HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
In a contract of deposit, a person
BPI vs. Intermediate Appellate Court GR# L-66826, August 19, 1988
Facts: Rizaldy T. Zshornack and his wife maintained in COMTRUST a dollar savings
account and a peso current account. An application for a dollar drat was accomplished
by Virgillo Garcia branch manager of COMTRUST payable to a certain Leovigilda Dizon.
In the application, Garcia indicated that the amount was to be charged to the dollar
savings account of the Zshornacks. There wasa no indication of the name of the
purchaser of the dollar draft. Comtrust issued a check payable to the order of Dizon.
When Zshornack noticed the withdrawal from his account, he demanded an
explainaiton from the bank. In its answer, Comtrust claimed that the peso value of the
withdrawal was given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, brother of Rizaldy. When he
encashed with COMTRUST a cashiers check for P8450 issued by the manila banking
corporation payable to Ernesto.
Issue: Whether the contract between petitioner and respondent bank is a deposit?
Held: The document which embodies the contract states that the US$3,000.00 was
received by the bank for safekeeping. The subsequent acts of the parties also show that
the intent of the parties was really for the bank to safely keep the dollars and to return
it to Zshornack at a later time. Thus, Zshornack demanded the return of the money on
May 10, 1976, or over five months later.
The above arrangement is that contract defined under Article 1962, New Civil Code,
which reads:
Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging
to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and of returning the same. If the
safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is
no deposit but some other contract.
TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES INC. vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE
COMPANY, GR. No. 160554, February 21, 2005
FACTS: Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant. De Asis was
using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 issued by her employer Crispa
Textile Inc.. On said date, De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and
entrusted her car key to petitioner's valet counter. Afterwards, a certain Madridano,
valet attendant, noticed that the car was not in its parking slot and its key no longer in
the box where valet attendants usually keep the keys of cars entrusted to them. The car
was never recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein
respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. Having indemnified Crispa for
the loss of the subject vehicle, FMICI, as subrogee to Crispa's rights, filed
with the RTC at Makati City an action for damages against petitioner Triple-V Food
Services, Inc. Petitioner claimed that the complaint failed to adduce facts to support the
allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the safekeeping and custody of
the subject vehicle. Besides, when De Asis availed the free parking stab which contained
a waiver of petitioner’s liability in case of loss, she had thereby waived her rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc. is liable for the loss.
receives an object belonging to another with the obligation of safely keeping it and
returning the same. A deposit may be constituted even without any consideration. It is
not necessary that the depositary receives a fee before it becomes obligated to keep the
item entrusted for safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor. Petitioner cannot
evade liability by arguing that neither a contract of deposit nor that of insurance,
guaranty or surety for the loss of the car was constituted when De Asis availed of its
free valet parking service.
CA Agro-Industrial vs CA, G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993
Facts
 Petitioner (through its President) purchased 2 parcels of land from spouses Pugao
for P350 K with a downpayment of P75 K.
 Per agreement, the land titles will be transferred upon full payment and will be
placed in a safety deposit box (SBDB) of any bank. Moreover, the same could be
withdrawn only upon the joint signatures of a representative of the Petitioner and
the Pugaos upon full payment of the purchase price.
 Thereafter, Petitioner and spouses placed the titles in SDB of Respondent Security
Bank and signed a lease contract which substantially states that the Bank will not
assume liability for the contents of the SDB.
 Subsequently, 2 renter's keys were given to the renters — one to the Petitioner and
the other to the Pugaos. A guard key remained in the possession of the Respondent
Bank. The SDB can only be opened using these 2 keys simultaneously.
 Afterwards, a certain Mrs. Ramos offered to buy from the Petitioner the 2 lots that
would yield a profit of P285K.
 Mrs. Ramos demanded the execution of a deed of sale which necessarily entailed
the production of the certificates of title. Thus, Petitioner with the spouses went to
Respondent Bank to retrieve the titles.
 However, when opened in the presence of the Bank's representative, the SDB
yielded no such certificates.
 Because of the delay in the reconstitution of the title, Mrs. Ramos withdrew her
earlier offer to purchase the lots; as a consequence, the Petitioner allegedly failed
to realize the expected profit of P285K.
 Hence, Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against Respondent Bank.
 Lower courts ruled in favour of Respondent Bank. Thus, this petition.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the disputed contract is an ordinary contract of lease?
2. Whether or not the provisions of the cited contract are valid?
3. Whether or not Respondent Bank is liable for damages?
Ruling:
1. No. SC ruled that it is a special kind of deposit because:
 the full and absolute possession and control of the SDB was not given to the
joint renters — the Petitioner and the Pugaos.
 The guard key of the box remained with the Respondent Bank; without this key,
neither of the renters could open the box and vice versa.
  In this case, the said key had a duplicate which was made so that both renters
could have access to the box.
 Moreover, the renting out of the SDBs is not independent from, but related to or
in conjunction with, the principal function of a contract of deposit the receiving
in custody of funds, documents and other valuable objects for safekeeping.
2. NO. SC opined that it is void.
 Generally, the Civil Code provides that the depositary (Respondent Bank)
would be liable if, in performing its obligation, it is found guilty of fraud,
negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of the agreement.
 In the absence of any stipulation, the diligence of a good father of a family is to
be observed.
 Hence, any stipulation exempting the depositary from any liability arising
from the loss of the thing deposited on account of fraud, negligence or delay
would be void for being contrary to law and public policy (which is present in
the disputed contract)
 Said provisions are inconsistent with the Respondent Bank's responsibility as
a depositary under Section 72(a) of the General Banking Act.
3. NO. SC ruled that:
 no competent proof was presented to show that Respondent Bank was aware
of the private agreement between the Petitioner and the Pugaos that the Land
titles were withdrawable from the SDB only upon both parties' joint
signatures,
 and that no evidence was submitted to reveal that the loss of the certificates of
title was due to the fraud or negligence of the Respondent Bank.
G.R. Nos. 173654-765 August 28, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO PORRAS
Facts: On 7 November 2005, the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office filed before RTC in
Dumangas, Iloilo, 112 cases of Qualified Theft against respondents Teresita Puig (Puig)
and Romeo Porras (Porras) who were the Cashier and Bookkeeper, respectively, of
private complainant Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc. It was alleged in the information that
Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras took away P15,000 without the consent of the owner
Bank to the prejudice and damage of the bank. The RTC dismissed the case for
insufficiency of the information ruling that the real parties in interest are the
depositors-clients and not the bank because the bank does not acquire ownership of the
money deposited in it. Hence petitioner Rural Bank went directly to the court via
petition for certiorari. Petitioner explains that under Article 1980 of the New Civil Code,
"fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be
governed by the provisions concerning simple loans." Corollary thereto, Article 1953 of
the same Code provides that "a person who receives a loan of money or any other
fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an
equal amount of the same kind and quality." Thus, it posits that the depositors who
place their money with the bank are considered creditors of the bank. The bank
acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients, making the money taken by
respondents as belonging to the bank.
Issue: Whether or not the Bank acquired ownership of the money deposited in it to be
able to hold the respondents liable for qualified theft which requires that there must be
taking of the money without the consent of the owners.
Held: The petition is meritorious. Banks where monies are deposited, are considered
the owners thereof. This is very clear not only from the express provisions of the law,
but from established jurisprudence. The relationship between banks and depositors has
been held to be that of creditor and debtor. Articles 1953 and 1980 of the New Civil
Code, as appropriately pointed out by petitioner, provide as follows:
 Article 1953.A person who receives a loan of money or any other
fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to
the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality.
 Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks
and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions
concerning loan.
In a long line of cases involving Qualified Theft, the Court has firmly
established the nature of possession by the Bank of the money deposits therein, and the
duties being performed by its employees who have custody of the money or have come
into possession of it. The Court has consistently considered the allegations in the
Information that such employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage
and prejudice of the Bank, without particularly referring to it as owner of the money
deposits, as sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft. In summary, the Bank
acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients; and the employees of the
Bank, who are entrusted with the possession of money of the Bank due to the
confidence reposed in them, occupy positions of confidence. The Informations,
therefore, sufficiently allege all the essential elements constituting the crime of
Qualified Theft.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated 30 January 2006 and 9 June 2006 of the RTC
dismissing Criminal cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SERRANO vs CENTRAL BANK
Facts: Serrano had P350K worth of time deposits in Overseas Bank of
Manila. He made a series of encashment but was not successful. He filed a case against
Overseas Bank & he also included the Central Bank so that the latter may also be jointly
and severally liable. Serrano argued that the CB failed to supervise the acts of Overseas
Bank and protect the interests of its depositors by virtue of constructive trust.
Issue: W/N the Central Bank is liable?
Ruling: No. There is no breach of trust from a bank’s failure to return the subject
matter of the deposit. Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits. All kinds of
bank deposits are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the law on loans
Art.1980. In reality the depositor is the creditor while the bank is the debtor. Failure of
the respondent bank to honor the time deposit is failure to pay its obligation as a
debtor.
YHT REALTY CORPORATION VS. CA, GR. No. 126780, February 17, 2005
FACTS: Maurice Mcloughlin is an Australian philanthropist, businessman, and a tourist.
In his various trips from Australia going to different countries, one of which is the
Philippines, he would stay in Tropicana Inn which is owned by YHT Realty Corp. After
series of transactions with the inn as depositary of his belongings, he noticed that his
money and several jewelries would be either reduced or lost. He then decided to file an
action against Tropicana and its innkeepers. However, the latter argued that they have
no liability with regard to the loss by virtue of the undertaking signed by Mcloughlin.
Such undertaking is a waiver of the inn’s liability in case of any loss. The RTC and CA
both decided that such undertaking is null and void as contrary to
the express provisions of the law. Hence, the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject undertaking is null and void
HELD: The court ruled in the affirmative. Art. 2003 of the Civil Code provides that, the
hotelkeeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that
he is not liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-
keeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles
1998 to 2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void.
interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only
lodging for hotel guests and security to their persons and belongings. The twin
duty constitutes the essence of the business. The law in turn does not allow
such duty to the public to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in
so-called “undertakings” that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by
hotel keepers on guests for their signature.
 In an early case (De Los Santos v. Tan Khey), CA ruled that to hold
hotelkeepers or innkeeper liable for the effects of their guests, it is not
necessary that they be actually delivered to the innkeepers or their
employees. It is enough that such effects are within the hotel or inn. With
greater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the
missing items are taken without the guest’s knowledge and consent from a
safety deposit box provided by the hotel itself, as in this case.
 Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the “undertaking” manifestly contravene Article
2003, CC for they allow Tropicana to be released from liability arising from
any loss in the contents and/or use of the safety deposit box for any cause
whatsoever. Evidently, the undertaking was intended to bar any claim against
Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or not
negligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees.

YHT Realty v. CA

FACTS:
 Respondent McLoughlin would stay at Tropicana Hotel every time he is here
in the Philippines and would rent a safety deposit box.
 The safety deposit box could only be opened through the use of 2 keys, one of
which is given to the registered guest, and the other remaining in the
possession of the management of the hotel.
 McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box – 2
envelopes containing US Dollars, one envelope containing Australian Dollars,
Letters, credit cards, bankbooks and a checkbook.
 When he went abroad, a few dollars were missing and the jewelry he bought
was likewise missing.
 Eventually, he confronted Lainez and Paiyam who admitted that Tan opened
the safety deposit box with the key assigned to him. McLoughlin went up to his
room where Tan was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had
stolen McLouglin’s key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the
assistance of Lopez, Paiyam and Lainez. Lopez alsto told McLoughlin that Tan
stole the key assigned to McLouglin while the latter was asleep.
 McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility
for the loss he suffered.
 Lopez refused to accept responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the
safety deposit box entitled “Undertaking For the Use of Safety Deposit Box”

ISSUE: Whether the hotel’s Undertaking is valid?

HELD: NO
 Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an expression of public
policy precisely to apply to situations such as that presented in this case. The
hotel business like the common carrier’s business is imbued with public