Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

G.R. No.

L-30511 February 14, 1980


MANUEL M. SERRANO, petitioner,
vs.
CENTRAL AN! OF T"E #"$L$##$NES% O&ERSEAS AN! OF MAN$LA% EMER$TO M. RAMOS, SUSANA . RAMOS,
EMER$TO . RAMOS, 'R., 'OSEFA RAMOS (ELA RAMA, "ORAC$O (ELA RAMA, ANTON$O . RAMOS, F$LOMENA
RAMOS LE(ESMA, RO(OLFO LE(ESMA, &$CTOR$A RAMOS TAN'UATCO, a)* TEOF$LO TAN'UATCO, respondents.
Rene Diokno for petitioner.
F.E. Evangelista & Glecerio T. Orsolino for respondent Central Bank of the Philippines.
Feliciano C. Tuale! Pacifico T. Torres and "ntonio B. Peri#uet for respondent Overseas Bank of $anila.
%osefina G. &alonga for all other respondents.

CONCE#C$ON, 'R., J.:
Petition for andaus and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, that seeks the establishment of joint and solidary liability to
the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos, with interest, against respondent Central ank of the Philippines and
!verseas ank of "anila and its stockholders, on the alleged failure of the !verseas ank of "anila to return the time deposits
made by petitioner and assigned to him, on the ground that respondent Central ank failed in its duty to e#ercise strict
supervision over respondent !verseas ank of "anila to protect depositors and the general public.
1
Petitioner also prays that
both respondent banks be ordered to e#ecute the proper and necessary documents to constitute all properties fisted in $nne#
%&% of the $nswer of respondent Central ank of the Philippines in '.(. )o. *+,-./,, entitled 'Eerita $. Raos! et al vs.
Central Bank of the Philippines!' into a trust fund in favor of petitioner and all other depositors of respondent !verseas ank of
"anila. 0t is also prayed that the respondents be prohibited permanently from honoring, implementing, or doing any act
predicated upon the validity or efficacy of the deeds of mortgage, assignment. and1or conveyance or transfer of whatever nature
of the properties listed in $nne# %&% of the $nswer of respondent Central ank in '.(. )o. ,-./,.
+
$ sought for e#+parte preliminary injunction against both respondent banks was not given by this Court.
2ndisputed pertinent facts are3
!n !ctober 4., 4-55 and 6ecember 4,, 4-55, petitioner made a time deposit, for one year with 57 interest, of !ne Hundred
Fifty Thousand Pesos 8P4/9,999.99: with the respondent !verseas ank of "anila.
3
Concepcion "aneja also made a time
deposit, for one year with 5+;7 interest, on "arch 5, 4-5&, of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos 8P,99,999.99: with the same
respondent !verseas ank of "anila.
4
!n $ugust .4, 4-5<, Concepcion "aneja, married to Feli#berto ". =errano, assigned and conveyed to petitioner "anuel ".
=errano, her time deposit of P,99,999.99 with respondent !verseas ank of "anila.
5
)otwithstanding series of demands for encashment of the aforementioned time deposits from the respondent !verseas ank of
"anila, dating from 6ecember 5, 4-5& up to "arch >, 4-5<, not a single one of the time deposit certificates was honored by
respondent !verseas ank of "anila.
,
(espondent Central ank admits that it is charged with the duty of administering the banking system of the (epublic and it
e#ercises supervision over all doing business in the Philippines, but denies the petitioner?s allegation that the Central ank has
the duty to e#ercise a most rigid and stringent supervision of banks, implying that respondent Central ank has to watch every
move or activity of all banks, including respondent !verseas ank of "anila. (espondent Central ank claims that as of "arch
4,, 4-5/, the !verseas ank of "anila, while operating, was only on a limited degree of banking operations since the "onetary
oard decided in its (esolution )o. .,,, dated "arch 4,, 4-5/, to prohibit the !verseas ank of "anila from making new loans
and investments in view of its chronic reserve deficiencies against its deposit liabilities. This limited operation of respondent
!verseas ank of "anila continued up to 4-5<.
-
(espondent Central ank also denied that it is guarantor of the permanent solvency of any banking institution as claimed by
petitioner. 0t claims that neither the law nor sound banking supervision re@uires respondent Central ank to advertise or
represent to the public any remedial measures it may impose upon chronic delin@uent banks as such action may inevitably
result to panic or bank %runs%. 0n the years 4-55+4-5&, there were no findings to declare the respondent !verseas ank of
"anila as insolvent.
8
(espondent Central ank likewise denied that a constructive trust was created in favor of petitioner and his predecessor in
interest Concepcion "aneja when their time deposits were made in 4-55 and 4-5& with the respondent !verseas ank of
"anila as during that time the latter was not an insolvent bank and its operation as a banking institution was being salvaged by
the respondent Central ank.
9
(espondent Central ank avers no knowledge of petitioner?s claim that the properties given by respondent !verseas ank of
"anila as additional collaterals to respondent Central ank of the Philippines for the former?s overdrafts and emergency loans
were ac@uired through the use of depositors? money, including that of the petitioner and Concepcion "aneja.
10
0n '.(. )o. *+,-.5,, entitled 'Eerita $. Raos! et al. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines!' a case was filed by the petitioner
(amos, wherein respondent !verseas ank of "anila sought to prevent respondent Central ank from closing, declaring the
former insolvent, and li@uidating its assets. Petitioner "anuel =errano in this case, filed on =eptember 5, 4-5<, a motion to
intervene in '.(. )o. *+,-./,, on the ground that =errano had a real and legal interest as depositor of the !verseas ank of
"anila in the matter in litigation in that case. (espondent Central ank in '.(. )o. *+,-./, opposed petitioner "anuel
=errano?s motion to intervene in that case, on the ground that his claim as depositor of the !verseas ank of "anila should
properly be ventilated in the Court of First 0nstance, and if this Court were to allow =errano to intervene as depositor in '.(. )o.
*+,-./,, thousands of other depositors would follow and thus cause an avalanche of cases in this Court. 0n the resolution dated
!ctober >, 4-5<, this Court denied =errano?s, motion to intervene. The contents of said motion to intervene are substantially the
same as those of the present petition.
11
This Court rendered decision in '.(. )o. *+,-./, on !ctober >, 4-&4, which became final and e#ecutory on "arch ., 4-&,,
favorable to the respondent !verseas ank of "anila, with the dispositive portion to wit3
AHB(BF!(B, the writs prayed for in the petition are hereby granted and respondent Central ank?s
resolution )os. 4,5., 4,-9 and 4... 8that prohibit the !verseas ank of "anila to participate in clearing,
direct the suspension of its operation, and ordering the li@uidation of said bank: are hereby annulled and
set asideC and said respondent Central ank of the Philippines is directed to comply with its obligations
under the Doting Trust $greement, and to desist from taking action in violation therefor. Costs against
respondent Central ank of the Philippines.
1+
ecause of the above decision, petitioner in this case filed a motion for judgment in this case, praying for a decision on the
merits, adjudging respondent Central ank jointly and severally liable with respondent !verseas ank of "anila to the petitioner
for the P./9,999 time deposit made with the latter bank, with all interests due thereinC and declaring all assets assigned or
mortgaged by the respondents !verseas ank of "anila and the (amos groups in favor of the Central ank as trust funds for
the benefit of petitioner and other depositors.
13
y the very nature of the claims and causes of action against respondents, they in reality are recovery of time deposits plus
interest from respondent !verseas ank of "anila, and recovery of damages against respondent Central ank for its alleged
failure to strictly supervise the acts of the other respondent ank and protect the interests of its depositors by virtue of the
constructive trust created when respondent Central ank re@uired the other respondent to increase its collaterals for its
overdrafts said emergency loans, said collaterals allegedly ac@uired through the use of depositors money. These claims shoud
be ventilated in the Court of First 0nstance of proper jurisdiction as Ae already pointed out when this Court denied petitioner?s
motion to intervene in '.(. )o. *+,-./,. Claims of these nature are not proper in actions for mandamus and prohibition as there
is no shown clear abuse of discretion by the Central ank in its e#ercise of supervision over the other respondent !verseas
ank of "anila, and if there was, petitioner here is not the proper party to raise that @uestion, but rather the !verseas ank of
"anila, as it did in '.(. )o. *+,-./,. )either is there anything to prohibit in this case, since the @uestioned acts of the
respondent Central ank 8the acts of dissolving and li@uidating the !verseas ank of "anila:, which petitioner here intends to
use as his basis for claims of damages against respondent Central ank, had been accomplished a long time ago.
Furthermore, both parties overlooked one fundamental principle in the nature of bank deposits when the petitioner claimed that
there should be created a constructive trust in his favor when the respondent !verseas ank of "anila increased its collaterals
in favor of respondent Central ank for the former?s overdrafts and emergency loans, since these collaterals were ac@uired by
the use of depositors? money.
ank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits. They are really loans because they earn interest. $ll kinds of bank
deposits, whether fi#ed, savings, or current are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the law on loans.
14
Current and
savings deposit are loans to a bank because it can use the same. The petitioner here in making time deposits that earn interests
with respondent !verseas ank of "anila was in reality a creditor of the respondent ank and not a depositor. The respondent
ank was in turn a debtor of petitioner. Failure of he respondent ank to honor the time deposit is failure to pay s obligation as a
debtor and not a breach of trust arising from depositary?s failure to return the subject matter of the deposit
AHB(BF!(B, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against petitioner.
=! !(6B(B6.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen