Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
652
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case
the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum. Commodatum is
essentially gratuitous. Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a
stipulation to pay interest. In commodatum, the bailor retains the
ownership of the thing loaned, while in simple loan, ownership
passes to the borrower.
Same; Quasi-Delicts; Employer-Employee Relationship;
Solidary Liability; Employers shall be held primarily and
solidarily liable for damages caused by their employees acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks.—Under Article 2180 of
the Civil Code, employers shall be held primarily and solidarily
liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks. To hold the employer liable under
this provision, it must be shown that an employer-employee
relationship exists, and that the employee was acting within the
scope of his assigned task when the act complained of was
committed. Case law in the United States of America has it that a
corporation that entrusts a general duty to its employee is
responsible to the injured party for damages flowing from the
employee’s wrongful act done in the course of his general
authority, even though in doing such act, the employee may have
failed in its duty to the employer and disobeyed the latter’s
instructions.
_______________
653
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
_______________
3 Id. at p. 37.
4 Ibid.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
654
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
5 Id., at pp. 37-38.
6 Id., at p. 38.
7 Id.
655
I.
II.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
_______________
8 Id., at p. 63.
656
III.
IV.
V.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
_______________
14 Id., at p. 227.
657
_______________
15 Id., at p. 21.
16 Id., at p. 22.
18 Id., at p. 23.
19 Id., at p. 28.
658
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
_______________
24 Flores v. Uy, G.R. No. 121492, October 26, 2001, 368 SCRA 347; Lim
v. People, G.R. No. 143231, October 26, 2001, 368 SCRA 436.
25 Section 1, Rule 45, Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
659
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
_______________
660
goods and to have the very same goods returned at the end
of the period agreed upon, the loan is a commodatum and
not a mutuum.
The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall
be accorded primordial consideration
27
in determining the
actual character of a contract. In case of doubt, the
contemporaneous and subsequent acts 28
of the parties shall
be considered in such determination.
As correctly pointed out by both the Court of Appeals
and the trial court, the evidence shows that private
respondent agreed to deposit his money in the savings
account of Sterela specifically for the purpose of making it
appear “that said firm had sufficient capitalization for
incorporation, with the promise that the amount shall be
29
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
29
returned within thirty (30) days.” Private respondent
merely “accommodated” Doronilla by lending his money
without consideration, as a favor to his good friend
Sanchez. It was however clear to the parties to the
transaction that the money would not be removed from
Sterela’s savings account and would be returned to private
respondent after thirty (30) days.
Doronilla’s attempts to return to private respondent the
amount of P200,000.00 which the latter deposited in
Sterela’s account together with an additional P12,000.00,
allegedly representing interest on the mutuum, did not
convert the transaction from a commodatum into a
mutuum because such was not the intent of the parties and
because the additional P12,000.00 corresponds to the fruits
of the lending of the P200,000.00. Article 1935 of the Civil
Code expressly states that “[t]he bailee in commodatum
acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits.”
Hence, it was only proper for Doronilla to remit to private
respondent the interest accruing to the latter’s money
deposited with petitioner.
Neither does the Court agree with petitioner’s
contention that it is not solidarily liable for the return of
private respondent’s money because it was not privy to the
transaction between Doronilla and private respondent. The
nature of said transaction, that is,
_______________
661
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
x x x
But the scheme could not have been executed successfully
without the knowledge, help and cooperation of Rufo Atienza,
assistant manager and cashier of the Makati (Buendia) branch of
the defendant bank. Indeed, the evidence indicates that Atienza
had not only facilitated the commission of the fraud but he
likewise helped in devising the means by which it can be done in
such manner as to make it appear that the transaction was in
accordance with banking procedure.
To begin with, the deposit was made in defendant’s Buendia
branch precisely because Atienza was a key officer therein. The
records show that plaintiff had suggested that the P200,000.00 be
deposited in his bank, the Manila Banking Corporation, but
Doronilla and Dumagpi insisted that it must be in defendant’s
branch in Makati for “it will be easier for them to get a
certification.” In fact before he was introduced to plaintiff,
Doronilla had already prepared a letter addressed to the Buendia
branch manager authorizing Angeles B. Sanchez and company to
open a savings account
_______________
662
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
certification, was aware that the contents of the same are not
true. He knew that the passbook was in the
663
hands of Mrs. Vives for he was the one who gave it to her.
Besides, as assistant manager of the branch and the bank official
servicing the savings and current accounts in question, he also
was aware that the original passbook was never surrendered. He
was also cognizant that Estrella Dumagpi was not among those
authorized to withdraw so her certification had no effect
whatsoever.
The circumstance surrounding the opening of the current
account also demonstrate that Atienza’s active participation in
the perpetration of the fraud and deception that caused the loss.
The records indicate that this account was opened three days
later after the P200,000.00 was deposited. In spite of his
disclaimer, the Court believes that Atienza was mindful and
posted regarding the opening of the current account considering
that Doronilla was all the while in “coordination” with him. That
it was he who facilitated the approval of the authority to debit the
savings account to cover any overdrawings in the current account
(Exh. “2”) is not hard to comprehend.
Clearly Atienza had committed wrongful acts that had resulted
31
to the loss subject of this case. x x x.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
_______________
31 Rollo, pp. 43-47, citing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, pp.
5-8.
32 Castilex Industrial Corporation v. Vasquez, Jr., 321 SCRA 393
(1999).
33 18B Am. Jur. 2d, p. 947, Corporations § 2125, citing Pittsburgh, C.C.
664
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/16
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 397
——o0o——
_______________
665
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c4c292c904377fc2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/16