SERRANO V.

CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. L-30511. FEBRUARY 14, 1980

I.

PARTIES Petitioner Respondents-

CASE ANALYSIS
Manuel Serrrano Central Bank of the Philippines Overseas Bank of Manila and its Stockholders

II. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Court of First Instance Supreme Court III. THEORIES OF THE PARTIES Petitioner: The petitioner claimed to establish joint and solidary liability to the amount of Php350,000.00 with interest against respondent and its stockholders on the failure to return the time deposits on the ground that the respondent Central Bank failed in its duty to exercise strict supervision over Overseas Bank of Manila to protect depositors and general public. Respondent: Central Bank claimed that it is not guarantor of the permanent solvency of an banking institution. Central Bank denied that a constructive trust was created in favor of the petitioner and his predecessor in interest Concepcion Maneja when their time deposits were made with Overseas Bank of Manila. IV. OBJECTIVES OF THE PARTY Petitioner: The petitioner sought to recover time deposits with an amount of Php350,000.00 including interests due therein from respondent Overseas Bank of Manila and recovery of damages against respondent Central Bank by virtue of constructive trust. Respondent: The respondent sought to be relieved in paying damages due to the petitioners claim as during that time Overseas Bank of Manila was not an insolvent bank. V. KEY FACTS Manuel Serrano made a time deposit, for one year with 6% interest of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos with the Respondent Overseas Bank of Manila. Concepcion Maneja also made a time deposit, for one year with 6-1/2 % interest, of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos on the same respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.

Concepcion MAneja, then married, assigned and conveyed to petitioner Manuel Serrano, her time deposit of Php200,000.00. Notwithstanding series of demands for encashment of the aforementioned time deposit from the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila, not a single one of the time deposit certificates was honored by respondent Overseas Bank of Manila. Respondent Central Bank dissolve and liquidated the Overseas Bank of Manila. The former denied that it is a guarantor of the permanent solvency of any banking institution as claimed by the petitioner. Respondent Central Bank avers no knowledge of petitioners claim that the properties given by the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila as additional collaterals to the respondent Central Bank of the Philippines for the formers overdrafts and emergency loans were acquired from the depositors money including the time deposits of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. VI. ISSUE Whether or not the respondents are jointly and solidary liable for damages due to breach of trust. VII.HOLDINGS. The Court held that both respondent banks was not given preliminary injunction with respect to the acts of the respondent Central Bank. VIII. RATIO DECIDENDI Both parties overlooked the 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 the collaterals in favor of the respondent Central Bank of the Philippines for the formers overdrafts and emergency loans, since these collaterals were acquired by the use of depositors money. Bank deposits are in 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 loans. Current and savings deposits are loans to a bank because it can use the same. The petitioner here in the 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 obligation as a debtor and not a breach of trust arising from depositorys failure to return the subject matter of the deposit. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioner.

IX. DISPOSITION