P.C. Javier & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 462 SCRA 36, G.R. No.

129552 June 29,

2005
Facts :
Petitioner first applied for Industrial Guarantee Loan Fund with real estate mortgage
as its collateral to First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank. However, during the
application the bank was renamed from First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank to
PAIC Savings and Mortgage Bank. The loan was granted to the plaintiff-petitioner in
two tranches. Bank sent demand letters to petitioner but failed to pay, thus,
initiated the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage executed by
spouses Javier. The spouses Javier filed a complaint for the annulment of
extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage arguing that the First Summa
Savings and Mortgage which they applied the loan is different which extrajudicial
foreclosed their real estate and they were not informed in any changes of the name.
Issue: 1. WON petitioners should be informed about the changes of name of the
bank?
2.Whether First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank and PAIC Saving and
Mortgage Bank are different banks?
HELD:
1. No. their defense that they should first be formally notified of the change of
corporate name of First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank to PAIC Savings
and Mortgage Bank, Inc., before they will continue paying their loan
obligations to respondent bank presupposes that there exists a requirement
under a law or regulation ordering a bank that changes its corporate name to
formally notify all its debtors. After going over the Corporation Code and
Banking Laws, as well as the regulations and circulars of both the SEC and
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), we find that there is no such
requirement. This being the case, this Court cannot impose on a bank that
changes its corporate name to notify a debtor of such change absent any law,
circular or regulation requiring it. Such act would be judicial legislation. The
formal notification is, therefore, discretionary on the bank. Unless there is a
law, regulation or circular from the SEC or BSP requiring the formal
notification of all debtors of banks of any change in corporate name, such
notification remains to be a mere internal policy that banks may or may not
adopt.
2. A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation, whether
effected by a special act or under a general law.
Serrano vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, 96 SCRA 96, No. L-30511 February
14, 1980

FACTS: Petition for mandamus and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, that
seeks the establishment of joint and solidary liability to the amount of Three
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos, with interest, against respondent Central Bank of the
Philippines and Overseas Bank of Manila and its stockholders, on the alleged failure
of the Overseas Bank of Manila to return the time deposits made by petitioner and
assigned to him, on the ground that respondent Central Bank failed in its duty to
exercise strict supervision over respondent Overseas Bank of Manila to protect
depositors and the general public. Serrano opened time deposit to Overseas Bank
of Manila. Maneja also opened a time deposit and assigned and conveyed said
deposit to petitioner Manuel Serrano. Despite demand said Bank failed to encash
the deposit, dating from December 6, 1967 up to March 4, 1968, not a single one of
the time deposit certificates was honored by respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.
ISSUE: Whether there is a breach of trust by not returning of the deposit?
HELD. No. 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 cu rent are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the law on loans.
Current and savings deposits 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 its obligation as a debtor
and not a breach of trust arising from a depositarys failure to return the subject
matter of the deposit.