Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
*
G.R. No. 115324. February 19, 2003.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
652
_______________
653
VOL. 397, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 653
Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
3 Id. at p. 37.
4 Ibid.
654
_______________
655
I.
II.
_______________
8 Id., at p. 63.
9 Id., at pp. 35-47.
10 Id., at pp. 54-55.
656
III.
IV.
V.
_______________
657
_______________
15 Id., at p. 21.
16 Id., at p. 22.
17 Id., at pp. 24-27.
18 Id., at p. 23.
19 Id., at p. 28.
658
_______________
659
_______________
26 Baas, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 259 (2000); Philippine
National Construction Corporation v. Mars Construction Enterprises,
Inc., 325 SCRA 624 (2000).
660
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
27
actual character of a contract. In case of doubt, the
contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties shall
28
be considered in such determination.
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
29
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.
Doronillas attempts to return to private respondent the
amount of P200,000.00 which the latter deposited in
Sterelas account together with an additional P12,000.00,
allegedly representing interest on the mutuum, did not
convert the transaction from a commodatum into a
mutuum because such was not the intent of the parties and
because the additional P12,000.00 corresponds to the fruits
of the lending of the P200,000.00. Article 1935 of the Civil
Code expressly states that [t]he bailee in commodatum
acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits.
Hence, it was only proper for Doronilla to remit to private
respondent the interest accruing to the latters money
deposited with petitioner.
Neither does the Court agree with petitioners
contention that it is not solidarily liable for the return of
private respondents money because it was not privy to the
transaction between Doronilla and private respondent. The
nature of said transaction, that is,
_______________
661
xxx
But the scheme could not have been executed successfully
without the knowledge, help and cooperation of Rufo Atienza,
assistant manager and cashier of the Makati (Buendia) branch of
the defendant bank. Indeed, the evidence indicates that Atienza
had not only facilitated the commission of the fraud but he likewise
helped in devising the means by which it can be done in such
manner as to make it appear that the transaction was in accordance
with banking procedure.
To begin with, the deposit was made in defendants Buendia
branch precisely because Atienza was a key officer therein. The
records show that plaintiff had suggested that the P200,000.00 be
deposited in his bank, the Manila Banking Corporation, but
Doronilla and Dumagpi insisted that it must be in defendants
branch in Makati for it will be easier for them to get a
certification. In fact before he was introduced to plaintiff, Doronilla
had already prepared a letter addressed to the Buendia branch
manager authorizing Angeles B. Sanchez and company to open a
savings account
_______________
662
663
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
31
to the loss subject of this case. x x x.
_______________
31 Rollo, pp. 43-47, citing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, pp.
5-8.
32 Castilex Industrial Corporation v. Vasquez, Jr., 321 SCRA 393
(1999).
33 18B Am. Jur. 2d, p. 947, Corporations 2125, citing Pittsburgh, C.C.
& S.L.R. Co. v. Sullivan, 40 NE 138.
664
_______________
665