Compensation; Bank Loan (1997)
In order to secure a bank loan, XYZ Corporation surrendered its deposit certificate, with a maturity date of 01 September 1997 to the bank. The corporation defaulted on the due repayment of the loan, prompting the bank to encash the deposit certificate. XYZ Corporation questioned the above action taken by the bank as being a case of pactum commissorium. The bank disagrees.
What is your opinion?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
We submit that there is no pactum commissorium here. Deposits of money in banks and similar institutions are governed by the provisions on simple loans (Art. 1980. Civil Code). The relationship between the depositor and a bank is one of creditor and debtor. Basically this is a matter of compensation as all the elements of compensation are present in this case (BPI vs. CA, 232 SCRA 302).
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
Where the security for the debt is also money deposited in a bank, it is not illegal for the creditor to encash the time deposit certificates to pay the debtor’s overdue obligation. (Chu vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 78519, September 26,1989).
Deposit; Exchange (1992)
X and Y staged a daring bank robbery in Manila at 10:30 AM in the morning of a regular business day, and escaped with their loot of two (2) bags, each bag containing P50,000,00.
During their flight to elude the police, X and Y entered the nearby locked house of A, then working in his Quezon City office. From A’s house, X and Y stole a box containing cash totaling P50,000.00 which box A had been keeping in deposit for his friend B.
In their hurry, X and Y left in A’s bedroom one (1) of the bags which they had taken from the bank.
With X and Y now at large and nowhere to be found, the bag containing P50.000.00 is now claimed by B, by the Mayor of Manila, and by the bank.
B claims that the depository. A, by force majeure had obtained the bag of money in place of the box of money deposited by B.
The Mayor of Manila, on the other hand, claims that the bag of money should be deposited with the Office of the Mayor as required of the finder by the provisions of the Civil Code.
The bank resists the claims of B and the Mayor of Manila.
To whom should a deliver the bag of money? Decide with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B would have no right to claim the money. Article 1990 of the Civil Code is not applicable. The law refers to another thing received in substitution of the object deposited and is predicated upon something exchanged.
The Mayor of Manila cannot invoke. Article 719 of the Civil Code which requires the finder to deposit the thing with the Mayor only when the previous possessor is unknown.
In this case , a must return the bag of money to the bank as the previous possessor and known owner (Arts. 719 and 1990. Civil Code.)
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in CIVIL LAW by the UP LAW COMPLEX and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS.
