Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
PRODUCERS
BANK
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
(now
FIRST
INTERNATIONAL BANK), petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS AND FRANKLIN VIVES,respondents.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
[2]
Sanchez and her companions, in coordination with Mr. Rufo Atienza, to open
an account for Sterela Marketing Services in the amount of P200,000.00. In
opening the account, the authorized signatories were Inocencia Vives and/or
Angeles Sanchez. A passbook for Savings Account No. 10-1567 was
thereafter issued to Mrs. Vives.
[4]
another check for P212,000.00 in private respondents favor but the check was
again dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
[7]
[8]
Petitioner appealed the trial courts decision to the Court of Appeals. In its
Decision dated June 25, 1991, the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision
of the RTC. It likewise denied with finality petitioners motion for
reconsideration in its Resolution dated May 5, 1994.
[9]
[10]
On June 30, 1994, petitioner filed the present petition, arguing that
I.
respondent with copy of the reply and several substitutions of counsel on the
part of private respondent. On January 17, 2001, the Court resolved to give
due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda. Petitioner filed its memorandum on April 16, 2001 while private
respondent submitted his memorandum on March 22, 2001.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[16]
[18]
Petitioner also asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial
courts decision since the findings of fact therein were not accord with the
evidence presented by petitioner during trial to prove that the transaction
between private respondent and Doronilla was a mutuum, and that it
[22]
He likewise asserts that the trial court did not err in finding that petitioner,
Atienzas employer, is liable for the return of his money. He insists that Atienza,
petitioners assistant manager, connived with Doronilla in defrauding private
respondent since it was Atienza who facilitated the opening of Sterelas current
account three days after Mrs. Vives and Sanchez opened a savings account
with petitioner for said company, as well as the approval of the authority to
debit Sterelas savings account to cover any overdrawings in its current
account.
[23]
[25]
[26]
Appeals in the case at bar that would require this Court to review and overturn
the factual findings of that court, especially since the conclusions of fact of the
Court of Appeals and the trial court are not only consistent but are also amply
supported by the evidence on record.
No error was committed by the Court of Appeals when it ruled that the
transaction
between
private
respondent
and
Doronilla
was
a commodatum and not a mutuum. A circumspect examination of the records
reveals that the transaction between them was a commodatum. Article 1933
of the Civil Code distinguishes between the two kinds of loans in this wise:
By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not
consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in
which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing,
upon the condition that the same 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.
The foregoing provision seems to imply that if the subject of the contract is
a consumable thing, such as money, the contract would be
a mutuum. However, there are some instances where a commodatum may
have for its object a consumable thing. Article 1936 of the Civil Code provides:
Consumable goods may be the subject of commodatum if the purpose of the contract
is not the consumption of the object, as when it is merely for exhibition.
Thus, if consumable goods are loaned only for purposes of exhibition, or
when the intention of the parties is to lend consumable 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 in determining the actual character of a contract. In
case of doubt, the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties shall
be considered in such determination.
[27]
[28]
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 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 Sterelas savings
account and would be returned to private respondent after thirty (30) days.
[29]
had a hand in the execution of this certification, was aware that the contents of the
same are not true. He knew that the passbook was in the 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 Atienzas 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 to the loss subject of
this case. x x x.
[31]
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 employees 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
latters instructions.
[32]
[33]
[35]
The foregoing shows that the Court of Appeals correctly held that under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, petitioner is liable for private respondents loss
and is solidarily liable with Doronilla and Dumagpi for the return of
the P200,000.00 since it is clear that petitioner failed to prove that it exercised
due diligence to prevent the unauthorized withdrawals from Sterelas savings
account, and that it was not negligent in the selection and supervision of
Atienza. Accordingly, no error was committed by the appellate court in the
award of actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs of
suit to private respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.