Guingona, Jr., Martin, & Santos v. City Fiscal of Manila, et al.

Facts:
David, in his complaint with the City Fiscal against petitioners for estafa and violation of Central
Bank Circular 364, and related regulations on foreign exchange transactions, alleged that he
invested more than 1 million php and 75,000usd on deposits with National Savings and Loan
Assoc. (NSLA). NSLA was later place under receivership by CB, so David filed claims for his
and his sister’s investments. He was informed that only about 300,000php were entered in the
NSLA records. David then made demands from petitioners, but Guingona paid only 200,000php.
Petitioners countered that David insisted that his investments be treated as special accounts with
interest above legal rate. They were recorded in separate confidential documents, and only a
portion of which were to be reported because he did not want the Australian government to tax his
total earnings or to know his total investments. Petitioners moved to dismiss the charges for lack
of jurisdiction because David’s claims comprised a purely civil obligation which was itself novated.
The Fiscal denied the motion.
Issue:
Whether public respondents acted with jurisdiction when they investigated the charges
Ruling:
No, they acted without jurisdiction.
Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions are governed by
provisions on simple loan. As such, they are not preferred credits. Banks 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. Failure of the bank to honor the time deposit is failure to pay its obligation as a debtor and
not a breach of trust arising from a depository’s failure to return the subject matter of deposit.
When David invested his money on several deposits, a contract of simple loan was perfected, not
a contract of deposit. The relationship between him and NSLA is that of creditor and debtor;
consequently, the ownership of the amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank upon the
perfection of the contract, and it can make use of the amount deposited for its banking operations.
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. The failure of the Bank to return the
amount deposited will not constitute estafa through misappropriation; it will only give rise to civil
liability, which public respondents have no jurisdiction over.