Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

BPI v.

IAC & Zshornack

G.R. No. L-66826. August 19, 1988.


FACTS: 1. NO. BPI should be liable.

Rizaldy Zshornack and his wife maintained a dollar savings BPI has not shown how (and record reveals that) the transaction
account and a peso savings account with Commercial Bank involving the cashiers check is related to transaction involving the
and Trust Company (COMTRUST). dollar draft in favor of Dizon.
1980: BPI absorbed COMTRUST through a corporate merger.
So BPI replaced it as the petitioner. 2. NO. The object of the contract was foreign exchange.
Oct. 27, 1975: Virgilio V. Garcia (Asst. Branch Manager of
COMTRUST) charged $1,000 plus P17.46 (consisting of Under Sec.6 of Central Bank Circular No. 281 it requires any resident
commission and documentary stamp tax) on Dollar Savings person xxx residing or located within the Philippines who acquires
Acct. No. 25-4109 aka Zshornacks dollar account, which was foreign exchange shall not, unless authorized, dispose of such foreign
payable to one Leovigilda D. Dizon. exchange in whole or in part, nor receive less than its full value xxx
On the same date: COMTRUST under Garcias name, issued a provided, that within one business day upon taking ownership or
check payable to Dizon worth $1,000 drawn on the Chase receiving payment of foreign exchange, the persons and entities, shall
Manhattan Bank, NY, charging it to Zshornacks dollar account. sell such foreign exchange to the Central Bank.
Zshornack noticed the $1,000 withdrawal from his account
The parties (BPI and Zshornack) did not intend to sell the US dollars to
demanded an explanation from COMTRUST.
Central Bank within one business day from receipt. Otherwise, the
COMTRUST replied that it was the peso value of the
contract of deposit would have never been entered at all. Deposit, as we
withdrawal was given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack Jr. (bro of
all know, requires the safekeeping of a thing and returning the same.
Rizaldy) when Ernesto encashed with them a cashiers check for
P8,450 issued by Manila Banking Corp. Hence, the mere safekeeping of greenbacks without selling them to the
COMTRUST argued further that Rizaldy Zshornack authorized Central Bank within one business day from receipt is a transaction
bank to withdraw from his dollars savings account such amount which is not authorized by the CB Circ. No. 281. Since it falls under the
when needed to fund his peso account. general class of prohibited transactions it is therefore considered as
CFI: ruled in favor of Zschornack. VOID being against a prohibitory/mandatory law.
IAC: modified the CFI decision and absolved BPI from any
liability. The parties are in pari delicto and the only remedy is one on behalf of
the State to prosecute the parties for their violation of the law.

1. Whether BPI should not be liable for unauthorized withdrawal of

$1,000 from Zshornacks account.

2. Whether BPI should give back the $3,000 entrusted to them by

Zshornack because it was considered as a deposit under Art. 1962.