Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v
Ana Grace Rosales
GR No. 183204, 13 Jan 2014
Del Castillo, J.:
FACTS:
In 2000, respondent Ana Grace Rosales, an owner of a travel agency, and her mother Yo Yuk To opened a Joint Peso Account10 with petitioner bank. In May 2002, respondent Rosales accompanied her client Liu Chiu Fang, a Taiwanese National applying for a retiree’s visa from the Philippine Leisure and Retirement Authority (PLRA), to petitioner’s branch in Escolta to open a savings account.
On 31 July 2003, petitioner issued a "Hold Out" order against respondents’ accounts. On 3 Sept 2003, petitioner filed a criminal case for Estafa through False Pretences, Misrepresentation, Deceit and Use of Falsified Documents against the respondent. It was alleged that the respondents are the one responsible for the unauthorized withdrawal fo $75,000 from Liu Chiu Fang’s account. Petitioner alleged that on 5 Feb 2003, it received from the PLRA a Withdrawal Clearance for the account of Liu Chiu Fang, that in the afternoon of the same day, respondents went to inform the branch head Gutierrez that Liu Chiu Fang was going to withdraw her deposits in cash. Gutierrez told respondents to come back the following day for the bank did not have enough dollars. On 6 Feb, respondents accompanied an unidentified impostor to the bank with enabled them to withdraw Liu Chiu Fang’s dollar deposit.
On 3 Mar 2003, respondents opened a Joint Dollar Account with petitioner bank with an initial deposit of $14,000. The bank later discovered that the serial numbers of the dollar notes deposited by respondents were the same as those withdrawn by the impostor.
On 10 Sept 2004, respondents filed before the RTC of Manila a Complaint for Breach of Obligation and Contract with Damages, against petitioner. Respondents alleged that they attempted several times to withdraw their deposits but were unable to because petitioner had placed their accounts under "Hold Out" status. No explanation, however, was given by petitioner as to why it issued the "Hold Out" order. Petitioner alleged that respondents have no cause of action because it has a valid reason for issuing the "Hold Out" order. It averred that due to the fraudulent scheme of respondent Rosales, it was compelled to reimburse Liu Chiu Fang the amount of US$75,000.0050 and to file a criminal complaint for Estafa against respondent Rosales.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Metrobank breached its contract with respondents Rosales.
HELD:
Yes. The Court held that Metrobank’s reliance on the “Hold Out” clause in the Application and Agreement for Deposit Account is misplaced. Bank deposits, which are in the nature of a simple loan or mutuum, must be paid upon demand by the depositor.
The “Hold Out” clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation arising from any of the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code, to wit: law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict. In this case, petitioner failed to show that respondents have an obligation to it under any law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict. And although a criminal case was filed by petitioner against respondent Rosales, this is not enough reason for petitioner to issue a “Hold Out” order as the case is still pending and no final judgment of conviction has been rendered against respondent Rosales.
In fact, it is significant to note that at the time petitioner issued the “Hold Out” order, the criminal complaint had not yet been filed. Thus, considering that respondent Rosales is not liable under any of the five sources of obligation, there was no legal basis for petitioner to issue the “Hold Out” order. Accordingly, we agree with the findings of the RTC and the CA that the “Hold Out” clause does not apply in the instant case.
In view of the foregoing, the Court found that petitioner is guilty of breach of contract when it unjustifiably refused to release respondents’ deposit despite demand. Having breached its contract with respondents, petitioner is liable for damages.
