Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
:e li1ewise asserts that the trial court did not err in -ndin+ that petitioner, Atien3a7s e,plo)er, is lia.le for
the return of his ,one). :e insists that Atien3a, petitioner7s assistant ,ana+er, connived with Doronilla in
defraudin+ private respondent since it was Atien3a who facilitated the openin+ of Sterela7s current account
three da)s after (rs. &ives and Sanche3 opened a savin+s account with petitioner for said co,pan), as
well as the approval of the authorit) to de.it Sterela7s savin+s account to cover an) overdrawin+s in its
current account.
9
There is no ,erit in the petition.
At the outset, it ,ust .e e,phasi3ed that onl) 8uestions of law ,a) .e raised in a petition for review -led
with this Court. The Court has repeatedl) held that it is not its function to anal)3e and wei+h all over a+ain
the evidence presented .) the parties durin+ trial.
*
The Court7s Burisdiction is in principle li,ited to
reviewin+ errors of law that ,i+ht have .een co,,itted .) the Court of Appeals.
!
(oreover, factual
-ndin+s of courts, when adopted and con-r,ed .) the Court of Appeals, are -nal and conclusive on this
Court unless these -ndin+s are not supported .) the evidence on record.
=
There is no showin+ of an)
,isapprehension of facts on the part of the Court of Appeals in the case at .ar that would re8uire this
Court to review and overturn the factual -ndin+s of that court, especiall) since the conclusions of fact of
the Court of Appeals and the trial court are not onl) consistent .ut are also a,pl) supported .) the
evidence on record.
No error was co,,itted .) the Court of Appeals when it ruled that the transaction .etween private
respondent and Doronilla was a co,,odatu, and not a ,utuu,. A circu,spect eFa,ination of the
records reveals that the transaction .etween the, was a co,,odatu,. Article 1"99 of the Civil Code
distin+uishes .etween the two 1inds of loans in this wise@
0) the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either so,ethin+ not consu,a.le so that
the latter ,a) use the sa,e for a certain ti,e and return it, in which case the contract is called a
co,,odatu,E or ,one) or other consu,a.le thin+, upon the condition that the sa,e a,ount of the sa,e
1ind and 8ualit) shall .e paid, in which case the contract is si,pl) called a loan or ,utuu,.
Co,,odatu, is essentiall) +ratuitous.
Si,ple loan ,a) .e +ratuitous or with a stipulation to pa) interest.
In co,,odatu,, the .ailor retains the ownership of the thin+ loaned, while in si,ple loan, ownership
passes to the .orrower.
The fore+oin+ provision see,s to i,pl) that if the su.Bect of the contract is a consu,a.le thin+, such as
,one), the contract would .e a ,utuu,. :owever, there are so,e instances where a co,,odatu, ,a)
have for its o.Bect a consu,a.le thin+. Article 1"9= of the Civil Code provides@
Consu,a.le +oods ,a) .e the su.Bect of co,,odatu, if the purpose of the contract is not the
consu,ption of the o.Bect, as when it is ,erel) for eFhi.ition.
Thus, if consu,a.le +oods are loaned onl) for purposes of eFhi.ition, or when the intention of the parties
is to lend consu,a.le +oods and to have the ver) sa,e +oods returned at the end of the period a+reed
upon, the loan is a co,,odatu, and not a ,utuu,.
The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall .e accorded pri,ordial consideration in
deter,inin+ the actual character of a contract.
'
In case of dou.t, the conte,poraneous and su.se8uent
acts of the parties shall .e considered in such deter,ination.
?
As correctl) pointed out .) .oth the Court of Appeals and the trial court, the evidence shows that private
respondent a+reed to deposit his ,one) in the savin+s account of Sterela speci-call) for the purpose of
,a1in+ it appear 5that said -r, had su>cient capitali3ation for incorporation, with the pro,ise that the
a,ount shall .e returned within thirt) 49;6 da)s.5
"
/rivate respondent ,erel) 5acco,,odated5 Doronilla
.) lendin+ his ,one) without consideration, as a favor to his +ood friend Sanche3. It was however clear to
the parties to the transaction that the ,one) would not .e re,oved fro, Sterela7s savin+s account and
would .e returned to private respondent after thirt) 49;6 da)s.
Doronilla7s atte,pts to return to private respondent the a,ount of /;;,;;;.;; which the latter deposited
in Sterela7s account to+ether with an additional /1,;;;.;;, alle+edl) representin+ interest on the
,utuu,, did not convert the transaction fro, a co,,odatu, into a ,utuu, .ecause such was not the
intent of the parties and .ecause the additional /1,;;;.;; corresponds to the fruits of the lendin+ of
the /;;,;;;.;;. Article 1"9! of the Civil Code eFpressl) states that 5NtOhe .ailee in co,,odatu, ac8uires
the use of the thin+ loaned .ut not its fruits.5 :ence, it was onl) proper for Doronilla to re,it to private
respondent the interest accruin+ to the latter7s ,one) deposited with petitioner.
Neither does the Court a+ree with petitioner7s contention that it is not solidaril) lia.le for the return of
private respondent7s ,one) .ecause it was not priv) to the transaction .etween Doronilla and private
respondent. The nature of said transaction, that is, whether it is a ,utuu, or a co,,odatu,, has no
.earin+ on the 8uestion of petitioner7s lia.ilit) for the return of private respondent7s ,one) .ecause the
factual circu,stances of the case clearl) show that petitioner, throu+h its e,plo)ee (r. Atien3a, was partl)
responsi.le for the loss of private respondent7s ,one) and is lia.le for its restitution.
/etitioner7s rules for savin+s deposits written on the pass.oo1 it issued (rs. &ives on .ehalf of Sterela for
Savin+s Account No. 1;#1!=' eFpressl) states thatP
5. Deposits and withdrawals ,ust .e ,ade .) the depositor personall) or upon his written authorit) dul)
authenticated, and neither a deposit nor a withdrawal will .e per,itted eFcept upon the production of the
depositor savin+s .an1 .oo1 in which will .e entered .) the 0an1 the a,ount deposited or withdrawn.5
9;
Said rule notwithstandin+, Doronilla was per,itted .) petitioner, throu+h Atien3a, the Assistant 0ranch
(ana+er for the 0uendia 0ranch of petitioner, to withdraw therefro, even without presentin+ the
pass.oo1 4which Atien3a ver) well 1new was in the possession of (rs. &ives6, not Bust once, .ut several
ti,es. 0oth the Court of Appeals and the trial court found that Atien3a allowed said withdrawals .ecause
he was part) to Doronilla7s 5sche,e5 of defraudin+ private respondent@
M M M
0ut the sche,e could not have .een eFecuted successfull) without the 1nowled+e, help and cooperation
of %ufo Atien3a, assistant ,ana+er and cashier of the (a1ati 40uendia6 .ranch of the defendant .an1.
Indeed, the evidence indicates that Atien3a had not onl) facilitated the co,,ission of the fraud .ut he
li1ewise helped in devisin+ the ,eans .) which it can .e done in such ,anner as to ,a1e it appear that
the transaction was in accordance with .an1in+ procedure.
To .e+in with, the deposit was ,ade in defendant7s 0uendia .ranch precisel) .ecause Atien3a was a 1e)
o>cer therein. The records show that plaintiC had su++ested that the /;;,;;;.;; .e deposited in his
.an1, the (anila 0an1in+ Corporation, .ut Doronilla and Du,a+pi insisted that it ,ust .e in defendant7s
.ranch in (a1ati for 5it will .e easier for the, to +et a certi-cation5. In fact .efore he was introduced to
plaintiC, Doronilla had alread) prepared a letter addressed to the 0uendia .ranch ,ana+er authori3in+
An+eles 0. Sanche3 and co,pan) to open a savin+s account for Sterela in the a,ount of /;;,;;;.;;, as
5per coordination with (r. %ufo Atien3a, Assistant (ana+er of the 0an1 F F F5 4EFh. 16. This is a clear
,anifestation that the other defendants had .een in consultation with Atien3a fro, the inception of the
sche,e. Si+ni-cantl), there were testi,onies and ad,ission that Atien3a is the .rother#in#law of a certain
%o,eo (irasol, a friend and .usiness associate of Doronilla.1awphi1.nt
Then there is the ,atter of the ownership of the fund. 0ecause of the 5coordination5 .etween Doronilla and
Atien3a, the latter 1new .efore hand that the ,one) deposited did not .elon+ to Doronilla nor to Sterela.
Aside fro, such fore1nowled+e, he was eFplicitl) told .) Inocencia &ives that the ,one) .elon+ed to her
and her hus.and and the deposit was ,erel) to acco,,odate Doronilla. Atien3a even declared that the
,one) ca,e fro, (rs. &ives.
Althou+h the savin+s account was in the na,e of Sterela, the .an1 records disclose that the onl) ones
e,powered to withdraw the sa,e were Inocencia &ives and An+eles 0. Sanche3. In the si+nature card
pertainin+ to this account 4EFh. J6, the authori3ed si+natories were Inocencia &ives Q<or An+eles 0.
Sanche3. Atien3a stated that it is the usual .an1in+ procedure that withdrawals of savin+s deposits could
onl) .e ,ade .) persons whose authori3ed si+natures are in the si+nature cards on -le with the .an1. :e,
however, said that this procedure was not followed here .ecause Sterela was owned .) Doronilla. :e
eFplained that Doronilla had the full authorit) to withdraw .) virtue of such ownership. The Court is not
inclined to a+ree with Atien3a. In the -rst place, he was all the ti,e aware that the ,one) ca,e fro, &ives
and did not .elon+ to Sterela. :e was also told .) (rs. &ives that the) were onl) acco,,odatin+ Doronilla
so that a certi-cation can .e issued to the eCect that Sterela had a deposit of so ,uch a,ount to .e sued
in the incorporation of the -r,. In the second place, the si+nature of Doronilla was not authori3ed in so far
as that account is concerned inas,uch as he had not si+ned the si+nature card provided .) the .an1
whenever a deposit is opened. In the third place, neither (rs. &ives nor Sanche3 had +iven Doronilla the
authorit) to withdraw.
(oreover, the transfer of fund was done without the pass.oo1 havin+ .een presented. It is an accepted
practice that whenever a withdrawal is ,ade in a savin+s deposit, the .an1 re8uires the presentation of
the pass.oo1. In this case, such reco+ni3ed practice was dispensed with. The transfer fro, the savin+s
account to the current account was without the su.,ission of the pass.oo1 which Atien3a had +iven to
(rs. &ives. Instead, it was ,ade to appear in a certi-cation si+ned .) Estrella Du,a+pi that a duplicate
pass.oo1 was issued to Sterela .ecause the ori+inal pass.oo1 had .een surrendered to the (a1ati .ranch
in view of a loan acco,,odation assi+nin+ the savin+s account 4EFh. C6. Atien3a, who undou.tedl) had a
hand in the eFecution of this certi-cation, was aware that the contents of the sa,e are not true. :e 1new
that the pass.oo1 was in the hands of (rs. &ives for he was the one who +ave it to her. 0esides, as
assistant ,ana+er of the .ranch and the .an1 o>cial servicin+ the savin+s and current accounts in
8uestion, he also was aware that the ori+inal pass.oo1 was never surrendered. :e was also co+ni3ant that
Estrella Du,a+pi was not a,on+ those authori3ed to withdraw so her certi-cation had no eCect
whatsoever.
The circu,stance surroundin+ the openin+ of the current account also de,onstrate that Atien3a7s active
participation in the perpetration of the fraud and deception that caused the loss. The records indicate that
this account was opened three da)s later after the /;;,;;;.;; was deposited. In spite of his disclai,er,
the Court .elieves that Atien3a was ,indful and posted re+ardin+ the openin+ of the current account
considerin+ that Doronilla was all the while in 5coordination5 with hi,. That it was he who facilitated the
approval of the authorit) to de.it the savin+s account to cover an) overdrawin+s in the current account
4EFh. 6 is not hard to co,prehend.
Clearl) Atien3a had co,,itted wron+ful acts that had resulted to the loss su.Bect of this case. F F F.
91
Hnder Article 1?; of the Civil Code, e,plo)ers shall .e held pri,aril) and solidaril) lia.le for da,a+es
caused .) their e,plo)ees actin+ within the scope of their assi+ned tas1s. To hold the e,plo)er lia.le
under this provision, it ,ust .e shown that an e,plo)er#e,plo)ee relationship eFists, and that the
e,plo)ee was actin+ within the scope of his assi+ned tas1 when the act co,plained of was
co,,itted.
9
Case law in the Hnited States of A,erica has it that a corporation that entrusts a +eneral
dut) to its e,plo)ee is responsi.le to the inBured part) for da,a+es Rowin+ fro, the e,plo)ee7s wron+ful
act done in the course of his +eneral authorit), even thou+h in doin+ such act, the e,plo)ee ,a) have
failed in its dut) to the e,plo)er and diso.e)ed the latter7s instructions.
99
There is no dispute that Atien3a was an e,plo)ee of petitioner. 2urther,ore, petitioner did not den) that
Atien3a was actin+ within the scope of his authorit) as Assistant 0ranch (ana+er when he assisted
Doronilla in withdrawin+ funds fro, Sterela7s Savin+s Account No. 1;#1!=', in which account private
respondent7s ,one) was deposited, and in transferrin+ the ,one) withdrawn to Sterela7s Current Account
with petitioner. Atien3a7s acts of helpin+ Doronilla, a custo,er of the petitioner, were o.viousl) done in
furtherance of petitioner7s interests
9*
even thou+h in the process, Atien3a violated so,e of petitioner7s
rules such as those stipulated in its savin+s account pass.oo1.
9!
It was esta.lished that the transfer of
funds fro, Sterela7s savin+s account to its current account could not have .een acco,plished .) Doronilla
without the invalua.le assistance of Atien3a, and that it was their connivance which was the cause of
private respondent7s loss.
The fore+oin+ shows that the Court of Appeals correctl) held that under Article 1?; of the Civil Code,
petitioner is lia.le for private respondent7s loss and is solidaril) lia.le with Doronilla and Du,a+pi for the
return of the/;;,;;;.;; since it is clear that petitioner failed to prove that it eFercised due dili+ence to
prevent the unauthori3ed withdrawals fro, Sterela7s savin+s account, and that it was not ne+li+ent in the
selection and supervision of Atien3a. Accordin+l), no error was co,,itted .) the appellate court in the
award of actual, ,oral and eFe,plar) da,a+es, attorne)7s fees and costs of suit to private respondent.
*!EREFORE, the petition is here.) DENIED. The assailed Decision and %esolution of the Court of Appeals
are A22I%(ED.
SO O%DE%ED.