, administrator of the estate of Father Agustin de la Pea, defendantappellant. J. Lopez Vito, for appellant. Arroyo and Horrilleno, for appellee. MORELAND, J.: This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, awarding to the plaintiff the sum of P6,641, with interest at the legal rate from the beginning of the action. It is established in this case that the plaintiff is the trustee of a charitable bequest made for the construction of a leper hospital and that father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorized representative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. The defendant is the administrator of the estate of Father De la Pea. In the year 1898 the books Father De la Pea, as trustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee the sum of P6,641, collected by him for the charitable purposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposited in his personal account P19,000 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo. Shortly thereafter and during the war of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrested by the military authorities as a political prisoner, and while thus detained made an order on said bank in favor of the United States Army officer under whose charge he then was for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrest of Father De la Pea and the confiscation of the funds in the bank were the result of the claim of the military authorities that he was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money

The judgment is therefore reversed, and it is decreed that the plaintiff shall take nothing by his complaint. Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions TRENT, J., dissenting: I dissent. Technically speaking, whether Father De la Pea was a trustee or an agent of the plaintiff his books showed that in 1898 he had in his possession as trustee or agent the sum of P6,641 belonging to the plaintiff as the head of the church. This money was then clothed with all the immunities and protection with which the law seeks to invest trust funds. But when De la Pea mixed this trust fund with his own and deposited the whole in the bank to his personal account or credit, he by this act stamped on the said fund his own private marks and unclothed it of all the protection it had. If this money had been deposited in the name of De la Pea as trustee or agent of the plaintiff, I think that it may be presumed that the military authorities would not have confiscated it for the reason that they were looking for insurgent funds only. Again, the plaintiff had no reason to suppose that De la Pea would attempt to strip the fund of its identity, nor had he said or done anything which tended to relieve De la Pea from the legal reponsibility which pertains to the care and custody of trust funds. The Supreme Court of the United States in the United State vs. Thomas (82 U. S., 337), at page 343, said: Trustees are only bound to exercise the same care and solicitude with regard to the trust property which they would exercise with regard to their own. Equity will not exact more of them. They are not liable for a loss by theft without their fault. But this exemption ceases when they mix the trust-money with their own, whereby it loses its identity, and they become mere debtors. If this proposition is sound and is applicable to cases arising in this jurisdiction, and I entertain no doubt on this point, the liability of the estate of De la Pea cannot be doubted. But this court in the majority opinion says: The fact that he (Agustin de la Pea) placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards . There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did, and there was no law which changed his responsibility, by reason of the deposit. I assume that the court in using the language which appears in the latter part of the above quotation meant to say that there was no statutory law regulating the question. Questions of this character are not usually governed by statutory law. The law is to be found in the very nature of the trust itself, and, as a general rule, the courts say what facts are necessary to hold the trustee as a debtor. If De la Pea, after depositing the trust fund in his personal account, had used this money for speculative purposes, such as the buying and selling of sugar or other products of the country, thereby becoming a debtor, there would have been no doubt as to the liability of his estate. Whether he used this money for that purpose the record is silent, but it will be noted that a considerable length of time intervened from the time of the deposit until the funds were confiscated by the military authorities. In fact the record shows that De la Pea deposited on June 27, 1898, P5,259, on June 28 of that year P3,280, and on August 5 of the same year
Page 15 of 31
P6,000. The record also shows that these funds were withdrawn and again deposited all together on the 29th of May, 1900, this last deposit amounting to P18,970. These facts strongly indicate that De la Pea had as a matter of fact been using the money in violation of the trust imposed in him. lawph!1.net If the doctrine announced in the majority opinion be followed in cases hereafter arising in this jurisdiction trust funds will be placed in precarious condition. The position of the trustee will cease to be one of trust.
G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993 CA AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents. Dolorfino & Dominguez Law Offices for petitioner. Danilo B. Banares for private respondent. DAVIDE, JR., J.: Is the contractual relation between a commercial bank and another party in a contract of rent of a safety deposit box with respect to its contents placed by the latter one of bailor and bailee or one of lessor and lessee? This is the crux of the present controversy. On 3 July 1979, petitioner (through its President, Sergio Aguirre) and the spouses Ramon and Paula Pugao entered into an agreement whereby the former purchased from the latter two (2) parcels of land for a consideration of P350,625.00. Of this amount, P75,725.00 was paid as downpayment while the balance was covered by three (3) postdated checks. Among the terms and conditions of the agreement embodied in a Memorandum of True and Actual Agreement of Sale of Land were that the titles to the lots shall be transferred to the petitioner upon full payment of the purchase price and that the owners copies of the certificates of titles thereto, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 284655 and 292434, shall be deposited in a safety deposit box of any bank. The same could be withdrawn only upon the joint signatures of a representative of the petitioner and the Pugaos upon full payment of the purchase price. Petitioner, through Sergio Aguirre, and the Pugaos then rented Safety Deposit Box No. 1448 of private respondent Security Bank and Trust Company, a domestic banking corporation hereinafter referred to as the respondent Bank. For this purpose, both signed a contract of lease (Exhibit 2) which contains, inter alia, the following conditions: 13. The bank is not a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the same.

14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith. 1 After the execution of the contract, two (2) renters keys were given to the renters one to Aguirre (for the petitioner) and the other to the Pugaos. A guard key remained in the possession of the respondent Bank. The safety deposit box has two (2) keyholes, one for the guard key and the other for the renters key, and can be opened only with the use of both keys. Petitioner claims that the certificates of title were placed inside the said box. Thereafter, a certain Mrs. Margarita Ramos offered to buy from the petitioner the two (2) lots at a price of P225.00 per square meter which, as petitioner alleged in its complaint, translates to a profit of P100.00 per square meter or a total of P280,500.00 for the entire property. Mrs. Ramos demanded the execution of a deed of sale which necessarily entailed the production of the certificates of title. In view thereof, Aguirre, accompanied by the Pugaos, then proceeded to the respondent Bank on 4 October 1979 to open the safety deposit box and get the certificates of title. However, when opened in the presence of the Banks representative, the box yielded no such certificates. Because of the delay in the reconstitution of the title, Mrs. Ramos withdrew her earlier offer to purchase the lots; as a consequence thereof, the petitioner allegedly failed to realize the expected profit of P280,500.00. Hence, the latter filed on 1 September 1980 a complaint 2 for damages against the respondent Bank with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Pasig, Metro Manila which docketed the same as Civil Case No. 38382. In its Answer with Counterclaim, 3 respondent Bank alleged that the petitioner has no cause of action because of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the contract of lease (Exhibit 2); corollarily, loss of any of the items or articles contained in the box could not give rise to an action against it. It then interposed a counterclaim for exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees in the amount of P20,000.00. Petitioner subsequently filed an answer to the counterclaim. 4 In due course, the trial court, now designated as Branch 161 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Metro Manila, rendered a decision 5 adverse to the petitioner on 8 December 1986, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiffs complaint. On defendants counterclaim, judgment is hereby rendered ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the amount of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS as attorneys fees. With costs against plaintiff. 6 The unfavorable verdict is based on the trial courts conclusion that under paragraphs 13 and 14 of the contract of lease, the Bank has no liability for the loss of the certificates of title. The court declared that the said provisions are binding on the parties. Its motion for reconsideration 7 having been denied, petitioner appealed from the adverse decision to the respondent Court of Appeals which docketed the appeal as CA-G.R. CV No. 15150. Petitioner urged the respondent Court to reverse the challenged decision because the trial court erred in (a) absolving the respondent Bank from liability from the loss, (b) not declaring as null and void, for being contrary to law, public order and public policy, the
Page 16 of 31
provisions in the contract for lease of the safety deposit box absolving the Bank from any liability for loss, (c) not concluding that in this jurisdiction, as well as under American jurisprudence, the liability of the Bank is settled and (d) awarding attorneys fees to the Bank and denying the petitioners prayer for nominal and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. 8 In its Decision promulgated on 4 July 1989, 9 respondent Court affirmed the appealed decision principally on the theory that the contract (Exhibit 2) executed by the petitioner and respondent Bank is in the nature of a contract of lease by virtue of which the petitioner and its co-renter were given control over the safety deposit box and its contents while the Bank retained no right to open the said box because it had neither the possession nor control over it and its contents. As such, the contract is governed by Article 1643 of the Civil Code 10 which provides: Art. 1643. In the lease of things, one of the parties binds himself to give to another the enjoyment or use of a thing for a price certain, and for a period which may be definite or indefinite. However, no lease for more than ninety-nine years shall be valid. It invoked Tolentino vs. Gonzales 11 which held that the owner of the property loses his control over the property leased during the period of the contract and Article 1975 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 1975. The depositary holding certificates, bonds, securities or instruments which earn interest shall be bound to collect the latter when it becomes due, and to take such steps as may be necessary in order that the securities may preserve their value and the rights corresponding to them according to law. The above provision shall not apply to contracts for the rent of safety deposit boxes. and then concluded that [c]learly, the defendant-appellee is not under any duty to maintain the contents of the box. The stipulation absolving the defendant-appellee from liability is in accordance with the nature of the contract of lease and cannot be regarded as contrary to law, public order and public policy. 12 The appellate court was quick to add, however, that under the contract of lease of the safety deposit box, respondent Bank is not completely free from liability as it may still be made answerable in case unauthorized persons enter into the vault area or when the rented box is forced open. Thus, as expressly provided for in stipulation number 8 of the contract in question: 8. The Bank shall use due diligence that no unauthorized person shall be admitted to any rented safe and beyond this, the Bank will not be responsible for the contents of any safe rented from it. 13 Its motion for reconsideration 14 having been denied in the respondent Courts Resolution of 28 August 1989, 15 petitioner took this recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and urges Us to review and set aside the respondent Courts ruling. Petitioner avers that both the respondent Court and the trial court (a) did not properly and legally apply the correct law in this case, (b) acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction amounting to lack thereof and (c) set a precedent that is contrary to, or is a departure from precedents adhered to and affirmed by decisions of this Court and precepts in American jurisprudence adopted in the Philippines. It reiterates the arguments it had raised in its motion to reconsider the trial courts decision, the brief submitted to the respondent Court and the motion to reconsider the latters

decision. In a nutshell, petitioner maintains that regardless of nomenclature, the contract for the rent of the safety deposit box (Exhibit 2) is actually a contract of deposit governed by Title XII, Book IV of the Civil Code of the Philippines. 16 Accordingly, it is claimed that the respondent Bank is liable for the loss of the certificates of title pursuant to Article 1972 of the said Code which provides: Art. 1972. The depositary is obliged to keep the thing safely and to return it, when required, to the depositor, or to his heirs and successors, or to the person who may have been designated in the contract. His responsibility, with regard to the safekeeping and the loss of the thing, shall be governed by the provisions of Title I of this Book. If the deposit is gratuitous, this fact shall be taken into account in determining the degree of care that the depositary must observe. Petitioner then quotes a passage from American Jurisprudence 17 which is supposed to expound on the prevailing rule in the United States, to wit: The prevailing rule appears to be that where a safe-deposit company leases a safe-deposit box or safe and the lessee takes possession of the box or safe and places therein his securities or other valuables, the relation of bailee and bail or is created between the parties to the transaction as to such securities or other valuables; the fact that the safe-deposit company does not know, and that it is not expected that it shall know, the character or description of the property which is deposited in such safe-deposit box or safe does not change that relation. That access to the contents of the safe-deposit box can be had only by the use of a key retained by the lessee ( whether it is the sole key or one to be used in connection with one retained by the lessor) does not operate to alter the foregoing rule. The argument that there is not, in such a case, a delivery of exclusive possession and control to the deposit company, and that therefore the situation is entirely different from that of ordinary bailment, has been generally rejected by the courts, usually on the ground that as possession must be either in the depositor or in the company, it should reasonably be considered as in the latter rather than in the former, since the company is, by the nature of the contract, given absolute control of access to the property, and the depositor cannot gain access thereto without the consent and active participation of the company . (citations omitted). and a segment from Words and Phrases 18 which states that a contract for the rental of a bank safety deposit box in consideration of a fixed amount at stated periods is a bailment for hire. Petitioner further argues that conditions 13 and 14 of the questioned contract are contrary to law and public policy and should be declared null and void. In support thereof, it cites Article 1306 of the Civil Code which provides that parties to a contract may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. After the respondent Bank filed its comment, this Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to simultaneously submit their respective Memoranda. The petition is partly meritorious.
Page 17 of 31
We agree with the petitioners contention that the contract for the rent of the safety deposit box is not an ordinary contract of lease as defined in Article 1643 of the Civil Code. However, We do not fully subscribe to its view that the same is a contract of deposit that is to be strictly governed by the provisions in the Civil Code on deposit; 19 the contract in the case at bar is a special kind of deposit. It cannot be characterized as an ordinary contract of lease under Article 1643 because the full and absolute possession and control of the safety deposit box was not given to the joint renters the petitioner and the Pugaos. The guard key of the box remained with the respondent Bank; without this key, neither of the renters could open the box. On the other hand, the respondent Bank could not likewise open the box without the renters key. In this case, the said key had a duplicate which was made so that both renters could have access to the box. Hence, the authorities cited by the respondent Court 20 on this point do not apply. Neither could Article 1975, also relied upon by the respondent Court, be invoked as an argument against the deposit theory. Obviously, the first paragraph of such provision cannot apply to a depositary of certificates, bonds, securities or instruments which earn interest if such documents are kept in a rented safety deposit box. It is clear that the depositary cannot open the box without the renter being present. We observe, however, that the deposit theory itself does not altogether find unanimous support even in American jurisprudence. We agree with the petitioner that under the latter, the prevailing rule is that the relation between a bank renting out safe-deposit boxes and its customer with respect to the contents of the box is that of a bail or and bailee, the bailment being for hire and mutual benefit. 21 This is just the prevailing view because: There is, however, some support for the view that the relationship in question might be more properly characterized as that of landlord and tenant, or lessor and lessee. It has also been suggested that it should be characterized as that of licensor and licensee. The relation between a bank, safe-deposit company, or storage company, and the renter of a safe-deposit box therein, is often described as contractual, express or implied, oral or written, in whole or in part. But there is apparently no jurisdiction in which any rule other than that applicable to bailments governs questions of the liability and rights of the parties in respect of loss of the contents of safe-deposit boxes. 22 (citations omitted) In the context of our laws which authorize banking institutions to rent out safety deposit boxes, it is clear that in this jurisdiction, the prevailing rule in the United States has been adopted. Section 72 of the General Banking Act 23 pertinently provides: Sec. 72. In addition to the operations specifically authorized elsewhere in this Act, banking institutions other than building and loan associations may perform the following services: (a) Receive in custody funds, documents, and valuable objects, and rent safety deposit boxes for the safeguarding of such effects. xxx xxx xxx The banks shall perform the services permitted under subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section as depositories or as agents . 24 (emphasis supplied)

Note that the primary function is still found within the parameters of a contract of deposit, i.e., the receiving in custody of funds, documents and other valuable objects for safekeeping. The renting out of the safety deposit boxes is not independent from, but related to or in conjunction with, this principal function. A contract of deposit may be entered into orally or in writing 25 and, pursuant to Article 1306 of the Civil Code, the parties thereto may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The depositarys responsibility for the safekeeping of the objects deposited in the case at bar is governed by Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code. Accordingly, the depositary would be liable if, in performing its obligation, it is found guilty of fraud, negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of the agreement. 26 In the absence of any stipulation prescribing the degree of diligence required, that of a good father of a family is to be observed. 27 Hence, any stipulation exempting the depositary from any liability arising from the loss of the thing deposited on account of fraud, negligence or delay would be void for being contrary to law and public policy. In the instant case, petitioner maintains that conditions 13 and 14 of the questioned contract of lease of the safety deposit box, which read: 13. The bank is not a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the same. 14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith. 28 are void as they are contrary to law and public policy. We find Ourselves in agreement with this proposition for indeed, said provisions are inconsistent with the respondent Banks responsibility as a depositary under Section 72(a) of the General Banking Act. Both exempt the latter from any liability except as contemplated in condition 8 thereof which limits its duty to exercise reasonable diligence only with respect to who shall be admitted to any rented safe, to wit: 8. The Bank shall use due diligence that no unauthorized person shall be admitted to any rented safe and beyond this, the Bank will not be responsible for the contents of any safe rented from it. 29 Furthermore, condition 13 stands on a wrong premise and is contrary to the actual practice of the Bank. It is not correct to assert that the Bank has neither the possession nor control of the contents of the box since in fact, the safety deposit box itself is located in its premises and is under its absolute control; moreover, the respondent Bank keeps the guard key to the said box. As stated earlier, renters cannot open their respective boxes unless the Bank cooperates by presenting and using this guard key. Clearly then, to the extent above stated, the foregoing conditions in the contract in question are void and ineffective. It has been said: With respect to property deposited in a safe-deposit box by a customer of a safe-deposit company, the parties, since the relation is a contractual one, may by special contract define their respective duties or provide for increasing or limiting the liability of the deposit company, provided such contract is not in violation of law or public policy. It must clearly appear that there actually was such a special contract, however, in order to vary the ordinary obligations implied by law from the relationship of the parties; liability of the deposit company will not be enlarged or restricted by words of doubtful meaning. The company, in renting
Page 18 of 31
safe-deposit boxes, cannot exempt itself from liability for loss of the contents by its own fraud or negligence or that of its agents or servants, and if a provision of the contract may be construed as an attempt to do so, it will be held ineffective for the purpose. Although it has been held that the lessor of a safe-deposit box cannot limit its liability for loss of the contents thereof through its own negligence, the view has been taken that such a lessor may limits its liability to some extent by agreement or stipulation. 30 (citations omitted) Thus, we reach the same conclusion which the Court of Appeals arrived at, that is, that the petition should be dismissed, but on grounds quite different from those relied upon by the Court of Appeals. In the instant case, the respondent Banks exoneration cannot, contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals, be based on or proceed from a characterization of the impugned contract as a contract of lease, but rather on the fact that no competent proof was presented to show that respondent Bank was aware of the agreement between the petitioner and the Pugaos to the effect that the certificates of title were withdrawable from the safety deposit box only upon both parties joint signatures, and that no evidence was submitted to reveal that the loss of the certificates of title was due to the fraud or negligence of the respondent Bank. This in turn flows from this Courts determination that the contract involved was one of deposit. Since both the petitioner and the Pugaos agreed that each should have one (1) renters key, it was obvious that either of them could ask the Bank for access to the safety deposit box and, with the use of such key and the Banks own guard key, could open the said box, without the other renter being present. Since, however, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the filing of the complaint and no bad faith on its part had been established, the trial court erred in condemning the petitioner to pay the respondent Bank attorneys fees. To this extent, the Decision (dispositive portion) of public respondent Court of Appeals must be modified. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is partially GRANTED by deleting the award for attorneys fees from the 4 July 1989 Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 15150. As modified, and subject to the pronouncement We made above on the nature of the relationship between the parties in a contract of lease of safety deposit boxes, the dispositive portion of the said Decision is hereby AFFIRMED and the instant Petition for Review is otherwise DENIED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 4015 ANGEL JAVELLANA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE LIM, ET AL., defendants-appellants. R. Zaldarriaga for appellants.

B. Montinola for appellee. TORRES, J.: The attorney for the plaintiff, Angel Javellana, file a complaint on the 30th of October, 1906, with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, praying that the defendants, Jose Lim and Ceferino Domingo Lim, he sentenced to jointly and severally pay the sum of P2,686.58, with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the 20th of January, 1898, until full payment should be made, deducting from the amount of interest due the sum of P1,102.16, and to pay the costs of the proceedings. Authority from the court having been previously obtained, the complaint was amended on the 10th of January, 1907; it was then alleged, on the 26th of May, 1897, the defendants executed and subscribed a document in favor of the plaintiff reading as follows: We have received from Angel Javellana, as a deposit without interest, the sum of two thousand six hundred and eighty-six cents of pesos fuertes, which we will return to the said gentleman, jointly and severally, on the 20th of January, 1898. Jaro, 26th of May, 1897. Signed Jose Lim. Signed: Ceferino Domingo Lim. That, when the obligation became due, the defendants begged the plaintiff for an extension of time for the payment thereof, building themselves to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent on the amount of their indebtedness, to which the plaintiff acceded; that on the 15th of May, 1902, the debtors paid on account of interest due the sum of P1,000 pesos, with the exception of either capital or interest, had thereby been subjected to loss and damages. A demurrer to the original complaint was overruled, and on the 4th of January, 1907, the defendants answered the original complaint before its amendment, setting forth that they acknowledged the facts stated in Nos. 1 and 2 of the complaint; that they admitted the statements of the plaintiff relative to the payment of 1,102.16 pesos made on the 15th of November, 1902, not, however, as payment of interest on the amount stated in the foregoing document, but on account of the principal, and denied that there had been any agreement as to an extension of the time for payment and the payment of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint, and also denied all the other statements contained therein. As a counterclaim, the defendants alleged that they had paid to the plaintiff sums which, together with the P1,102.16 acknowledged in the complaint, aggregated the total sum of P5,602.16, and that, deducting therefrom the total sum of P2,686.58 stated in the document transcribed in the complaint, the plaintiff still owed the defendants P2,915.58; therefore, they asked that judgment be entered absolving them, and sentencing the plaintiff to pay them the sum of P2,915.58 with the costs. Evidence was adduced by both parties and, upon their exhibits, together with an account book having been made of record, the court below rendered judgment on the 15th of January, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the sum of P5,714.44 and costs.
Page 19 of 31
The defendants excepted to the above decision and moved for a new trial. This motion was overruled and was also excepted to by them; the bill of exceptions presented by the appellants having been approved, the same was in due course submitted to this court. The document of indebtedness inserted in the complaint states that the plaintiff left on deposit with the defendants a given sum of money which they were jointly and severally obliged to return on a certain date fixed in the document; but that, nevertheless, when the document appearing as Exhibits 2, written in the Visayan dialect and followed by a translation into Spanish was executed, it was acknowledged, at the date thereof, the 15th of November, 1902, that the amount deposited had not yet been returned to the creditor, whereby he was subjected to losses and damages amounting to 830 pesos since the 20th of January, 1898, when the return was again stipulated with the further agreement that the amount deposited should bear interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, from the aforesaid date of January 20, and that the 1,000 pesos paid to the depositor on the 15th of May, 1900, according to the receipt issued by him to the debtors, would be included, and that the said rate of interest would obtain until the debtors on the 20th of May, 1897, it is called a deposit consisted, and they could have accomplished the return agreed upon by the delivery of a sum equal to the one received by them. For this reason it must be understood that the debtors were lawfully authorized to make use of the amount deposited, which they have done, as subsequent shown when asking for an extension of the time for the return thereof, inasmuch as, acknowledging that they have subjected the letter, their creditor, to losses and damages for not complying with what had been stipulated, and being conscious that they had used, for their own profit and gain, the money that they received apparently as a deposit, they engaged to pay interest to the creditor from the date named until the time when the refund should be made. Such conduct on the part of the debtors is unquestionable evidence that the transaction entered into between the interested parties was not a deposit, but a real contract of loan. Article 1767 of the Civil Code provides that The depository can not make use of the thing deposited without the express permission of the depositor. Otherwise he shall be liable for losses and damages. Article 1768 also provides that When the depository has permission to make use of the thing deposited, the contract loses the character of a deposit and becomes a loan or bailment. The permission shall not be presumed, and its existence must be proven. When on one of the latter days of January, 1898, Jose Lim went to the office of the creditor asking for an extension of one year, in view of the fact the money was scare, and because neither himself nor the other defendant were able to return the amount deposited, for which reason he agreed to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, it was because, as a matter of fact, he did not have in his possession the amount deposited, he having made use of the same in his business and for his own profit; and the creditor, by granting them the extension, evidently confirmed the express permission previously given to use and dispose of the amount stated as having bee deposited, which, in accordance with the loan, to all intents

and purposes gratuitously, until the 20th of January, 1898, and from that dated with interest at 15 per cent per annum until its full payment, deducting from the total amount of interest the sum of 1,000 pesos, in accordance with the provisions of article 1173 of the Civil Code. Notwithstanding that it does not appear that Jose Lim signed the document (Exhibit 2) executed in the presence of three witnesses on the 15th of November, 1902, by Ceferino Domingo Lim on behalf of himself and the former, nevertheless, the said document has not been contested as false, either by a criminal or by a civil proceeding, nor has any doubt been cast upon the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses who attested the execution of the same; and from the evidence in the case one is sufficiently convinced that the said Jose Lim was perfectly aware of and authorized his joint codebtor to liquidate the interest, to pay the sum of 1,000 pesos, on account thereof, and to execute the aforesaid document No. 2. A true ratification of the original document of deposit was thus made, and not the least proof is shown in the record that Jose Lim had ever paid the whole or any part of the capital stated in the original document, Exhibit 1. If the amount, together with interest claimed in the complaint, less 1,000 pesos appears as fully established, such is not the case with the defendants counterclaim for P5,602.16, because the existence and certainty of said indebtedness imputed to the plaintiff has not been proven, and the defendants, who call themselves creditors for the said amount have not proven in a satisfactory manner that the plaintiff had received partial payments on account of the same; the latter alleges with good reason, that they should produce the receipts which he may have issued, and which he did issue whenever they paid him any money on account. The plaintiffs allegation that the two amounts of 400 and 1,200 pesos, referred to in documents marked C and D offered in evidence by the defendants, had been received from Ceferino Domingo Lim on account of other debts of his, has not been contradicted, and the fact that in the original complaint the sum of 1,102.16 pesos, was expressed in lieu of 1,000 pesos, the only payment made on account of interest on the amount deposited according to documents No. 2 and letter B above referred to, was due to a mistake. Moreover, for the reason above set forth it may, as a matter of course, be inferred that there was no renewal of the contract deposited converted into a loan, because, as has already been stated, the defendants received said amount by virtue of real loan contract under the name of a deposit, since the so-called bailees were forthwith authorized to dispose of the amount deposited. This they have done, as has been clearly shown. The original joint obligation contracted by the defendant debtor still exists, and it has not been shown or proven in the proceedings that the creditor had released Joe Lim from complying with his obligation in order that he should not be sued for or sentenced to pay the amount of capital and interest together with his codebtor, Ceferino Domingo Lim, because the record offers satisfactory evidence against the pretension of Jose Lim, and it further appears that document No. 2 was executed by the other debtor, Ceferino Domingo Lim, for himself and on behalf of Jose Lim; and it has also been proven that Jose Lim, being fully aware that his debt had not yet been settled, took steps to secure an extension of the time for payment, and consented to pay interest in return for the concession requested from the creditor. In view of the foregoing, and adopting the findings in the judgment appealed from, it is our opinion that the same should be and is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against
Page 20 of 31
the appellant, provided that the interest agreed upon shall be paid until the complete liquidation of the debt. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
[G.R. No. 142591. April 30, 2003] DECISION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: A judgment of default does not automatically imply admission by the defendant of the facts and causes of action of the plaintiff. The Rules of Court require the latter to adduce evidence in support of his allegations as an indispensable condition before final judgment could be given in his favor.[1] The trial judge has to evaluate the allegations with the highest degree of objectivity and certainty. He may sustain an allegation for which the plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence, otherwise, he has to reject it. In the case at bar, judicial review is imperative to avert the award of damages that is unreasonable and without evidentiary support. Assailed in this petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is the Decision[2] dated June 17, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 57323, entitled Bonifacio S. Maceda, Jr. versus Joseph Chan, et. al., affirming in toto the Decision[3] dated December 26, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 160, Pasig City, in Civil Case No. 53044. The essential antecedents are as follows: On July 28, 1976, Bonifacio S. Maceda, Jr., herein respondent, obtained a P7.3 million loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines for the construction of his New Gran Hotel Project in Tacloban City. Thereafter, on September 29, 1976, respondent entered into a building construction contract with Moreman Builders Co., Inc., (Moreman). They agreed that the construction would be finished not later than December 22, 1977. Respondent purchased various construction materials and equipment in Manila. Moreman, in turn, deposited them in the warehouse of Wilson and Lily Chan, herein petitioners. The deposit was free of charge. Unfortunately, Moreman failed to finish the construction of the hotel at the stipulated time. Hence, on February 1, 1978, respondent filed with the then Court of First Instance (CFI, now Regional Trial Court), Branch 39, Manila, an action for rescission and damages against Moreman, docketed as Civil Case No. 113498. On November 28, 1978, the CFI rendered its Decision[4] rescinding the contract between Moreman and respondent and awarding to the latter P 445,000.00 as actual, moral and liquidated damages; P20,000.00 representing the increase in the construction materials; and

P35,000.00 as attorneys fees. Moreman interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals but the same was dismissed on March 7, 1989 for being dilatory. He elevated the case to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari. In a Decision[5] dated February 21, 1990, we denied the petition. On April 23, 1990,[6] an Entry of Judgment was issued. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the case, respondent ordered petitioners to return to him the construction materials and equipment which Moreman deposited in their warehouse. Petitioners, however, told them that Moreman withdrew those construction materials in 1977. Hence, on December 11, 1985, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 160, Pasig City, an action for damages with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment against petitioners,[7] docketed as Civil Case No. 53044. In the meantime, on October 30, 1986, respondent was appointed Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose Antique.[8] On August 25, 1989, or after almost four (4) years, the trial court dismissed respondents complaint for his failure to prosecute and for lack of interest.[9] On September 6, 1994, or five years thereafter, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied in the Order dated September 9, 1994 because of the failure of respondent and his counsel to appear on the scheduled hearing.[10] On October 14, 1994, respondent filed a second motion for reconsideration. This time, the motion was granted and the case was ordered reinstated on January 10, 1995, or ten (10) years from the time the action was originally filed.[11] Thereafter, summons, together with the copies of the complaint and its annexes, were served on petitioners. On March 2, 1995, counsel for petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds.[12] Respondent, on the other hand, moved to declare petitioners in default on the ground that their motion to dismiss was filed out of time and that it did not contain any notice of hearing.[13] On April 27, 1995, the trial court issued an order declaring petitioners in default.[14] Petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari[15] to annul the trial courts order of default, but the same was dismissed in its Order[16] dated August 31, 1995. The case reached this Court, and in a Resolution dated October 25, 1995,[17] we affirmed the assailed order of the Court of Appeals. On November 29, 1995,[18] the corresponding Entry of Judgment was issued. Thus, upon the return of the records to the RTC, Branch 160, Pasig City, respondent was allowed to present his evidence ex-parte. Upon motion of respondent, which was granted by the trial court in its Order dated April 29, 1996,[19] the depositions of his witnesses, namely, Leonardo Conge, Alfredo Maceda and Engr. Damiano Nadera were taken in the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tacloban City.[20] Deponent Leonardo Conge, a labor contractor, testified that on December 14 up to December 24, 1977, he was contracted by petitioner Lily Chan to get bags of cement from the New Gran Hotel construction site and to store the same into the latters warehouse in Tacloban City. Aside from those bags of cement, deponent also hauled about 400 bundles of steel bars
Page 21 of 31
from the same construction site, upon order of petitioners. Corresponding delivery receipts were presented and marked as Exhibits A, A-1,A-2,A-3 and A-4.[21] Deponent Alfredo Maceda testified that he was respondents Disbursement and Payroll Officer who supervised the construction and kept inventory of the properties of the New Gran Hotel. While conducting the inventory on November 23, 1977, he found that the approximate total value of the materials stored in petitioners warehouse was P214,310.00. This amount was accordingly reflected in the certification signed by Mario Ramos, store clerk and representative of Moreman who was present during the inventory.[22] Deponent Damiano Nadera testified on the current cost of the architectural and structural requirements needed to complete the construction of the New Gran Hotel.[23] On December 26, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent, thus: WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants to jointly and severally pay plaintiff: 1) P1,930,000.00 as actual damages; 2) P2,549,000.00 as actual damages; 3) Moral damages of P150,000.00; exemplary damages of P50,000.00 and attorneys fees of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED. The trial court ratiocinated as follows: The inventory of other materials, aside from the steel bars and cement is found highly reliable based on first, the affidavit of Arthur Edralin dated September 15, 1979, personnel officer of Moreman Builders that he was assigned with others to guard the warehouse; (Exhs. M & O); secondly, the inventory (Exh. C) dated November 23, 1977 shows (sic) deposit of assorted materials; thirdly, that there were items in the warehouse as of February 3, 1978 as shown in the balance sheet of Moremans stock clerk Jose Cedilla. Plaintiff is entitled to payment of damages for the overhauling of materials from the construction site by Lily Chan without the knowledge and consent of its owner. Article 20 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 20. Every person who contrary to law, willfully or negligently caused damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. As to the materials stored inside the bodega of defendant Wilson Chan, the inventory (Exh. C) show (sic), that the same were owned by the New Gran Hotel. Said materials were stored by Moreman Builders Co., Inc. since it was attested to by the warehouseman as without any lien or encumbrances, the defendants are duty bound to release it. Article 21 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 21. Any person who willfully caused loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Plaintiff is entitled to payment of actual damages based on the inventory as of November 23, 1977 amounting to P1,930,080.00 (Exhs. Q & Q-1). The inventory was signed by the agent Moreman Builders Corporation and defendants. Plaintiff is likewise entitled to payment of 12,500 bags of cement and 400 bundles of steel bars totaling P2,549,000.00 (Exhs. S & S-1; Exhs. B & B-3). Defendants should pay plaintiff moral damages of P150,000.00; exemplary damages of P50,000.00 and attorneys fees of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs. The claim of defendant for payment of damages with respect to the materials appearing in the balance sheets as of February 3, 1978 in the amount of P3,286,690.00, not having been established with enough preponderance of evidence cannot be given weight.[24] Petitioners then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 57323. On June 17, 1999, the Appellate Court rendered the assailed Decision[25] affirming in toto the trial courts judgment, ratiocinating as follows: Moreover, although the prayer in the complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, the same was satisfactorily proved during the trial. For damages to be awarded, it is essential that the claimant satisfactorily prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis thereof and its causal connection with the adverse partys act (PAL, Inc. vs. NLRC, 259 SCRA 459. In sustaining appellees claim for damages, the court a quo held as follows: The Court finds the contention of plaintiff that materials and equipment of plaintiff were stored in the warehouse of defendants and admitted by defendants in the certification issued to Sheriff Borja. x x x Evidence further revealed that assorted materials owned by the New Gran Hotel (Exh. C) were deposited in the bodega of defendant Wilson Chan with a total market value of P1,930,000.00, current price. The inventory of other materials, aside from the steel bars and cement, is highly reliable based on first, the affidavit of Arthur Edralin dated September 15, 1979, personnel officer of Moreman Builders; that he was assigned, with others to guard the warehouse (Exhs. M & O); secondly, the inventory (Exh. C) November 23, 1977 shows deposit of assorted materials; thirdly, that there were items in the warehouse as of February 3, 1978, as shown in the balance sheet of Moremans stock clerk, Jose Cedilla (pp. 60-61, Rollo). The Court affirms the above findings. Well settled is the rule that absent any proper reason to depart from the rule, factual conclusions reached by the trial court are not to be disturbed (People vs. Dupali, 230 SCRA 62). Hence, in the absence of any showing that serious and substantial errors were committed by the lower court in the appraisal of the evidence, the trial judges assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is accorded great weight and respect (People vs. Jain, 254 SCRA 686). And,
Page 22 of 31
there being absolutely nothing on record to show that the court a quo overlooked, disregarded, or misinterpreted facts of weight and significance, its factual findings and conclusions must be given great weight and should not be disturbed on appeal. WHEREFORE, being in accord with law and evidence, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari anchored on the following grounds: I The Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion and under a misapprehension of the law and the facts when it affirmed in toto the award of actual damages made by the trial court in favor of respondent in this case. II The awards of moral and exemplary damages of the trial court to respondent in this case and affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals are unwarranted by the evidence presented by respondent at the ex parte hearing of this case and should, therefore, be eliminated or at least reduced. III The award of attorneys fees by the trial court to respondent in this case and affirmed by the Court of Appeals should be deleted because of the failure of the trial court to state the legal and factual basis of such award. Petitioners contend inter alia that the actual damages claimed by respondent in the present case were already awarded to him in Civil Case No. 113498[26] and hence, cannot be recovered by him again. Even assuming that respondent is entitled to damages, he can not recover P4,479,000.00 which is eleven (11) times more than the total actual damages of P365,000.00 awarded to him in Civil Case No. 113498.[27] In his comment on the petition, respondent maintains that petitioners, as depositaries under the law, have both the fiduciary and extraordinary obligations not only to safely keep the construction material deposited, but also to return them with all their products, accessories and accessions, pursuant to Articles 1972,[28] 1979,[29] 1983,[30] and 1988[31] of the Civil Code. Considering that petitioners duty to return the construction materials in question has already become impossible, it is only proper that the prices of those construction materials in 1996 should be the basis of the award of actual damages. This is the only way to fulfill the duty to return contemplated in the applicable laws.[32] Respondent further claims that petitioners must bear the increase in market prices from 1977 to 1996 because liability for fraud includes all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. Lastly, respondent insists that there can be no double recovery because in Civil Case No. 113498,[33] the parties were respondent himself and Moreman and the cause of action was the rescission of their building contract. In the present case, however, the parties are respondent and petitioners and the cause of action between them is for recovery of damages arising from petitioners failure to return the construction materials and equipment.

Obviously, petitioners assigned errors call for a review of the lower courts findings of fact. Succinct is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the reexamination of the evidence submitted by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally binding and conclusive on this Court.[34] The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law,[35] not of fact, unless it is shown, inter alia, that: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; and (6) the Court of Appeals, in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admission of both parties.[36] Petitioners submit that this case is an exception to the general rule since both the trial court and the Court of Appeals based their judgments on misapprehension of facts. We agree. At the outset, the case should have been dismissed outright by the trial court because of patent procedural infirmities. It bears stressing that the case was originally filed on December 11, 1985. Four (4) years thereafter, or on August 25, 1989, the case was dismissed for respondents failure to prosecute. Five (5) years after, or on September 6, 1994, respondent filed his motion for reconsideration. From here, the trial court already erred in its ruling because it should have dismissed the motion for reconsideration outright as it was filed far beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period.[37] Worse, when respondent filed his second motion for reconsideration on October 14, 1994, a prohibited pleading,[38] the trial court still granted the same and reinstated the case on January 10, 1995. This is a glaring gross procedural error committed by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Even without such serious procedural flaw, the case should also be dismissed for utter lack of merit. It must be stressed that respondents claim for damages is based on petitioners failure to return or to release to him the construction materials and equipment deposited by Moreman to their warehouse. Hence, the essential issues to be resolved are: (1) Has respondent presented proof that the construction materials and equipment were actually in petitioners warehouse when he asked that the same be turned over to him? (2) If so, does respondent have the right to demand the release of the said materials and equipment or claim for damages? Under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts are binding upon the parties (and their assigns and heirs) who execute them. When there is no privity of contract, there is likewise no obligation or liability to speak about and thus no cause of action arises. Specifically, in an action against the depositary, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the bailment or deposit and the performance of conditions precedent to the right of action.[39] A depositary is obliged to return the thing to the depositor, or to his heirs or successors, or to the person who may have been designated in the contract. [40] In the present case, the record is bereft of any contract of deposit, oral or written, between petitioners and respondent. If at all, it was only between petitioners and Moreman. And granting
Page 23 of 31
arguendo that there was indeed a contract of deposit between petitioners and Moreman, it is still incumbent upon respondent to prove its existence and that it was executed in his favor. However, respondent miserably failed to do so. The only pieces of evidence respondent presented to prove the contract of deposit were the delivery receipts.[41] Significantly, they are unsigned and not duly received or authenticated by either Moreman, petitioners or respondent or any of their authorized representatives. Hence, those delivery receipts have no probative value at all. While our laws grant a person the remedial right to prosecute or institute a civil action against another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong,[42] every cause of action ex-contractu must be founded upon a contract, oral or written, express or implied. Moreover, respondent also failed to prove that there were construction materials and equipment in petitioners warehouse at the time he made a demand for their return. Considering that respondent failed to prove (1) the existence of any contract of deposit between him and petitioners, nor between the latter and Moreman in his favor, and (2) that there were construction materials in petitioners warehouse at the time of respondents demand to return the same, we hold that petitioners have no corresponding obligation or liability to respondent with respect to those construction materials. Anent the issue of damages, petitioners are still not liable because, as expressly provided for in Article 2199 of the Civil Code,[43] actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It must point out specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.[44] Considering our findings that there was no contract of deposit between petitioners and respondent or Moreman and that actually there were no more construction materials or equipment in petitioners warehouse when respondent made a demand for their return, we hold that he has no right whatsoever to claim for damages. As we stressed in the beginning, a judgment of default does not automatically imply admission by the defendant of plaintiffs causes of action. Here, the trial court merely adopted respondents allegations in his complaint and evidence without evaluating them with the highest degree of objectivity and certainty. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 17, 1999 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against respondent. SO ORDERED. [26] The dispositive portion of the trial courts decision reads: FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court, hereby renders judgment, declaring the building contract (Exh. A), rescinded and all subsequent contracts and agreements entered into by the parties relative thereto and, consequently, orders the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs:

The amount of P30,000.00 for liquidated damages; The amount of P365,000.00 for actual damages; The amount of P25,000.00 for moral damages; The amount of P25,000.00 for exemplary damages; The amount of P20,000.00 representing increase in the construction materials to finish the construction; and The amount of P35,000.00 for attorneys fees, and to pay the costs of these proceedings. Consequently, the counterclaim for damages is hereby dismissed. In addition, the Court, in the supreme interest of justice and equity, considers as suspended the running of the period of availment of the proceeds of the loan of the plaintiffs, from February 3, 1978, and directs that the amount of P1,003,000.00 as already granted for release before the restraining order of this Court was issued, be released to the plaintiffs; lifting the restraining order partially, insofar as the release of the said amount to the plaintiffs is concerned, who may resume construction of the New Gran Hotel, and such other amounts still pending release by the Development Bank of the Philippines from the loan of the plaintiffs, pursuant to the provisions of the loan agreement. The restraining order, however, is converted into a permanent injunction, insofar as it enjoins the defendants, their agents, representatives, personnel and employees from continuing with the project or participating in any manner therein, after the plaintiffs have posted a bond to be approved, in the amount of P100,000.00, within five days from receipt of a copy of this decision. (Rollo at 75-76).
Page 24 of 31
McLoughlin requested the management for an investigation of the incident. Lopez got in touch with Tan and arranged for a meeting with the police and McLoughlin. When the police did not arrive, Lopez and Tan went to the room of McLoughlin at Tropicana and thereat, Lopez wrote on a piece of paper a promissory note dated 21 April 1988. The promissory note reads as follows: 2. To release and hold free and blameless TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL from any liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the said deposit box for any cause whatsoever, including but not limited to the presentation or use thereof by any other person should the key be lost; After receiving a copy of the indorsement in Australia, McLoughlin came to the Philippines and registered again as a hotel guest of Tropicana. McLoughlin went to Malacaang to follow up on his letter but he was instructed to go to the DOJ. The DOJ directed him to proceed to the WPD for documentation. But McLoughlin went back to Australia as he had an urgent business matter to attend to. McLoughlin left again for Australia and upon his return to the Philippines on 25 August 1989 to pursue his claims against petitioners, the WPD conducted an investigation which resulted in the preparation of an affidavit which was forwarded to the Manila City Fiscals Office. Said affidavit became the basis of preliminary investigation. However, McLoughlin left again for Australia without receiving the notice of the hearing on 24 November 1989. Thus, the case at the Fiscals Office was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Mcloughlin requested the reinstatement of the criminal charge for theft. In the meantime, McLoughlin and his lawyers wrote letters of demand to those having responsibility to pay the damage. Then he left again for Australia. Upon his return on 22 October 1990, he registered at the Echelon Towers at Malate, Manila. Meetings were held between McLoughlin and his lawyer which resulted to the filing of a complaint for damages on 3 December 1990 against YHT Realty Corporation, Lopez, Lainez, Payam and Tan (defendants) for the loss of McLoughlins money which was discovered on 16 April 1988. After filing the complaint, McLoughlin left again for Australia to attend to an urgent business matter. Tan and Lopez, however, were not served with summons, and trial proceeded with only Lainez, Payam and YHT Realty Corporation as defendants. After trial, the RTC of Manila rendered judgment in favor of McLoughlin, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, above premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered by this Court in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, to wit: 1. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of US$11,400.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency of P342,000.00, more or less, and the sum of AUS$4,500.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency of P99,000.00, or a total of P441,000.00, more or less, with 12% interest from April 16 1988 until said amount has been paid to plaintiff (Item 1, Exhibit CC); 2. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the sum of P3,674,238.00 as actual and consequential damages arising from the loss of his Australian and American dollars and
G.R. No. 126780 February 17, 2005 YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN, respondents. DECISION TINGA, J.: The primary question of interest before this Court is the only legal issue in the case: It is whether a hotel may evade liability for the loss of items left with it for safekeeping by its guests, by having these guests execute written waivers holding the establishment or its employees free from blame for such loss in light of Article 2003 of the Civil Code which voids such waivers. The factual backdrop of the case follow.

jewelries complained against and in prosecuting his claim and rights administratively and judicially (Items II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX, Exh. CC); 3. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages (Item X, Exh. CC); 4. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P350,000.00 as exemplary damages (Item XI, Exh. CC); 5. And ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay litigation expenses in the sum of P200,000.00 (Item XII, Exh. CC); 6. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P200,000.00 as attorneys fees, and a fee of P3,000.00 for every appearance; and 7. Plus costs of suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the disquisitions made by the lower court except as to the amount of damages awarded. The decretal text of the appellate courts decision reads: THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED but modified as follows: The appellants are directed jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff/appellee the following amounts: 1) P153,200.00 representing the peso equivalent of US$2,000.00 and AUS$4,500.00; 2) P308,880.80, representing the peso value for the air fares from Sidney [sic] to Manila and back for a total of eleven (11) trips; 3) One-half of P336,207.05 or P168,103.52 representing payment to Tropicana Apartment Hotel; 4) One-half of P152,683.57 or P76,341.785 representing payment to Echelon Tower; 5) One-half of P179,863.20 or P89,931.60 for the taxi xxx transportation from the residence to Sidney [sic] Airport and from MIA to the hotel here in Manila, for the eleven (11) trips; 6) One-half of P7,801.94 or P3,900.97 representing Meralco power expenses; 7) One-half of P356,400.00 or P178,000.00 representing expenses for food and maintenance; 8) P50,000.00 for moral damages; 9) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and 10) P200,000 representing attorneys fees. With costs.
Page 25 of 31
Unperturbed, YHT Realty Corporation, Lainez and Payam went to this Court in this appeal by certiorari. The petition is devoid of merit. It is worthy of note that the thrust of Rule 45 is the resolution only of questions of law and any peripheral factual question addressed to this Court is beyond the bounds of this mode of review. Petitioners point out that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove the fact of prior existence of the dollars and the jewelry which had been lost while deposited in the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana, the basis of the trial court and the appellate court being the sole testimony of McLoughlin as to the contents thereof. Likewise, petitioners dispute the finding of gross negligence on their part as not supported by the evidence on record. We are not persuaded.l^vvphi1.net We adhere to the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court that the fact of loss was established by the credible testimony in open court by McLoughlin. Such findings are factual and therefore beyond the ambit of the present petition.1awphi1.nt We are also not impressed by petitioners argument that the finding of gross negligence by the lower court as affirmed by the appellate court is not supported by evidence. The evidence reveals that two keys are required to open the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana. One key is assigned to the guest while the other remains in the possession of the management. If the guest desires to open his safety deposit box, he must request the management for the other key to open the same. In other words, the guest alone cannot open the safety deposit box without the assistance of the management or its employees. With more reason that access to the safety deposit box should be denied if the one requesting for the opening of the safety deposit box is a stranger. Thus, in case of loss of any item deposited in the safety deposit box, it is inevitable to conclude that the management had at least a hand in the consummation of the taking, unless the reason for the loss is force majeure. The management contends, however, that McLoughlin, by his act, made its employees believe that Tan was his spouse for she was always with him most of the time. The evidence on record, however, is bereft of any showing that McLoughlin introduced Tan to the management as his wife. Such an inference from the act of McLoughlin will not exculpate the petitioners from liability in the absence of any showing that he made the management believe that Tan was his wife or was duly authorized to have access to the safety deposit box. Mere close companionship and intimacy are not enough to warrant such conclusion considering that what is involved in the instant case is the very safety of McLoughlins deposit. If only petitioners exercised due diligence in taking care of McLoughlins safety deposit box, they should have confronted him as to his relationship with Tan considering that the latter had been observed opening McLoughlins safety deposit box a number of times at the early hours of the morning. Tans acts should have prompted the management to investigate her relationship with McLoughlin. Then, petitioners would have exercised due diligence required of them. Failure to do so warrants the conclusion that the management had been remiss in complying with the obligations imposed upon hotel-keepers under the law.

The issue of whether the Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box executed by McLoughlin is tainted with nullity presents a legal question appropriate for resolution in this petition. Notably, both the trial court and the appellate court found the same to be null and void. We find no reason to reverse their common conclusion. Article 2003 is controlling, thus: Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an expression of public policy precisely to apply to situations such as that presented in this case. The hotel business like the common carriers business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests and security to their persons and belongings. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business. The law in turn does not allow such duty to the public to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called undertakings that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature. In the case at bar, the responsibility of securing the safety deposit box was shared not only by the guest himself but also by the management since two keys are necessary to open the safety deposit box. Without the assistance of hotel employees, the loss would not have occurred. Thus, Tropicana was guilty of concurrent negligence in allowing Tan, who was not the registered guest, to open the safety deposit box of McLoughlin, even assuming that the latter was also guilty of negligence in allowing another person to use his key. To rule otherwise would result in undermining the safety of the safety deposit boxes in hotels for the management will be given imprimatur to allow any person, under the pretense of being a family member or a visitor of the guest, to have access to the safety deposit box without fear of any liability that will attach thereafter in case such person turns out to be a complete stranger. This will allow the hotel to evade responsibility for any liability incurred by its employees in conspiracy with the guests relatives and visitors. The awards of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages and P200,000.00 representing attorneys fees are likewise sustained. WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 19 October 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioners are directed, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent the following amounts: (1) US$2,000.00 and AUS$4,500.00 or their peso equivalent at the time of payment; (2) P308,880.80, representing the peso value for the air fares from Sydney to Manila and back for a total of eleven (11) trips; (3) One-half of P336,207.05 or P168,103.52 representing payment to Tropicana Copacabana Apartment Hotel; (4) One-half of P152,683.57 or P76,341.785 representing payment to Echelon Tower; (5) One-half of P179,863.20 or P89,931.60 for the taxi or transportation expense from McLoughlins residence to Sydney Airport and from MIA to the hotel here in Manila, for the eleven (11) trips; (6) One-half of P7,801.94 or P3,900.97 representing Meralco power expenses;
Page 26 of 31
(7) One-half of P356,400.00 or P178,200.00 representing expenses for food and maintenance; (8) P50,000.00 for moral damages; (9) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (10) P200,000 representing attorneys fees. With costs. SO ORDERED. Footnotes I. CLAIMS FOR STOLEN MONIES AND PERSONAL PROPERTY: A. US$2,000.00 US$4,500.00 P153,200.00 B. US$8,000.00 cash and US$1,200.00 with jewelry 257,600.00 II. AIR FARES from Sydney to Manila and back (11trips up to date of testimony) 308,880.00 III. PAYMENTS TO TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL 336,207.05 IV. PAYMENTS TO ECHELON TOWER 152,683.57 V. Taxes, fees, transportation from residence to Sydney airport and from MIA to hotel in Manila and vice versa 179,863.20 VI. MERALCO POWER EXPENSES 7,811.94 VII. PLDT EXPENSES(overseas telephone calls) Paid in the Philippines 5,597.68 Paid in Australia 166,795.20 VIII. EXPENSES FOR FOOD AND MAINTENANCE 356,400.00 IX. BUSINESS/OPPORTUNITY LOSS IN SYDNEY WHILE IN THE PHILIPPINES BECAUSE OF CASE 2,160,000.00 X. MORAL DAMAGES 500,000.00 XI. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 350,000.00 XII. LITIGATION EXPENSES 200,000.00 TOTAL P5,135,038.64 ATTORNEYS FEES 200,000.00 Plus, appearance fee of P3,000.00 for every court appearance.
Art. 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel. Art. 2000. The responsibility referred to in the two preceding articles shall include the loss of, or injury to the personal property of the guests caused by the servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers; but not that which may proceed from any force majeure. The fact that travellers are constrained to rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotel or inn shall be considered in determining the degree of care required of him. Art. 2001. The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force.
Page 27 of 31
whether somebody else had tampered with his safety deposit box, he thought that it was just a result of bad accounting since he did not spend anything from that envelope.8
55 Prudenciado v. Alliance Transport System, Inc., G.R. No. 33836, March 16, 1987. Before this Court is a Rule 45 petition for review of the Decision1 dated 19 October 1995 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Decision2 dated 16 December 1991 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, of Manila, finding YHT Realty Corporation, Brunhilda Mata-Tan (Tan), Erlinda Lainez (Lainez) and Anicia Payam (Payam) jointly and solidarily liable for damages in an action filed by Maurice McLoughlin (McLoughlin) for the loss of his American and Australian dollars deposited in the safety deposit box of Tropicana Copacabana Apartment Hotel, owned and operated by YHT Realty Corporation. Private respondent McLoughlin, an Australian businessman-philanthropist, used to stay at Sheraton Hotel during his trips to the Philippines prior to 1984 when he met Tan. Tan befriended McLoughlin by showing him around, introducing him to important people, accompanying him in visiting impoverished street children and assisting him in buying gifts for the children and in distributing the same to charitable institutions for poor children. Tan convinced McLoughlin to transfer from Sheraton Hotel to Tropicana where Lainez, Payam and Danilo Lopez were employed. Lopez served as manager of the hotel while Lainez and Payam had custody of the keys for the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana. Tan took care of McLoughlins booking at the Tropicana where he started staying during his trips to the Philippines from December 1984 to September 1987.3 On 30 October 1987, McLoughlin arrived from Australia and registered with Tropicana. He rented a safety deposit box as it was his practice to rent a safety deposit box every time he registered at Tropicana in previous trips. As a tourist, McLoughlin was aware of the procedure observed by Tropicana relative to its safety deposit boxes. The safety deposit box could only be opened through the use of two keys, one of which is given to the registered guest, and the other remaining in the possession of the management of the hotel. When a registered guest wished to open his safety deposit box, he alone could personally request the management who then would assign one of its employees to accompany the guest and assist him in opening the safety deposit box with the two keys.4 McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box: Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00) which he placed in two envelopes, one envelope containing Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$10,000.00) and the other envelope Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00); Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00) which he also placed in another envelope; two (2) other envelopes containing letters and credit cards; two (2) bankbooks; and a checkbook, arranged side by side inside the safety deposit box.5 On 12 December 1987, before leaving for a brief trip to Hongkong, McLoughlin opened his safety deposit box with his key and with the key of the management and took therefrom the envelope containing Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00), the envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), his passports and his credit cards.6 McLoughlin left the other items in the box as he did not check out of his room at the Tropicana during his short visit to Hongkong. When he arrived in Hongkong, he opened the envelope which contained Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00) and discovered upon counting that only Three Thousand US Dollars (US$3,000.00) were enclosed therein.7 Since he had no idea After returning to Manila, he checked out of Tropicana on 18 December 1987 and left for Australia. When he arrived in Australia, he discovered that the envelope with Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$10,000.00) was short of Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000). He also noticed that the jewelry which he bought in Hongkong and stored in the safety deposit box upon his return to Tropicana was likewise missing, except for a diamond bracelet.9 When McLoughlin came back to the Philippines on 4 April 1988, he asked Lainez if some money and/or jewelry which he had lost were found and returned to her or to the management. However, Lainez told him that no one in the hotel found such things and none were turned over to the management. He again registered at Tropicana and rented a safety deposit box. He placed therein one (1) envelope containing Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00), another envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00) and other envelopes containing his traveling papers/documents. On 16 April 1988, McLoughlin requested Lainez and Payam to open his safety deposit box. He noticed that in the envelope containing Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00), Two Thousand US Dollars (US$2,000.00) were missing and in the envelope previously containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), Four Thousand Five Hundred Australian Dollars (AUS$4,500.00) were missing.10 When McLoughlin discovered the loss, he immediately confronted Lainez and Payam who admitted that Tan opened the safety deposit box with the key assigned to him.11 McLoughlin went up to his room where Tan was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen McLoughlins key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez, Payam and Lainez.12 Lopez also told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to McLoughlin while the latter was asleep.13 I promise to pay Mr. Maurice McLoughlin the amount of AUS$4,000.00 and US$2,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency on or before May 5, 1988.14 Lopez requested Tan to sign the promissory note which the latter did and Lopez also signed as a witness. Despite the execution of promissory note by Tan, McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility for the loss he suffered. However, Lopez refused to accept the responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the safety deposit box entitled Undertaking For the Use Of Safety Deposit Box,15 specifically paragraphs (2) and (4) thereof, to wit: 4. To return the key and execute the RELEASE in favor of TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL upon giving up the use of the box.16 On 17 May 1988, McLoughlin went back to Australia and he consulted his lawyers as to the validity of the abovementioned stipulations. They opined that the stipulations are void for being violative of universal hotel practices and customs. His lawyers prepared a letter dated 30 May 1988 which was signed by McLoughlin and sent to President Corazon Aquino.17 The Office of the President referred the letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) which forwarded the same to the Western Police District (WPD).18

For several times, McLoughlin left for Australia to attend to his business and came back to the Philippines to follow up on his letter to the President but he failed to obtain any concrete assistance.19 After defendants had filed their Pre-Trial Brief admitting that they had previously allowed and assisted Tan to open the safety deposit box, McLoughlin filed an Amended/Supplemental Complaint20 dated 10 June 1991 which included another incident of loss of money and jewelry in the safety deposit box rented by McLoughlin in the same hotel which took place prior to 16 April 1988.21 The trial court admitted the Amended/Supplemental Complaint. During the trial of the case, McLoughlin had been in and out of the country to attend to urgent business in Australia, and while staying in the Philippines to attend the hearing, he incurred expenses for hotel bills, airfare and other transportation expenses, long distance calls to Australia, Meralco power expenses, and expenses for food and maintenance, among others.22 SO ORDERED.23 The trial court found that McLoughlins allegations as to the fact of loss and as to the amount of money he lost were sufficiently shown by his direct and straightforward manner of testifying in court and found him to be credible and worthy of belief as it was established that McLoughlins money, kept in Tropicanas safety deposit box, was taken by Tan without McLoughlins consent. The taking was effected through the use of the master key which was in the possession of the management. Payam and Lainez allowed Tan to use the master key without authority from McLoughlin. The trial court added that if McLoughlin had not lost his dollars, he would not have gone through the trouble and personal inconvenience of seeking aid and assistance from the Office of the President, DOJ, police authorities and the City Fiscals Office in his desire to recover his losses from the hotel management and Tan.24 As regards the loss of Seven Thousand US Dollars (US$7,000.00) and jewelry worth approximately One Thousand Two Hundred US Dollars (US$1,200.00) which allegedly occurred during his stay at Tropicana previous to 4 April 1988, no claim was made by McLoughlin for such losses in his complaint dated 21 November 1990 because he was not sure how they were lost and who the responsible persons were. But considering the admission of the defendants in their pre-trial brief that on three previous occasions they allowed Tan to open the box, the trial court opined that it was logical and reasonable to presume that his personal assets consisting of Seven Thousand US Dollars (US$7,000.00) and jewelry were taken by Tan from the safety deposit box without McLoughlins consent through the cooperation of Payam and Lainez.25 The trial court also found that defendants acted with gross negligence in the performance and exercise of their duties and obligations as innkeepers and were therefore liable to answer for the losses incurred by McLoughlin.26 Moreover, the trial court ruled that paragraphs (2) and (4) of the Undertaking For The Use Of Safety Deposit Box are not valid for being contrary to the express mandate of Article 2003 of the New Civil Code and against public policy.27 Thus, there being fraud or wanton conduct on the part of defendants, they should be responsible for all damages which may be attributed to the non-performance of their contractual obligations.28 SO ORDERED.29
Page 28 of 31
Petitioners submit for resolution by this Court the following issues: (a) whether the appellate courts conclusion on the alleged prior existence and subsequent loss of the subject money and jewelry is supported by the evidence on record; (b) whether the finding of gross negligence on the part of petitioners in the performance of their duties as innkeepers is supported by the evidence on record; (c) whether the Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box admittedly executed by private respondent is null and void; and (d) whether the damages awarded to private respondent, as well as the amounts thereof, are proper under the circumstances.30 The trial court had the occasion to observe the demeanor of McLoughlin while testifying which reflected the veracity of the facts testified to by him. On this score, we give full credence to the appreciation of testimonial evidence by the trial court especially if what is at issue is the credibility of the witness. The oft-repeated principle is that where the credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that great respect is accorded to the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court.31 The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.32 Noteworthy is the fact that Payam and Lainez, who were employees of Tropicana, had custody of the master key of the management when the loss took place. In fact, they even admitted that they assisted Tan on three separate occasions in opening McLoughlins safety deposit box.33 This only proves that Tropicana had prior knowledge that a person aside from the registered guest had access to the safety deposit box. Yet the management failed to notify McLoughlin of the incident and waited for him to discover the taking before it disclosed the matter to him. Therefore, Tropicana should be held responsible for the damage suffered by McLoughlin by reason of the negligence of its employees. The management should have guarded against the occurrence of this incident considering that Payam admitted in open court that she assisted Tan three times in opening the safety deposit box of McLoughlin at around 6:30 A.M. to 7:30 A.M. while the latter was still asleep.34 In light of the circumstances surrounding this case, it is undeniable that without the acquiescence of the employees of Tropicana to the opening of the safety deposit box, the loss of McLoughlins money could and should have been avoided.
Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, those who, in the performance of their obligations, are guilty of negligence, are liable for damages. As to who shall bear the burden of paying damages, Article 2180, paragraph (4) of the same Code provides that the owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Also, this Court has ruled that if an employee is found negligent, it is presumed that the employer was negligent in selecting and/or supervising him for it is hard for the victim to prove the negligence of such employer.35 Thus, given the fact that the loss of McLoughlins money was consummated through the negligence of Tropicanas employees in allowing Tan to open the safety deposit box without the guests consent, both the assisting

employees and YHT Realty Corporation itself, as owner and operator of Tropicana, should be held solidarily liable pursuant to Article 2193.36 Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles 1998 to 200137 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. In an early case,38 the Court of Appeals through its then Presiding Justice (later Associate Justice of the Court) Jose P. Bengzon, ruled that to hold hotelkeepers or innkeeper liable for the effects of their guests, it is not necessary that they be actually delivered to the innkeepers or their employees. It is enough that such effects are within the hotel or inn.39 With greater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the missing items are taken without the guests knowledge and consent from a safety deposit box provided by the hotel itself, as in this case. Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the undertaking manifestly contravene Article 2003 of the New Civil Code for they allow Tropicana to be released from liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the safety deposit box for any cause whatsoever.40 Evidently, the undertaking was intended to bar any claim against Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or not negligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees. The New Civil Code is explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-keeper shall extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property of the guests even if caused by servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers, except as it may proceed from any force majeure.41 It is the loss through force majeure that may spare the hotel-keeper from liability. In the case at bar, there is no showing that the act of the thief or robber was done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force to qualify the same as force majeure.42 Petitioners likewise anchor their defense on Article 200243 which exempts the hotel-keeper from liability if the loss is due to the acts of his guest, his family, or visitors. Even a cursory reading of the provision would lead us to reject petitioners contention. The justification they raise would render nugatory the public interest sought to be protected by the provision. What if the negligence of the employer or its employees facilitated the consummation of a crime committed by the registered guests relatives or visitor? Should the law exculpate the hotel from liability since the loss was due to the act of the visitor of the registered guest of the hotel? Hence, this provision presupposes that the hotel-keeper is not guilty of concurrent negligence or has not contributed in any degree to the occurrence of the loss. A depositary is not responsible for the loss of goods by theft, unless his actionable negligence contributes to the loss.44 Petitioners contend that McLoughlins case was mounted on the theory of contract, but the trial court and the appellate court upheld the grant of the claims of the latter on the basis of tort.45 There is nothing anomalous in how the lower courts decided the controversy for this Court has pronounced a jurisprudential rule that tort liability can exist even if there are already contractual relations. The act that breaks the contract may also be tort.46 As to damages awarded to McLoughlin, we see no reason to modify the amounts awarded by the appellate court for the same were based on facts and law. It is within the province of lower courts to settle factual issues such as the proper amount of damages awarded and such finding
Page 29 of 31
is binding upon this Court especially if sufficiently proven by evidence and not unconscionable or excessive. Thus, the appellate court correctly awarded McLoughlin Two Thousand US Dollars (US$2,000.00) and Four Thousand Five Hundred Australian dollars (AUS$4,500.00) or their peso equivalent at the time of payment,47 being the amounts duly proven by evidence.48 The alleged loss that took place prior to 16 April 1988 was not considered since the amounts alleged to have been taken were not sufficiently established by evidence. The appellate court also correctly awarded the sum of P308,880.80, representing the peso value for the air fares from Sydney to Manila and back for a total of eleven (11) trips;49 one-half of P336,207.05 or P168,103.52 representing payment to Tropicana;50 one-half of P152,683.57 or P76,341.785 representing payment to Echelon Tower;51 one-half of P179,863.20 or P89,931.60 for the taxi or transportation expenses from McLoughlins residence to Sydney Airport and from MIA to the hotel here in Manila, for the eleven (11) trips;52 one-half of P7,801.94 or P3,900.97 representing Meralco power expenses;53 one-half of P356,400.00 or P178,000.00 representing expenses for food and maintenance.54 The amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages is reasonable. Although trial courts are given discretion to determine the amount of moral damages, the appellate court may modify or change the amount awarded when it is palpably and scandalously excessive.l^vvphi1.net Moral damages are not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant.l^vvphi1.net They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of defendants culpable action.55
[G.R. No. 160544. February 21, 2005] TRIPLE-V vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS THIRD DIVISION Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 21 2005. G.R. No. 160544 (Triple-V Food Services, Inc. vs. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc.) Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision[1]dated October 21, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71223, affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court at Makati City, Branch 148, in its Civil Case No. 98-838, an action for damages thereat filed by respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance, Company, Inc., against the herein petitioner, Triple-V Food Services, Inc. On March 2, 1997, at around 2:15 oclock in the afternoon, a certain Mary Jo-Anne De Asis (De Asis) dined at petitioners Kamayan Restaurant at 15 West Avenue, Quezon City. De Asis was using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 with plate number UBU 955, assigned to her by her employer Crispa Textile Inc. (Crispa). On said date, De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and entrusted her car key to petitioners valet counter. A corresponding parking ticket was issued as receipt for the car. The car was then parked by

petitioners valet attendant, a certain Madridano, at the designated parking area. Few minutes later, Madridano noticed that the car was not in its parking slot and its key no longer in the box where valet attendants usually keep the keys of cars entrusted to them. The car was never recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. (FMICI). Having indemnified Crispa in the amount of P669.500 for the loss of the subject vehicle, FMICI, as subrogee to Crispas rights, filed with the RTC at Makati City an action for damages against petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc., thereat docketed as Civil Case No. 98-838 which was raffled to Branch 148. In its answer, petitioner argued that the complaint failed to aver facts to support the allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle, claiming that it and its employees wasted no time in ascertaining the loss of the car and in informing De Asis of the discovery of the loss. Petitioner further argued that in accepting the complimentary valet parking service, De Asis received a parking ticket whereunder it is so provided that [Management and staff will not be responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor of valuables contained therein, a provision which, to petitioners mind, is an explicit waiver of any right to claim indemnity for the loss of the car; and that De Asis knowingly assumed the risk of loss when she allowed petitioner to park her vehicle, adding that its valet parking service did not include extending a contract of insurance or warranty for the loss of the vehicle. During trial, petitioner challenged FMICIs subrogation to Crispas right to file a claim for the loss of the car, arguing that theft is not a risk insured against under FMICIs Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 for the subject vehicle. In a decision dated June 22, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment for respondent FMICI, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff (FMICI) and against the defendant Triple V (herein petitioner) and the latter is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the following: 1. The amount of P669,500.00, representing actual damages plus compounded (sic); 2. The amount of P30,000.00 as acceptance fee plus the amount equal to 25% of the total amount due as attorneys fees; 3. The amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; 4. Plus, cost of suit. Defendant Triple V is not therefore precluded from taking appropriate action against defendant Armando Madridano. SO ORDERED. Obviously displeased, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals reiterating its argument that it was not a depositary of the subject car and that it exercised due diligence and prudence in the safe keeping of the vehicle, in handling the car-napping incident and in the supervision of its
Page 30 of 31
employees. It further argued that there was no valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and respondent FMICI. In a decision dated October 21, 2003,[2] the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal and affirmed the appealed decision of the trial court, thus: WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the assailed June 22, 2001 Decision of the RTC of Makati City - Branch 148 in Civil Case No. 98-838 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. In so dismissing the appeal and affirming the appealed decision, the appellate court agreed with the findings and conclusions of the trial court that: (a) petitioner was a depositary of the subject vehicle; (b) petitioner was negligent in its duties as a depositary thereof and as an employer of the valet attendant; and (c) there was a valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and respondent FMICI. Hence, petitioners present recourse. We agree with the two (2) courts below. When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioners valet attendant while eating at petitioners Kamayan Restaurant, the former expected the cars safe return at the end of her meal. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same car. Petitioner cannot evade liability by arguing that neither a contract of deposit nor that of insurance, guaranty or surety for the loss of the car was constituted when De Asis availed of its free valet parking service. In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same.[3] A deposit may be constituted even without any consideration. It is not necessary that the depositary receives a fee before it becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor. Specious is petitioners insistence that the valet parking claim stub it issued to De Asis contains a clear exclusion of its liability and operates as an explicit waiver by the customer of any right to claim indemnity for any loss of or damage to the vehicle. The parking claim stub embodying the terms and conditions of the parking, including that of relieving petitioner from any loss or damage to the car, is essentially a contract of adhesion, drafted and prepared as it is by the petitioner alone with no participation whatsoever on the part of the customers, like De Asis, who merely adheres to the printed stipulations therein appearing. While contracts of adhesion are not void in themselves, yet this Court will not hesitate to rule out blind adherence thereto if they prove to be one-sided under the attendant facts and circumstances.[4] Hence, and as aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner must not be allowed to use its parking claim stubs exclusionary stipulation as a shield from any responsibility for any loss or damage to vehicles or to the valuables contained therein. Here, it is evident that De Asis deposited the car in question with the petitioner as part of the latters enticement for customers

by providing them a safe parking space within the vicinity of its restaurant. In a very real sense, a safe parking space is an added attraction to petitioners restaurant business because customers are thereby somehow assured that their vehicle are safely kept, rather than parking them elsewhere at their own risk. Having entrusted the subject car to petitioners valet attendant, customer De Asis, like all of petitioners customers, fully expects the security of her car while at petitioners premises/designated parking areas and its safe return at the end of her visit at petitioners restaurant. Petitioners argument that there was no valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and FMICI because theft was not a risk insured against under FMICIs Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 holds no water. Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 which respondent FMICI issued to Crispa contains, among others things, the following item: Insureds Estimate of Value of Scheduled VehicleP800.000.[5] On the basis of such item, the trial court concluded that the coverage includes a full comprehensive insurance of the vehicle in case of damage or loss. Besides, Crispa paid a premium of P10,304 to cover theft. This is clearly shown in the breakdown of premiums in the same policy.[6]Thus, having indemnified CRISPA for the stolen car, FMICI, as correctly ruled by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, was properly subrogated to Crispas rights against petitioner, pursuant to Article 2207 of the New Civil Code[7]. Anent the trial courts findings of negligence on the part of the petitioner, which findings were affirmed by the appellate court, we have consistently ruled that findings of facts of trial courts, more so when affirmed, as here, by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court unless the trial court itself ignored, overlooked or misconstrued facts and circumstances which, if considered, warrant a reversal of the outcome of the case.[8] This is not so in the case at bar. For, we have ourselves reviewed the records and find no justification to deviate from the trial courts findings. WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE. SO ORDERED.
Page 31 of 31

3 & 4 - Lending Act and Deposits

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3 & 4 - Lending Act and Deposits

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4.

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Credit 3. Truth in Lending Act & 4. Deposits

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen