Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Bpi Family Bank Vs Franco

    Uploaded by

    Dennis Jabagat
    Petitioner Manuel Serrano had 350,000 pesos in time deposits with interest at Overseas Bank of Manila. When he tried to recover the deposits and interest, the bank failed to pay. Serrano sued Overseas Bank, the Central Bank, and stockholders, claiming the Central Bank failed its duty to supervise Overseas Bank. The court dismissed the petition, finding no liability for the Central Bank. Bank deposits that earn interest are considered loans, making the bank a debtor and depositor a creditor. The bank's failure to pay the time deposit was a failure to pay a debt, not a breach of trust for failing to return deposit property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bpi Family Bank Vs Franco

    Uploaded by

    Dennis Jabagat
    10 views1 page
    Petitioner Manuel Serrano had 350,000 pesos in time deposits with interest at Overseas Bank of Manila. When he tried to recover the deposits and interest, the bank failed to pay. Serrano sued Overseas Bank, the Central Bank, and stockholders, claiming the Central Bank failed its duty to supervise Overseas Bank. The court dismissed the petition, finding no liability for the Central Bank. Bank deposits that earn interest are considered loans, making the bank a debtor and depositor a creditor. The bank's failure to pay the time deposit was a failure to pay a debt, not a breach of trust for failing to return deposit property.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    Bpi Family Bank vs Franco

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Manuel Serrano had 350,000 pesos in time deposits with interest at Overseas Bank of Manila. When he tried to recover the deposits and interest, the bank failed to pay. Serrano sued Overseas Bank, the Central Bank, and stockholders, claiming the Central Bank failed its duty to supervise Overseas Bank. The court dismissed the petition, finding no liability for the Central Bank. Bank deposits that earn interest are considered loans, making the bank a debtor and depositor a creditor. The bank's failure to pay the time deposit was a failure to pay a debt, not a breach of trust for failing to return deposit property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10 views1 page

    Bpi Family Bank Vs Franco

    Uploaded by

    Dennis Jabagat
    Petitioner Manuel Serrano had 350,000 pesos in time deposits with interest at Overseas Bank of Manila. When he tried to recover the deposits and interest, the bank failed to pay. Serrano sued Overseas Bank, the Central Bank, and stockholders, claiming the Central Bank failed its duty to supervise Overseas Bank. The court dismissed the petition, finding no liability for the Central Bank. Bank deposits that earn interest are considered loans, making the bank a debtor and depositor a creditor. The bank's failure to pay the time deposit was a failure to pay a debt, not a breach of trust for failing to return deposit property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    MANUEL M. SERRANO vs.

    CENTRAL BANK OF
    THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
    Facts:
    Petitioner, Serrano had worth 350,000 pesos with interest of time deposits in Overseas Bank of
    Manila. He tried to recover the time deposit with interest multiple times but failed. He filed a case
    against Overseas Bank, Central Bank, and its stockholders so they’ll all be liable on the alleged
    failure of the Overseas Bank of Manila to return the time deposits made by petitioner and assigned
    to him, on the ground that respondent Central Bank failed in its duty to exercise strict supervision
    over respondent Overseas Bank of Manila to protect depositors and the general public. The petition
    is dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioner.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the central bank is liable for the failure of encashment worth 350,ooo
    including interest.

    Held:
    No, because there was no breach of trust from a bank’s failure to return the subject matter of the
    deposit. Bank deposits are in nature of irregular deposits. They are really loans because they earn
    interest. All kinds of bank deposits are to be treated as loans. The petitioner here in the 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 petitioner. Failure
    of the bank to honor the time deposit is failure to pay obligation as a debtor and not a breach of trust
    arising from depository’s failure to return the subject matter of the deposit.

    You might also like