SERRANO - v - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al
MANUEL M. SERRANO, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; OVERSEAS BANK
OF MANILA; EMERITO M. RAMOS, SUSANA B. RAMOS, EMERITO B. RAMOS, JR., JOSEFA
RAMOS DELA RAMA, HORACIO DELA RAMA, ANTONIO B. RAMOS, FILOMENA RAMOS LEDESMA,
RODOLFO LEDESMA, VICTORIA RAMOS TANJUATCO, and TEOFILO TANJUATCO, respondents.
SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. L-30511 February 14, 1980 CONCEPCION,
JR., J.:
1. In 1966, petitioner made a time deposit, for 1 year
with 6% interest of P150,000.00 with the respondent Overseas Bank of
Manila.
2. Concepcion Maneja also made a time deposit, for 1
year with 6-½% interest in 1967, of P200,000.00 with the same respondent
Overseas Bank of Manila.
3. In 1968, Concepcion Maneja, married to Felixberto
Serrano, assigned and conveyed to petitioner Manuel M. Serrano, her time
deposit of P200,000.00 with respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.
4. Notwithstanding series of demands for encashment of
the aforementioned time deposits from the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila,
not a single one of the time deposit certificates was honored by respondent
Overseas Bank of Manila.
5. Respondent Central Bank admits that it is charged
with the duty of administering the banking system of the Republic and it
exercises supervision over all doing business in the Philippines, but denies
the ff:
a. Central Bank has the duty to exercise a most rigid
and stringent supervision of banks, implying that respondent Central Bank has
to watch every move or activity of all banks, including respondent Overseas
Bank of Manila.
b. that it is guarantor of the permanent solvency of
any banking institution as claimed by petitioner.
c. a constructive trust was created in favor of
petitioner and his predecessor in interest Concepcion Maneja when their time
deposits were made in 1966 and 1967 with the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila
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 Bank.
6. In G.R. No. L-29362, entitled "Emerita
M. Ramos, et al. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines," a case was
filed by the petitioner Ramos, wherein respondent Overseas Bank of Manila
sought to prevent respondent Central Bank from closing, declaring the former
insolvent, and liquidating its assets. This Court rendered decision favorable
to the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.
7. Because 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 Bank jointly and severally liable with
respondent Overseas Bank of Manila to the petitioner for the P350,000 time
deposit made with the latter bank, with all interests due therein; and
declaring all assets assigned or mortgaged by the respondents Overseas Bank of
Manila and the Ramos groups in favor of the Central Bank as trust funds for the
benefit of petitioner and other depositors.
Issue: Whether or not bank deposits are deposits as contemplated by law.
Held: No.
Ruling:
- 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 Overseas
Bank of Manila increased its collaterals in favor of respondent Central Bank
for the former's overdrafts and emergency loans, since these collaterals
were acquired by the use of depositors' money.
- Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits. They are
really loans because they earn interest. All kinds of bank
deposits, whether fixed, savings, or current are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the law on loans.
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 Overseas Bank of Manila was in reality a
creditor of the respondent Bank and not a depositor. The respondent Bank
was in turn a debtor of petitioner. Failure of the respondent Bank 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
- Dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against
petitioner.
