Producers Bank v. CA (G.R. No. 115324, February 19, 2003)

G.R. No.
115324, February 19, 2003

PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (now FIRST INTERNATIONAL BANK), petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND FRANKLIN VIVES, respondents.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
FACTS:
 1979 – Private respondent Franklin Vives deposited in the petitioner Producers Bank a check (which
he issued) in the amount of ₱200k in favor of Sterela Marketing and Services for purposes of its
incorporation.
 This is out of the favor asked by his friend Angeles Sanchez to help her friend and townmate, Col.
Arturo Doronilla in incorporating it business, Sterela. Said amount shall be returned within 30 days.
 Vives learned that part of the money deposited was withdrawn by Doronilla, and that only ₱90k
remained therein which could not be withdrawn because it had to answer for some postdated
checks issued by Doronilla.
 Doronilla issued, in favor of Vives, a check in the amount of ₱212k but the same was dishonored.
 Hence, Vives filed an action for the recovery of sum of money in the RTC-Pasig against Doronilla,
Sanchez, Dumagpi and petitioner. Also filed criminal actions against the Doronilla, Sanchez,
Dumagpi.
RTC: In favor of Vives.

CA: Affirmed. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
WON the transaction between Vives and Doronilla was one of simple loan.
HELD: NO. It is a commodatum.

Art. 1933
Mutuum Commodatum
Object is money or other consumable (fungible) Non-consumable (non-fungible)
May be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay Essentially gratuitous.
interest.
Ownership transfers to the The bailor retains the ownership of the thing
loaned, while in simple loan, ownership passes to
the borrower.
Art. 1936 (XPN to the GR – object of comodatum is non-consumable:

Consumable goods may be the subject of commodatum if the purpose of the contract is not the
consumption of the object, as when it is merely for exhibition.
 Hence, if the consumable goods are loaned only for the purpose of exhibition, or with the
intention of the parties is to lend consumable 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 intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded primordial consideration in determining the
actual character of a contract. In case of doubt, the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the
parties shall be considered in such determination.
In the case at bar:
 Vives merely accommodated Doronilla by lending his money without consideration in favor to his
good friend Sanchez.
 It was however clear to the parties to the transaction that the money would not be removed from
Sterela’s savings account and would be returned to private respondent after thirty (30) days.
 Doronilla’s attempts to return to private respondent the amount of ₱200k which the latter
deposited in Sterela’s account together with an additional ₱12k, 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 ₱12k corresponds to the fruits of the
lending of the ₱200k.
 Art. 1935 – The 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
latter’s money deposited with petitioner.
Liability through its employee Atienza:

 Liable for the loss and for its restitution.
 It being not privy to the contract transaction between Vives and Doronilla or whether said
transaction is a mutuum or comodatum has no bearing to its liability.
 Moreover, contrary to the bank’s rules, Doronilla was permitted by petitioner, through Atienza, to
withdraw therefrom even without presenting the passbook (which Atienza very well knew was in
the possession of Mrs. Vives), not just once, but several times.
 Atienza allowed said withdrawals because he was party to Doronilla’s "scheme" of defrauding
private respondent.

Producers Bank v. CA (G.R. No. 115324, February 19, 2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Producers Bank v. CA (G.R. No. 115324, February 19, 2003)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Producers Bank v. CA (G.R. No. 115324, February 19, 2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

115324, February 19, 2003

RTC: In favor of Vives.

HELD: NO. It is a commodatum.

Art. 1936 (XPN to the GR – object of comodatum is non-consumable:

Liability through its employee Atienza:

You might also like