REPUBLIC ACT NO.

1405
SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS
AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY INTO, DEPOSITS
WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR
Section 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government to give encouragement to the
people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that
the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic
development of the country.
Section 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines
including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential
nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
bureau or office, except when the examination is made in the course of a special or general
examination of a bank and is specifically authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied
that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank fraud or serious irregularity has been or is
being committed and that it is necessary to look into the deposit to establish such fraud or
irregularity, or when the examination is made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to
conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes only and the
results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank, or upon written permission of the
depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the
subject matter of the litigation. (As amended by PD No.1792, January 16, 1981)
Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to
any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said
deposits.
Section 4. All Acts or parts of Acts, Special Charters, Executive Orders, Rules and Regulations
which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.
Section 5. Any violation of this law will subject offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of
not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the
discretion of the court.
Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: September 9, 1955

The purpose of this law is to encourage deposit in banking institutions; and discourage private
hoarding so that banks may lend such funds and assist in the economic development of the
country. (Sec. 1 Rep. Act No. 1405)

PROHIBITED ACTS:
1.Examination/inquiry/looking into all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
institutions in the Philippines (including investment in bonds issued by the government) by any
person, government official or office (Sec. 2)
(i) Deposits refer to money or funds placed with a bank that can be withdrawn on the depositors
order or demand, such as deposit accounts in the form of savings, current and time deposits.
Deposits are characterized as being in the nature of a simple loan. The placing of deposits in a
bank creates a creditor-debtor relationship between the depositor and the bank. As such, the
bank, being the debtor, has the obligation to pay a certain sum of money to the depositor, being
the creditor.
(ii) Investments in Government Bonds refer to investments in bonds issued by the Government
of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities. Government bonds are debt
securities which are unconditional obligations of the State, and backed by its full taxing power.
Government bonds include treasury bills, treasury notes, retail treasury bonds, dollar linked peso
notes, and other risk-free bonds.
2. Disclosure by any official or employee of any banking institution to any authorized person of
any information concerning said deposit. (Sec. 3)

THE FOLLOWING ARE LIABLE UNDER THIS LAW:

(i) Any person or government official who, or any government bureau or office that, examines,
inquires or looks into a bank deposit or government bond investment in any of the instances not
allowed in Section 2;
(ii) Any official or employee of a banking institution who makes a disclosure concerning bank
deposits to another in any instance not allowed by law (Sec. 3, Rep. Act No. 1405); and
(iii) Any person who commits a violation of any of the provisions of the law (Sec. 5, Rep. Act
No. 1405). Any bank official, director, employee or agent who discloses information relative to
funds or properties in the custody of the bank may also be held liable under the applicable
provisions of the General Banking Law, Thrift Banks Act and Rural Banks Act.

EXCEPTIONS UNDER THE LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 provides that bank deposits and government bond
investments may be examined, inquired and looked into in the following instances:
(a) Upon written permission or consent in writing by the depositor. For consent to be valid, it
should be made knowingly, voluntarily and with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences.
(b) In cases of impeachment of the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court,
members of the Constitutional Commission (Commission on Elections, Civil Service
Commission and Commission on Audit) and the Ombudsman for culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust.
(Art. XI, Sec. 2, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
(c) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials.
(d) In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. The
money deposited should be the very thing in dispute. (Mellon Bank, N.A.v. Magsino, 190
S.C.R.A. 633 [1990])

PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION

The penalty of imprisonment of not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than 20,000 pesos or
both, in the discretion of the court shall be imposed upon any official or employee of a banking
institution who, upon conviction, was found to have violated R.A. 1405.

SAMPLE CASES
1. M, a newspaper columnist, while making a deposit in a bank, overheard a bank teller
informing a co-employee that G, a well-known public official, has just a few hundred pesos
in Gs bank account and that her check will probably bounce. M wrote about this information
in his newspaper column. G filed a complaint against M for unlawfully disclosing
information about her bank account. The suit will not prosper.
The Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits does not penalize the mere receipt of information
about a bank account. M, having merely overheard the information on Gs account and not
having examined, inquired or looked into the said account cannot be penalized under Sec. 2

of the Bank Secrecy Law. Neither could he be penalized under Sec. 3 of the Bank Secrecy
Law since Sec. 3 refers to disclosures made by officials or employees of banking institutions.

2. A has P10,000 in his savings account, P20,000 in his checking account, P30,000 in his
money market placement and P40,000 in a trust fund. Which of the accounts are covered by
the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law?
Only the savings and checking account are covered. The money market placement and the
trust fund is not covered.
A bought some goods from a department store and paid with his personal check. The check
was dishonored. On the assumption that the department store did not know who A was, the
store manager inquired from the checks drawee bank the name of the dishonored check. The
drawee bank refused to disclose the name of the drawer invoking the Secrecy of Bank
Deposits Law. In this case, the bank is not justified in not divulging the name of the drawer to
the store manager. The store manager is merely inquiring as to the name of the drawer of the
check. To divulge the same would not in any way amount to disclosure of any information
concerning his deposits. Also, the inquiry is not an investigation of any balance in favor of
the drawer. To include such disclosure within the ambit of the prohibition would be unduly
straining and stretching the meaning of the Secrecy of Bank.

RA 3936
UNCLAIMED BALANCES LAW

ELEMENTS OF UNCLAIMED BALANCES :

1. Include credits or deposits of:
a. Money
b. Bullion
c. Security
d. Other evidence of indebtedness
2. The credit or deposit must be with the bank, building and loan association, or trust
corporation, and
3. The credit or deposit is in favor of a person:
a. Known to be dead, or
b. Who has not made further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding 10 years
or more

Such unclaimed balances, together with the increase and proceeds thereof, shall be
deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines to the credit of the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines, and to be used as the National Assembly may direct after
following the reclassification and procedures provided by law.

NOTE: Demand drafts cannot be escheated, but TELEGRAPHIC NOTES can be escheated.
LEGAL CONSEQUENCE: the unclaimed balances may be subject of escheat proceedings, after
proper publication and the depositors still do not lay claim to them.

JURISPRUDENCE:
RP vs CA
FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for escheat against several banks. The
respective managers of the banks submitted to the Treasurer of the RP separate statements
prepared under oath which listed all deposits and credits held by them in favor of depositors and
creditors either known to be dead, have not been heard from, of have not made deposits or
withdrawals for ten years or more. RP prayed that the publication of the list of unclaimed
balances be dispensed with. It asserted that the only requirement under the UBL is the
publication of summons and notice to all persons and that to publish the names and list of
unclaimed balances would only result in additional and unnecessary expenses to the government.
ISSUE: Whether or not the publication of the names and list of unclaimed balances ius
necessary.
HELD: YES. The publication of the list of unclaimed balances is intended to safeguard the right
of the depositor, their heirs and successors to due process. How would other persons who may
have interest in any of the unclaimed balances know what this case is all about and whether they
have an interest in this case if the amended complaint and the said list are not published? Such
other persons may be heirs of the bank depositors named in the list. The fact that the government
is in a tight financial situation is not a justification for the Court to dispense with the elementary
rule of due process.

MALACAANG
Manila
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 679 April 2, 1975
AMENDING ACT NUMBERED THIRTY NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX, AN ACT
REQUIRING BANKS, TRUST CORPORATIONS, AND BUILDING AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS, TO TRANSFER UNCLAIMED BALANCES HELD BY THEM TO
THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, Act No. 3936 requires the publication of a sworn statement of unclaimed balances
in banks once a week of three consecutive weeks in at least two newspapers of general
circulation in the locality where the banks are situated, if there be any, and if there is none, in the
City of Manila, one in English and one in Spanish, the cost of which shall be paid by the Bureau
of Treasury, which shall be reimbursed out of the escheated funds;
WHEREAS, the law also provides for the publication of summons and a notice upon the
commencement of the prescribed judicial proceedings for the escheat of unclaimed balances;

WHEREAS, past experience has shown that the cost of publication required by law, the increase
of which has been substantial the past few years, is more than the aggregate amount of the
unclaimed balances to be escheated, the average amount of which is small;
WHEREAS, there is a felt need to simplify the procedure for the escheat of unclaimed balances
for the purpose of reducing the expenses therefore;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of
the powers in me vested by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order:
Section 1. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Act No. 3936 are hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 1. "Unclaimed balances", within the meaning of this Act, shall include credits or deposits
of money, bullion, security or other evidence of indebtedness of any kind, and interest thereon
with banks, buildings and loan associations, and trust corporations, as hereinafter defined, in
favor of any person known to be dead or who has not made further deposits or withdrawals
during the preceding ten years or more. Such unclaimed balances, together with the increase and
proceeds thereof, shall be deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines to the credit of the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines to be used as the National Assembly may direct.
"Banks", "building and loan associations" and "trust corporations", within the meaning of this
Act, shall refer to institutions defined under Section two, thirty-nine and fifty-six, respectively, of
Republic Act Numbered Three Hundred Thirty Seven, otherwise known as the General Banking
Act, as amended, whether organized under special charters or not.
"Sec. 2. Immediately after the taking effect of this Act and within the month of January of every
odd year, all banks, building and loan associations, and trust corporations shall forward to the
Treasurer of the Philippines a statement, under oath, of their respective managing officers, of all
credits and deposits held by them in favor of persons known to be dead, or who have not made
further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten years or more, arranged in alphabetical
order according to the names of creditors and depositors, and showing:
"(a) The names and last known place of residence or post office addresses of the persons in
whose favor such unclaimed balances stand;
"(b) The amount and the date of the outstanding unclaimed balance and whether the same is in
money or in security, and if the latter, the nature of the same;
"(c) The date when the person in whose favor the unclaimed balance stands died, if known, or
the date when he made his last deposit or withdrawal; and
"(d) The interest due on such unclaimed balance, if any, and the amount thereof.
"A copy of the above sworn statement shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises of
the bank, building and loan association, or trust corporation concerned for at least sixty days

from the date of filing thereof: Provided, That immediately before filing the above sworn
statement, the bank, building and loan association, and trust corporation shall communicate with
the person in whose favor the unclaimed balance stands at his last known place of residence or
post office address.
"It shall be the duty of the Treasurer of the Philippines to inform the Solicitor General from time
to time the existence of unclaimed balances held by banks, building and loan associations, and
trust corporations.
"Sec. 3. Whenever the Solicitor General shall be informed of such unclaimed balances, he shall
commence an action or actions in the name of the People of the Republic of the Philippines in
the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the bank, building and loan association
or trust corporation is located, in which shall be joined as parties the bank, building and loan
association or trust corporation and all such creditors or depositors. All or any of such creditors
or depositors or banks, building and loan association or trust corporations may be included in one
action. Service of process in such action or actions shall be made by delivery of a copy of the
complaint and summons to the president, cashier, or managing officer of each defendant bank,
building and loan association or trust corporation and by publication of a copy of such summons
in a newspaper of general circulation, either in English, in Filipino, or in a local dialect,
published in the locality where the bank, building and loan association or trust corporation is
situated, if there be any, and in case there is none, in the City of Manila, at such time as the court
may order. Upon the trial, the court must hear all parties who have appeared therein, and if it be
determined that such unclaimed balances in any defendant bank, building and loan association or
trust corporation are unclaimed as hereinbefore stated, then the court shall render judgment in
favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, declaring that said unclaimed
balances have escheated to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and commanding
said bank, building and loan association or trust corporation to forthwith deposit the same with
the Treasurer of the Philippines to credit of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to
be used as the National Assembly may direct.
"At the time of issuing summons in the action above provided for, the clerk of court shall also
issue a notice signed by him, giving the title and number of said action, and referring to the
complaint therein, and directed to all persons, other than those named as defendants therein,
claiming any interest in any unclaimed balance mentioned in said complaint, and requiring them
to appear within sixty days after the publication or first publication, if there are several, of such
summons, and show cause, if they have any, why the unclaimed balances involved in said action
should not be deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines as in this Act provided and
notifying them that if they do not appear and show cause, the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines will apply to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint. A copy of said notice
shall be attached to, and published with the copy of, said summons required to be published as
above, and at the end of the copy of such notice so published, there shall be a statement of the
date of publication, or first publication, if there

are several, of said summons and notice. Any person interested may appear in said action and
become a party thereto. Upon the publication or the completion of the publication, if there are
several, of the summons and notice, and the service of the summons on the defendant banks,
building and loan associations or trust corporations, the court shall have full and complete
jurisdiction in the Republic of the Philippines over the said unclaimed balances and over the
persons having or claiming any interest in the said unclaimed balances, or any of them, and shall
have full and complete jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues herein, and render the
appropriate judgment thereon.
"Sec. 4. If the president, cashier or managing officer of the bank, building and loan association,
or trust corporation neglects or refuses to make and file the sworn statement required by this
action, such bank, building and loan association, or trust corporation shall pay to the Government
the sum of five hundred pesos a month for each month or fraction thereof during which such
default shall continue.
"Sec. 5. Any bank, building and loan association or trust corporation which shall make any
deposit with the Treasurer of the Philippines in conformity with the provisions of this Act shall
not thereafter be liable to any person for the same and any action which may be brought by any
person against in any bank, building and loan association, or trust corporation for unclaimed
balances so deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines shall be defended by the Solicitor
General without cost to such bank, building and loan association or trust corporation."
Section 2. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of April, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
and seventy-five.

SAMPLE CASE

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16106

December 30, 1961

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,

-versus-

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., defendants,

THE FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, defendant-appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellant.
Picazo, Lichauco and Agcaoili for defendant-appellee.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
The Republic of the Philippines filed on September 25, 1957 before the Court of First Instance of
Manila a complaint for escheat of certain unclaimed bank deposits balances under the provisions
of Act No. 3936 against several banks, among them the First National City Bank of New York. It
is alleged that pursuant to Section 2 of said Act defendant banks forwarded to the Treasurer of
the Philippines a statement under oath of their respective managing officials of all the credits and
deposits held by them in favor of persons known to be dead or who have not made further
deposits or withdrawals during the period of 10 years or more. Wherefore, it is prayed that said
credits and deposits be escheated to the Republic of the Philippines by ordering defendant banks
to deposit them to its credit with the Treasurer of the Philippines.
In its answer the First National City Bank of New York claims that, while it admits that various
savings deposits, pre-war inactive accounts, and sundry accounts contained in its report
submitted to the Treasurer of the Philippines pursuant to Act No. 3936, totaling more than
P100,000.00, which remained dormant for 10 years or more, are subject to escheat however, it
has inadvertently included in said report certain items amounting to P18,589.89 which, properly
speaking, are not credits or deposits within the contemplation of Act No. 3936. Hence, it prayed
that said items be not included in the claim of plaintiff.
After hearing the court a quo rendered judgment holding that cashier's is or manager's checks
and demand drafts as those which defendant wants excluded from the complaint come within the
purview of Act No. 3936, but not the telegraphic transfer payment which orders are of different
category. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed with regard to the latter. But, after a motion
to reconsider was filed by defendant, the court a quo changed its view and held that even said
demand drafts do not come within the purview of said Act and so amended its decision
accordingly. Plaintiff has appealed.
Section 1, Act No. 3936, provides:
Section 1. "Unclaimed balances" within the meaning of this Act shall include credits or
deposits of money, bullion, security or other evidence of indebtedness of any kind, and
interest thereon with banks, as hereinafter defined, in favor of any person unheard from
for a period of ten years or more. Such unclaimed balances, together with the increase
and proceeds thereof, shall be deposited with the Insular Treasure to the credit of the
Government of the Philippine Islands to be as the Philippine Legislature may direct.
It would appear that the term "unclaimed balances" that are subject to escheat include credits or
deposits money, or other evidence of indebtedness of any kind with banks, in favor of any person
unheard from for a period of 10 years or more. And as correctly stated by the trial court, the term

"credit" in its usual meaning is a sum credited on the books of a company to a person who
appears to be entitled to it. It presupposes a creditor-debtor relationship, and may be said to
imply ability, by reason of property or estates, to make a promised payment ( In re Ford, 14 F. 2d
848, 849). It is the correlative to debt or indebtedness, and that which is due to any person, a
distinguished from that which he owes (Mountain Motor Co. vs. Solof, 124 S.E., 824, 825; Eric
vs. Walsh, 61 Atl. 2d 1, 4; See also Libby vs. Hopkins, 104 U.S. 303, 309; Prudential Insurance
Co. of America vs. Nelson, 101 F. 2d, 441, 443; Barnes vs. Treat, 7 Mass. 271, 274). The same is
true with the term "deposits" in banks where the relationship created between the depositor and
the bank is that of creditor and debtor (Article 1980, Civil Code; Gullas vs. National Bank, 62
Phil. 915; Gopoco Grocery, et al. vs. Pacific Coast Biscuit Co., et al., 65 Phil. 443).
The questions that now arise are: Do demand draft and telegraphic orders come within the
meaning of the term "credits" or "deposits" employed in the law? Can their import be considered
as a sum credited on the books of the bank to a person who appears to be entitled to it? Do they
create a creditor-debtor relationship between drawee and the payee?
The answers to these questions require a digression the legal meaning of said banking
terminologies.
To begin with, we may say that a demand draft is a bill of exchange payable on demand (Arnd
vs. Aylesworth, 145 Iowa 185; Ward vs. City Trust Company, 102 N.Y.S. 50; Bank of Republic
vs. Republic State Bank, 42 S.W. 2d, 27). Considered as a bill of exchange, a draft is said to be,
like the former, an open letter of request from, and an order by, one person on another to pay a
sum of money therein mentioned to a third person, on demand or at a future time therein
specified (13 Words and Phrases, 371). As a matter of fact, the term "draft" is often used, and is
the common term, for all bills of exchange. And the words "draft" and "bill of exchange" are
used indiscriminately (Ennis vs. Coshoctan Nat. Bank, 108 S.E., 811; Hinnemann vs. Rosenback,
39 N.Y. 98, 100, 101; Wilson vs. Bechenau, 48 Supp. 272, 275).
On the other hand, a bill of exchange within the meaning of our Negotiable Instruments Law
(Act No. 2031) does not operate as an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee who is not
liable on the instrument until he accepts it. This is the clear import of Section 127. It says: "A bill
of exchange of itself does not operate as an assignment of the funds in the hands of the drawee
available for the payment thereon and the drawee is not liable on the bill unless and until he
accepts the same." In other words, in order that a drawee may be liable on the draft and then
become obligated to the payee it is necessary that he first accepts the same. In fact, our law
requires that with regard to drafts or bills of exchange there is need that they be presented either
for acceptance or for payment within a reasonable time after their issuance or after their last
negotiation thereof as the case may be (Section 71, Act 2031). Failure to make such presentment
will discharge the drawer from liability or to the extent of the loss caused by the delay (Section
186, Ibid.)
Since it is admitted that the demand drafts herein involved have not been presented either for
acceptance or for payment, the inevitable consequence is that the appellee bank never had any
chance of accepting or rejecting them. Verily, appellee bank never became a debtor of the payee

concerned and as such the aforesaid drafts cannot be considered as credits subject to escheat
within the meaning of the law.
But a demand draft is very different from a cashier's or manager's cheek, contrary to appellant's
pretense, for it has been held that the latter is a primary obligation of the bank which issues it and
constitutes its written promise to pay upon demand. Thus, a cashier's check has been clearly
characterized in In Re Bank of the United States, 277 N.Y.S. 96. 100, as follows:
A cashier's check issued by a bank, however, is not an ordinary draft. The latter is a bill of
exchange payable demand. It is an order upon a third party purporting to drawn upon a
deposit of funds. Drinkall v. Movious State Bank, 11 N.D. 10, 88 N.W. 724, 57 L.R.A.
341, 95 Am. St. Rep. 693; State v. Tyler County State Bank (Tex. Com. App.) 277 S.W.
625, 42 A.L.R. 1347. A cashier's check is of a very different character. It is the primary
obligation of the bank which issues it (Nissenbaum v. State, 38 Ga. App. 253, S.E. 776)
and constitutes its written promise to pay upon demand (Steinmetz v. Schultz, 59 S.D.
603, 241 N.W. 734)....
The following definitions cited by appellant also confirm this view:
A cashier's check is a check of the bank's cashier on his or another bank. It is in effect a bill of
exchange drawn by a bank on itself and accepted in advance by the act of issuance (10 C.J.S.
409).
A cashier's check issued on request of a depositor is the substantial equivalent of a
certified check and the deposit represented by the check passes to the credit of the
checkholder, who is thereafter a depositor to that amount (Lummus Cotton Gin Co. v.
Walker, 70 So. 754, 756, 195 Ala. 552).
A cashier's check, being merely a bill of exchange drawn by a bank on itself, and
accepted in advance by the act of issuance, is not subject to countermand by the payee
after endorsement, and has the same legal effects as a certificate deposit or a certified
check (Walker v. Sellers, 77 So. 715, 201 Ala. 189).
A demand draft is not therefore of the same category as a cashier's check which should come
within the purview of the law.
The case, however, is different with regard to telegraphic payment order. It is said that as the
transaction is for the establishment of a telegraphic or cable transfer the agreement to remit
creates a contractual obligation has been termed a purchase and sale transaction (9 C.J.S. 368).
The purchaser of a telegraphic transfer upon making payment completes the transaction insofar
as he is concerned, though insofar as the remitting bank is concerned the contract is executory
until the credit is established (Ibid.) We agree with the following comment the Solicitor General:
"This is so because the drawer bank was already paid the value of the telegraphic transfer
payment order. In the particular cases under consideration it appears in the books of the
defendant bank that the amounts represented by the telegraphic payment orders appear in the
names of the respective payees. If the latter choose to demand payment of their telegraphic

transfers at the time the same was (were) received by the defendant bank, there could be no
question that this bank would have to pay them. Now, the question is, if the payees decide to
have their money remain for sometime in the defendant bank, can the latter maintain that the
ownership of said telegraphic payment orders is now with the drawer bank? The latter was
already paid the value of the telegraphic payment orders otherwise it would not have transmitted
the same to the defendant bank. Hence, it is absurd to say that the drawer banks are still the
owners of said telegraphic payment orders."
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby modified in the sense that the items
specifically referred to and listed under paragraph 3 of appellee bank's answer representing
telegraphic transfer payment orders should be escheated in favor of the Republic of the
Philippines. No costs.
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., took no part.