1.

BPI v IAC and Zshornack, 164 SCRA 630 (1988)

2.

Facts:

Rizaldy T. Zshornack and his wife maintained in COMTRUST a dollar savings

account and a peso current account. An application for a dollar drat was
accomplished by Virgillo Garcia branch manager of COMTRUST payable to a
certain Leovigilda Dizon.

In the PPLICtion, Garcia indicated that the amount was to be charged to the
dolar savings account of the Zshornacks.

There was no indication of the name of the purchaser of the dollar draft.
Comtrust issued a check payable to the order of Dizon.

CA Agro-Industrial Development Corp. v CA and Security Bank, 219 SCRA

426
Facts:

Petitioner and the spouses Ramon and Paula Pugao entered into an agreement
whereby the former purchased from the latter two (2) parcels of land. Among the
terms and conditions of the agreement were that the titles to the lots shall be
transferred to the petitioner upon full payment of the purchase price and that the
owner's copies of the certificates of titles thereto, and that title shall be deposited
shall be deposited in a safety deposit box of any bank.

Petitioner and the Pugaos then rented Safety Deposit Box of private respondent
Security Bank and Trust Company.

When Zshornack noticed the withdrawal from his account, he demanded an

explainaiton from the bank. In its answer, Comtrust claimed that the peso value
of the withdrawal was given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, brother of Rizaldy.

Thereafter, a certain Mrs. Margarita Ramos offered to buy from the petitioner the
two (2) lots. Mrs. Ramos demanded the execution of a deed of sale which
necessarily entailed the production of the certificates of title.

When he encashed with COMTRUST a cashiers check for P8450 issued by the
manila banking corporation payable to Ernesto.

In view thereof, Aguirre, accompanied by the Pugaos, then proceeded to the

respondent Bank to open the safety deposit box and get the certificates of title.
However, when opened in the presence of the Bank's representative, the box
yielded no such certificates.

Held:
Yes. The situation is one contemplated in Art. 1962 of the NCC:

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.

Issue:
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?

Note: But because the subject of the contract here is a foreign exchange, it is
covered by Central Bank Circular No. 20 which requires that, 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.

Held:

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.

Since 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 intend 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.

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; 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 renter's key. In this case, the
said key had a duplicate which was made so that both renters could have access
to the box.

In other words, the transaction between Zshornack and the bank was void having
been executed against the provisions of a mandatory law (CB Circ No. 20). Being
in pari delicto, the law cannot afford either of them remedy.

3.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro v De La Pena, 26 Phil 144 (1913)

FACTS:

In 1898 Fr. De la Pea assigned as trustee of the sum of P6,641, collected by

him for the charitable purposes he deposited in his personal account P19,000 in
the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo.

During the war of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrested by the military
authorities as a political prisoner.

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 deposited had been collected by him is for revolutionary
purposes. The money was taken from the bank by the military authorities by
virtue of such order, was confiscated and turned over to the Government.

ISSUES: Whether or not Father De la Pea is liable for the loss of the funds?

4.

Chan vs. Maceda, 402 SCRA 352 (2003)

Bonifacio Maceda Jr, obtained a 7.3M loan from DBP for the construction of his
New Gran Hotel Project.

Maceda then had a construction contract with Moreman Builders. Maceda bought
construction materials and equipments which Moreman deposited in the
warehouse of Wilson and Liliy Chan free of charge.

Due to Moremans failure to complete the project, Maceda filed a case for
rescission and damages against them. RTC ruled in favor of Maceda. While
pending appeal in CA, Maceda demanded from the Chans the deposited
materials but Chan said that these materials had already been withdrawn by
Moreman in 1977.

Thus, Maceda now filed a an action for damages and preliminary attachment
against the Chans. After four years, the RTC dismissed the case for failure to
prosecute. Five years after, a motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied
by RTC. On appeal, the RTC granted the MFR.

Chan filed a motion to dismiss, while Maceda filed a motion to declare Chan in
default.

RTC declared Chan in default. CA affirmed the decision. Thus on the RTC, Maceda
presented his witnesses to show that indeed bags of cement were deposited in the
warehouse of Chan. RTC then ruled in favor of Maceda. RTC stated that since the bags
were stored by Moreman builders without any lien or encumbrance, Chan was duty bound
to release it. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.

RULLING: No, he is not liable because there is no negligent act on the part of Fr. De
la Pea.

It was so happened that during that time the money was taken from him by the
U.S. military forces which is unforeseen event.

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, it
also provides, following the principle of the Roman law 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.

ISSUE:
1.)

WON procedural infirmities should have been a ground to dismiss the case

2.) WON there was a contract of deposit

HELD/RATIO:
1.) Yes
The original MFR was filed 5 years after the decision, thus far beyond the 15 day
reglementary period. This is a gross error on the part of the trial court.
2.)

No

In a contract of deposit, the burden of proof on proving the contract is on the plaintiff.
In the case at hand, the record is bereft of any contract of deposit between the parties.
The delivery receipts presented also lack probative value so as to prove the existence
of the contract for they are unsigned and not duly authenticated by Moreman or by
Maceda.
o
Moreover, Maceda also failed to prove that there were construction
materials and equipment in petitioners' warehouse at the time he made a
demand for their return

In relation to the claim of damages, actual damages must be proven with a reasonable
degree of certainty, which in this case, Maceda failed to present.

Petitioner claimed that the complaint failed to adduce facts to support the
allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the safekeeping and
custody of the subject vehicle.

FACTS:

Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant. De Asis was

using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 issued by her employer
Crispa Textile Inc..

Besides, when De Asis availed the free parking stab which contained a waiver of
petitioners liability in case of loss, she had thereby waived her rights.

On said date, De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and
entrusted her car key to petitioner's valet counter. Afterwards, a certain
Madridano, valet attendant, 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.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with

the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same. A deposit may be
constituted even without any consideration.

Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein respondent Filipino
Merchants Insurance Company, Inc.

Having indemnified Crispa for the loss of the subject vehicle, FMICI, as subrogee
to Crispa's rights, filed with the RTC at Makati City an action for damages against
petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc.

5.

Triple V Food Services, Inc. vs. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company,

Inc., G.R. 160544, February 21, 2005

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc. is liable for the loss.

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.

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.