Rizal at Quezon City, to effect the release of the mortgage over one (1) of the two

GUINGONA v. CITY FISCAL

FACTS: On December 23,1981, Private respondent David filed in the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila,
which case was assigned to respondent Lota for preliminary investigation. The petition charged
petitioners (Guingona et.al) with estafa and violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364
David invested with the Nation Savings and Loan Association, (hereinafter called NSLA) the sum of
P1,145,546.20 on nine deposits, P13,531.94 on savings account deposits (jointly with his sister, Denise

parcels of land conveyed to David under second mortgages.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the charges against them for lack of jurisdiction because David's
claims allegedly comprised a purely civil obligation which was itself novated. But said motion was
denied.
Issue:

Kuhne), US$10,000.00 on time deposit, US$15,000.00 under a receipt and guarantee of payment and
US$50,000.00 under a receipt dated June 8, 1980 (jointly with Denise Kuhne), that David was induced
into making the aforestated investments by Robert Marshall an Australian national who was allegedly a
close associate of petitioner Guingona Jr., then NSLA President, petitioner Martin, then NSLA
Executive Vice-President of NSLA and petitioner Santos, then NSLA General Manager; that on March
21, 1981 NSLA was placed under receivership by the Central Bank, so that David filed claims
therewith for his investments and those of his sister.

David received a report from the Central Bank that only P305,821.92 of those
investments were entered in the records of NSLA. Therefore, the respondents in I.S. No.
81-31938 misappropriated the balance of the investments, at the same time violating Central
Bank Circular No. 364 and related Central Bank regulations on foreign exchange
transactions. After demands, petitioner Guingona Jr. paid only P200,000.00, thereby reducing
the amounts misappropriated to P959,078.14 and US$75,000.00.

Guingona (petitioner):
1.

he had no hand whatsoever in the transactions between David and NSLA since he had
resigned as NSLA president in March 1978, or prior to those transactions;

2.

he assumed a portion of the liabilities of NSLA to David because of the latter's insistence that
he placed his investments with NSLA because of his faith in Guingona, Jr

3.

4.

that in a Promissory Note dated June 17, 1981 he (Guingona, Jr.) bound himself to pay David

2.

whether or not the Bank has the obligation to return the money deposited

Ruling:
1.

The contention that petitioners liability is civil in nature is impressed with merit and therefore, public

It must be pointed out that when private respondent David invested his money on nine and
savings deposits with the aforesaid bank, the contract that was perfected was a contract of
simple loan or mutuum and not a contract of deposit. Thus, Article 1980 of the New Civil Code
provides that:t.hqw
Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of-money in banks and similar institutions shall be
governed by the provisions concerning simple loan.
This Court also declared in the recent case of Serrano vs. Central Bank of the Philippines (96 SCRA
102 [1980]) that:t.hqw
Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits. They are really 'loans
because they earn interest. All kinds of bank deposits, whether fixed, savings,
or current are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the law on
loans (Art. 1980 Civil Code Gullas vs. Phil. National Bank, 62 Phil. 519).

the sums of P668.307.01 and US$37,500.00 in stated installments; t

Hence, the relationship between the private respondent and the Nation Savings and Loan

that he secured payment of those amounts with second mortgages over two (2) parcels of

transmitted to the Bank upon the perfection of the contract and it can make use of the amount

land under a deed of Second Real Estate Mortgage in which it was provided that the
mortgage over one (1) parcel shall be cancelled upon payment of one-half of the obligation to
David;
5.

whether or not the City Fiscal has jurisdiction over the case of estafa

respondents have no jurisdiction over the charge of estafa.

David:
1.

1.

he (Guingona, Jr.) paid P200,000.00 and tendered another P300,000.00 which David
refused to accept, hence, he (Guingona, Jr.) filed a civil case in the Court of First Instance of

Association is that of creditor and debtor; consequently, the ownership of the amount deposited was
deposited for its banking operations, such as to pay interests on deposits and to pay withdrawals. While
the Bank has the obligation to return the amount deposited, it has, however, no obligation to
return or deliver the same money that was deposited. And, the failure of the Bank to return the
amount deposited will not constitute estafa through misappropriation punishable under Article
315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it will only give rise to civil liability over which the
public respondents have no- jurisdiction.

2.

While the Bank has the obligation to return the amount deposited, it has, however, no
obligation to return or deliver the same money that was deposited. And, the failure of the
Bank to return the amount deposited will not constitute estafa through misappropriation
punishable under Article 315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it will only give rise to civil
liability over which the public respondents have no- jurisdiction.
Consequently, public respondents City Fiscal should be restrained from further proceeding with the
criminal case for to allow the case to continue, even if the petitioners could have appealed to the

Ministry of Justice, would work great injustice to petitioners and would render meaningless the proper
administration of justice.