G.R. No. L-66826 August 19, 1988 BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs.

THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ZSHORNACK respondents. CORTES, J.: 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. 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 defendant's 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 attorney's 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 bank's 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 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 cashier's 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 respondent's dollar account. In its desperate attempt to justify its act of withdrawing from its depositor's 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 Cashier's 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 cashier's check is related to the transaction involving the dollar draft in favor of Dizon financed by the withdrawal from Rizaldy's 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. 254109. 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) forsafekeeping, 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 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 Zshornack's 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 Zshornack's 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 Zshornack's current account at prevailing conversion rates, BPI now posits another ground to defeat private respondent's 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 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 bank's capacity to enter into the contract, was ever filed. Hence, the bank is deemed to have admitted not only Garcia's authority, but also the bank's power, to enter into the contract in question. In the past, this Court had occasion to explain the reason behind this procedural requirement.

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 agent's 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).] Petitioner's 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 officer's 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 Garcia's 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. xxx 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 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 attorney's 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.

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. 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 owner's 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) renter's 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 renter's 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 Bank's 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, 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 attorney's 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
3

decision 5 adverse to the petitioner on 8 December 1986, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiff's complaint. On defendant's counterclaim, judgment is hereby rendered ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the amount of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS as attorney's fees. With costs against plaintiff. 6 The unfavorable verdict is based on the trial court's 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 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 attorney's fees to the Bank and denying the petitioner's prayer for nominal and exemplary damages and attorney's 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 Court's Resolution of 28 August 1989, 15petitioner took this recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and urges Us to review and set aside the respondent Court's 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 court's decision, the brief submitted to the respondent Court and the motion to reconsider the latter's 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 17 Jurisprudence 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. We agree with the petitioner's 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; 19the 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. 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 23pertinently 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 24 agents. . . . (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 depositary's 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 Bank's 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 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)

10

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 Bank's 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 Court's determination that the contract involved was one of deposit. Since both the petitioner and the Pugaos agreed that each should have one (1) renter's 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 Bank's 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 attorney's 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 attorney's 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.

11

In the judgment rendered in that case on December 13, 1972 the Fidelity Savings Bank was ordered to pay the Elizes spouses the sum of P50,584 plus accumulated interest. G.R. No. L-38427 March 12, 1975 CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES as Liquidator of the FIDELITY SAVINGS BANK, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE JESUS P. MORFE, as Presiding Judge of Branch XIII, Court of First Instance of Manila, Spouses AUGUSTO and ADELAIDA PADILLA and Spouses MARCELA and JOB ELIZES,respondents. AQUINO, J.: This case involves the question of whether a final judgment for the payment of a time deposit in a savings bank which judgment was obtained after the bank was declared insolvent, is a preferred claim against the bank. The question arises under the following facts: On February 18,1969 the Monetary Board found the Fidelity Savings Bank to be insolvent. The Board directed the Superintendent of Banks to take charge of its assets, forbade it to do business and instructed the Central Bank Legal Counsel to take legal actions (Resolution No. 350). On December 9, 1969 the Board involved to seek the court's assistant and supervision in the liquidation of the ban The resolution implemented only on January 25, 1972, when his Central Bank of the Philippines filed the corresponding petition for assistance and supervision in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 86005 assigned to Branch XIII). Prior to the institution of the liquidation proceeding but after the declaration of insolvency, or, specifically, sometime in March, 1971, the spouses Job Elizes and Marcela P. Elizes filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Fidelity Savings Bank for the recovery of the sum of P50, 584 as the balance of their time deposits (Civil Case No. 82520 assigned to Branch I). In another case, assigned to Branch XXX of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the spouses Augusta A. Padilla and Adelaida Padilla secured on April 14, 1972 a judgment against the Fidelity Savings Bank for the sums of P80,000 as the balance of their time deposits, plus interests, P70,000 as moral and exemplary damages and P9,600 as attorney's fees (Civil Case No. 84200 where the action was filed on September 6, 1971). In its orders of August 20, 1973 and February 25, 1974, the lower court (Branch XIII having cognizance of the liquidation proceeding), upon motions of the Elizes and Padilla spouses and over the opposition of the Central Bank, directed the latter as liquidator, to pay their time deposits as preferred judgments, evidenced by final judgments, within the meaning of article 2244(14)(b) of the Civil Code, if there are enough funds in the liquidator's custody in excess of the credits more preferred under section 30 of the Central Bank Law in relation to articles 2244 and 2251 of the Civil Code. From the said order, the Central Bank appealed to this Court by certiorari. It contends that the final judgments secured by the Elizes and Padilla spouses do not enjoy any preference because (a) they were rendered after the Fidelity Savings Bank was declared insolvent and (b) under the charter of the Central Bank and the General Banking Law, no final judgment can be validly obtained against an insolvent bank. Republic Act No. 265 provides: SEC. 29. Proceeding upon insolvency.Whenever upon examination by the Superintendent or his examiners or agents into the condition of any banking institution, it shall be disclosed that the condition of the same is one of insolvency, or that its continuance in business would involve probable loss to its depositors or creditors, it shall be the duty of the Superintendent forthwith, in writing to inform the Monetary Board of the facts, and the Board, upon finding the statements of the Superintendent to be true, shall forthwith forbid the

12

institution to do business in the Philippines and shall take charge of its assets and proceeds according to law. The Monetary Board shall thereupon determine within thirty days whether the institution may be reorganized or otherwise placed in such a condition so that it may be permitted to resume business with safety to its creditors and shall prescribe the conditions under which such resumption of business shall take place. In such case the expenses and fees in the administration of the institution shall be determined by the Board and shall be paid to the Central Bank out of the assets of such banking institution. At any time within ten days after the Monetary Board has taken charge of the assets of any banking institution, such institution may apply to the Court of First Instance for an order requiring the Monetary Board to show cause why it should not be enjoined from continuing such charge of its assets, and the court may direct the Board to refrain from further proceedings and to surrender charge of its assets. If the Monetary Board shall determine that the banking institution cannot resume business with safety to its creditors, it shall, by the Office of the Solicitor General, file a petition in the Court of First Instance reciting the proceedings which have been taken and praying the assistance and supervision of the court in the liquidation of the affairs of the same. The Superintendent shall thereafter, upon order of the Monetary Board and under the supervision of the court and with all convenient speed, convert the assets of the banking institution to money. SEC. 30. Distribution of assets.In case of liquidation of a banking institution, after payment of the costs of the proceedings, including reasonable expenses and fees of the Central Bank to be allowed by the court, the Central Bank shall pay the debts of such institution, under the order of the court, in accordance with their legal priority. The General Banking Act, Republic Act No. 337, provides: SEC. 85. Any director or officer of any banking institution who receives or permits or causes to be received in said bank any deposit, or who pays out or permits or causes to be paid out any funds of said

bank, or who transfers or permits or causes to be transferred any securities or property of said bank, after said bank becomes insolvent, shall be punished by fine of not less than one thousand nor more than ten thousand pesos and by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than ten years. The Civil Code provides: ART. 2237. Insolvency shall be governed by special laws insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Code. (n) ART. 2244. With reference to other property, real and personal, of the debtor, the following claims or credits shall be preferred in the order named: xxx xxx xxx (14) Credits which, without special privilege, appear in (a) a public instrument; or (b) in a final judgment, if they have been the subject of litigation. These credits shall have preference among themselves in the order of priority of the dates of the instruments and of the judgments, respectively. (1924a) ART. 2251. Those credits which do not enjoy any preference with respect to specific property, and those which enjoy preference, as to the amount not paid, shall be satisfied according to the following rules: (1) In the order established in article 2244; (2) Common credits referred to in article 2245 shall be paid pro rata regardless of dates. (1929a) The trial court or, to be exact, the liquidation court noted that there is no provision in the charter of the Central Bank in the General Banking Law (Republic Acts Nos. 265 and 337, respectively) which suspends or abates civil actions against an insolvent bank pending in courts other than the liquidation court. It reasoned out that, because such actions are not suspended, judgments against insolvent banks could be considered as preferred credits under article 2244(14)(b) of the Civil Code. It further noted that, in contrast with the Central Act, section 18 of the Insolvency Law provides that upon the issuance by

13

the court of an order declaring a person insolvent "all civil proceedings against the said insolvent shall be stayed." The liquidation court directed the Central Bank to honor the writs of execution issued by Branches I and XXX for the enforcement of the judgments obtained by the Elizes and Padilla spouses. It suggested that, after satisfaction of the judgment the Central Bank, as liquidator, should include said judgments in the list of preferred credits contained in the "Project of Distribution" "with the notation "already paid" " On the other hand, the Central Bank argues that after the Monetary Board has declared that a bank is insolvent and has ordered it to cease operations, the Board becomes the trustee of its assets "for the equal benefit of all the creditors, including the depositors". The Central Bank cites the ruling that "the assets of an insolvent banking institution are held in trust for the equal benefit of all creditors, and after its insolvency, one cannot obtain an advantage or a preference over another by an attachment, execution or otherwise" (Rohr vs. Stanton Trust & Savings Bank, 76 Mont. 248, 245 Pac. 947). The stand of the Central Bank is that all depositors and creditors of the insolvent bank should file their actions with the liquidation court. In support of that view it cites the provision that the Insolvency Law does not apply to banks (last sentence, sec. 52 of Act No. 1956). It also invokes the provision penalizing a director officer of a bank who disburses, or allows disbursement, of the funds of the bank after it becomes insolvent (Sec. 85, General Banking Act, Republic Act No. 337). It cites the ruling that "a creditor of an insolvent state bank in the hands of a liquidator who recovered a judgment against it is not entitled to a preference for (by) the mere fact that he is a judgment creditor" (Thomas H. Briggs & Sons, Inc. vs. Allen, 207 N. Carolina 10, 175 S. E. 838, Braver Liquidation of Financial Institutions, p. 922). It should be noted that fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions are not true deposits. They are considered simple loans and, as such, are not preferred credits (Art. 1980, Civil Code; In re Liquidation of Mercantile Bank of China: Tan Tiong Tick vs. American Apothecaries Co., 65 Phil. 414; Pacific Coast Biscuit Co. vs. Chinese Grocers Association, 65 Phil. 375; Fletcher

American National Bank vs. Ang Cheng Lian, 65 Phil. 385; Pacific Commercial Co. vs. American Apothecaries Co., 65 Phil. 429; Gopoco Grocery vs. Pacific Coast Biscuit Co., 65 Phil. 443). The aforequoted section 29 of the Central Bank's charter explicitly provides that when a bank is found to be insolvent, the Monetary Board shall forbid it to do business and shall take charge of its assets. The Board in its Resolution No. 350 dated February 18,1969 banned the Fidelity Savings Bank from doing business. It took charge of the bank's assets. Evidently, one purpose in prohibiting the insolvent bank from doing business is to prevent some depositors from having an undue or fraudulent preference over other creditors and depositors. That purpose would be nullified if, as in this case, after the bank is declared insolvent, suits by some depositors could be maintained and judgments would be rendered for the payment of their deposits and then such judgments would be considered preferred credits under article 2244 (14) (b) of the Civil Code. We are of the opinion that such judgments cannot be considered preferred and that article 2244(14)(b) does not apply to judgments for the payment of the deposits in an insolvent savings bank which were obtained after the declaration of insolvency. A contrary rule or practice would be productive of injustice, mischief and confusion. To recognize such judgments as entitled to priority would mean that depositors in insolvent banks, after learning that the bank is insolvent as shown by the fact that it can no longer pay withdrawals or that it has closed its doors or has been enjoined by the Monetary Board from doing business, would rush to the courts to secure judgments for the payment of their deposits. In such an eventuality, the courts would be swamped with suits of that character. Some of the judgments would be default judgments. Depositors armed with such judgments would pester the liquidation court with claims for preference on the basis of article 2244(14)(b). Less alert depositors would be prejudiced. That inequitable situation could not have been contemplated by the framers of section 29.

14

The Rohr case (supra) supplies some illumination on the disposition of the instant case. It appears in that case that the Stanton Trust & Savings Bank of Great Falls closed its doors to business on July 9, 1923. On November 7,1924 the bank (then already under liquidation) issued to William Rohr a certificate stating that he was entitled to claim from the bank $1,191.72 and that he was entitled to dividends thereon. Later, Rohr sued the bank for the payment of his claim. The bank demurred to the complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer. Rohr appealed. In affirming the order sustaining the demurrer, the Supreme Court of Montana said: The general principle of equity that the assets of an insolvent are to be distributed ratably among general creditors applies with full force to the distribution of the assets of a bank. A general depositor of a bank is merely a general creditor, and, as such, is not entitled to any preference or priority over other general creditors. The assets of a bank in process of liquidation are held in trust for the equal benefit of all creditors, and one cannot be permitted to obtain an advantage or preference over another by an attachment, execution or otherwise. A disputed claim of a creditor may be adjudicated, but those whose claims are recognized and admitted may not successfully maintain action thereon. So to permit would defeat the very purpose of the liquidation of a bank whether being voluntarily accomplished or through the intervention of a receiver. xxx xxx xxx The available assets of such a bank are held in trust, and so conserved that each depositor or other creditor shall receive payment or dividend according to the amount of his debt, and that none of equal class shall receive any advantage or preference over another. And with respect to a national bank under voluntary liquidation, the court noted in the Rohr case that the assets of such a bank "become a trust fund, to be administered for the benefit of all creditors pro rata and, while the bank retains its corporate existence, and may be sued, the effect of a judgment obtained against it by a creditor is only to fix the amount of debt. He can acquire no lien which will give him any preference or advantage over other general creditors. (245 Pac. 249). *

Considering that the deposits in question, in their inception, were not preferred credits, it does not seem logical and just that they should be raised to the category of preferred credits simply because the depositors, taking advantage of the long interval between the declaration of insolvency and the filing of the petition for judicial assistance and supervision, were able to secure judgments for the payment of their time deposits. The judicial declaration that the said deposits were payable to the depositors, as indisputably they were due, could not have given the Elizes and Padilla spouses a priority over the other depositors whose deposits were likewise indisputably due and owing from the insolvent bank but who did not want to incur litigation expenses in securing a judgment for the payment of the deposits. The circumstance that the Fidelity Savings Bank, having stopped operations since February 19, 1969, was forbidden to do business (and that ban would include the payment of time deposits) implies that suits for the payment of such deposits were prohibited. What was directly prohibited should not be encompassed indirectly. (See Maurello vs. Broadway Bank & Trust Co. of Paterson 176 Atl. 391, 114 N.J.L. 167). It is noteworthy that in the trial court's order of October 3, 1972, which contains the Bank Liquidation Rules and Regulations, it indicated in step III the procedure for processing the claims against the insolvent bank. In Step IV, the court directed the Central Bank, as liquidator, to submit a Project of Distribution which should include "a list of the preferred credits to be paid in full in the order of priorities established in Articles 2241, 2242, 2243, 2246 and 2247" of the Civil Code (note that article 2244 was not mentioned). There is no cogent reason why the Elizes and Padilla spouses should not adhere to the procedure outlined in the said rules and regulations. WHEREFORE, the lower court's orders of August 20, 1973 and February 25, 1974 are reversed and set aside. No costs. SO ORDERED.

15

G.R. No. L-4300

March 21, 1908

MARIA BARRETTO, administratrix of the estate of Marcelo Dominguez, deceased, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONA REYES, defendant-appellant. TRACEY, J.: On June 30, 1898, the defendant and Marcelo Dominguez, the plaintiff's intestate, executed an agreement containing the following clause: I, Doa Leona Reyes, widow of Don Teodoro Durante, do hereby acknowledge that I have on this date received from Don Marcelo Dominguez, a Peninsular Spaniard, married, and a resident of this town, the amount of 7,556 cavanes of palay, as a deposit without interest, which palay, clean and of good weight, I promise to deliver at the store of Sr. Dominguez on or before the 15th of June of the next year, 1899. In case that on the aforesaid date I am not able to deliver the whole number of cavanes as above stated, I promise to liquidate any undelivered balance and reduce the same to money, at the highest price for which the product may be sold in Nueva Caceres, and the resulting amount I likewise agree to pay for in palay, clean and of good weight, at this store on the 15th of June of the following year, 1900, at the rate of 30 provincial gantas for each peso. The testimony established these additional facts: That the defendant had in reality received from Dominguez not palay but money, estimated according to a standard not shown, as the equivalent of the palay mentioned the result of the settlement of previous transactions between them; that during the absence of Dominguez from the province, he left his affairs in charge of an agent, whose powers included the carrying out of this contract; that the defendant made delivery on account, amounting to 253 cavanes, leaving a balance of 7,302 cavanes undelivered, and on May 14, 1903, the defendant offered in writing to settle at 2 pesos a cavan. We also take judicial notice of the fact that a cavan contains 25 gantas.

16

This peculiar contract, locally known as bulbulauen, presents difficulties of construction but is not necessarily unconscionable, although its event is at the risk of the market. There is, in fact, no deposit and such is not the true nature of her transaction. The distant capitalist contributes his money with which the local merchant is to buy a stock of palay, having the entire season ahead in which to take advantage of the fluctuations in the market and the necessities of the local growers before the amount due in palay is delivered or its value is liquidated, with an additional season in which to make himself good in the amount ascertained by the liquidation. The fixing of the ultimate price of 1 peso for 30 gantas, equivalent to 1 1/5 cavanes, obviously secures the party advancing the money against a fall in price during the second year, while not depriving the dealer of the opportunity to buy at the cheapest rate in the interval. In this instance it seems that about the date of the contract the price of palay was under 1 peso, but owing to rinderpest among the working cattle and to the insurrection, quotation steadily rose, at time reaching from 5 to 6 pesos a cavan. The trial judge assessed the damages at the market price on the date of his decision, giving a judgment for the return of 7,302 cavanes or the recovery of its value at the rate of 3 pesos a cavan. We are of the opinion that he should rather have followed the method of ascertaining damage provided in the contract itself, which involved no illegality and no and no oppressive penalty. There was much conflicting testimony as to the value of the grain at different periods, and especially in the year 1900, owing to the disordered condition of the country. The date of liquidation was set as June 15, 1899, and the price in that year has been variously estimated by different witnesses at P1.25, P1.31, and upward, but we think, in view of all the testimony, a fair maximum figure for that date is P1.50, which would liquidated the undelivered balance of P7,302 cavanes at P10,953.75. This is the true measure of damages, as is seem from following out the process of the contract, the next step according to which is to ascertain the equivalent of this sum in cavanesof palay, at the rate of 30 gantas, that is to say, at the rate of P0.83 1/3 for each cavan, resulting in 13,144cavanes. This is the quality of palay to the delivery of which the plaintiff, under the contract, is entitled, and the amount of money to which, in default of

such delivery, she has a right to be paid is its value at that time at the contract rate of P0.83 1/3, to wit, P10,953.75, with interest. In other words, the effect of the contract is to fix the damages by the price at the date of liquidation, although finally payable one year thereafter. Our judgment, therefore, is that the defendant 13,144 cavanes of palay, or in the defendant, P10,953.75, with interest cent per annum from the 15th of June, instance, and the judgment of the Court accordingly. So ordered. plaintiff recover from the lieu thereof, at the option of thereon at the rate of 6 per 1900, without costs of this of First Instance is modified

17