G.R. No. L-30511, February 14, 1980, 185 PHIL 54-62
Facts:
Petitioner and Concepcion Maneja made a time deposit for one year with the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.|||There was a series of demands for encashment of the aforementioned time deposits from the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila, but not a single one of the time deposit certificates was honored by respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.
Respondent Central Bank argued that it does not have the duty to exercise most rigid and stringent supervision of banks; that it is not a guarantor of the permanent solvency of any banking institution as claimed by the petitioner; that there is no constructive trust created in favor of petitioner and his predecessor in interest; and it has no knowledge of petitioner’s claim that the properties given by respondent Overseas Bank of Manila as additional collaterals were acquired through the use of depositors’ money.
|||
Issue:
WON respondent Central Bank of the Philippines and Overseas Bank of Manila are joint and solidarily liable for the alleged failure to return the time deposits made by the petitioner.
Held:
The court ruled in the negative. As in the long line of cases, these claims should be ventilated in the Court of First Instance of proper jurisdiction. Claims of this nature are not proper in actions for mandamus and prohibition as there is no shown clear abuse of discretion by the Central Bank in its exercise of supervision over the other respondent Overseas Bank of Manila, and if there was, the petitioner here is not the proper party to raise that question, but rather the Overseas Bank of Manila.
Further, the failure of the respondent Bank to honor the time deposit is a failure to pay its obligation as a debtor and not a breach of trust arising from a depositary’s failure to return the subject matter of the deposit. 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. Current and savings deposits are loans to a bank because they can use the same. The petitioner here in making time deposits that earn interests with respondent Overseas Bank of Manila was in reality a creditor of the respondent Bank and not a depositor. The respondent Bank was in turn a debtor of the petitioner.
Hence, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Real LexEcon 