BPI v.
IAC & Zshornack
G.R. No. L-66826. August 19, 1988.
FACTS:
Rizaldy Zshornack and his wife maintained a dollar savings
account and a peso savings account with Commercial Bank
and Trust Company (COMTRUST).
1980: BPI absorbed COMTRUST through a corporate merger.
So BPI replaced it as the petitioner.
Oct. 27, 1975: Virgilio V. Garcia (Asst. Branch Manager of
COMTRUST) charged $1,000 plus P17.46 (consisting of
commission and documentary stamp tax) on Dollar Savings
Acct. No. 25-4109 aka Zshornacks dollar account, which was
payable to one Leovigilda D. Dizon.
On the same date: COMTRUST under Garcias name, issued a
check payable to Dizon worth $1,000 drawn on the Chase
Manhattan Bank, NY, charging it to Zshornacks dollar account.
Zshornack noticed the $1,000 withdrawal from his account
demanded an explanation from COMTRUST.
COMTRUST replied that it was the peso value of the
withdrawal was given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack Jr. (bro of
Rizaldy) when Ernesto encashed with them a cashiers check for
P8,450 issued by Manila Banking Corp.
COMTRUST argued further that Rizaldy Zshornack authorized
bank to withdraw from his dollars savings account such amount
when needed to fund his peso account.
CFI: ruled in favor of Zschornack.
IAC: modified the CFI decision and absolved BPI from any
liability.
ISSUE/S:
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.
HELD:
1. NO. BPI should be liable.
BPI has not shown how (and record reveals that) the transaction
involving the cashiers check is related to transaction involving the
dollar draft in favor of Dizon.
2. NO. The object of the contract was foreign exchange.
Under Sec.6 of Central Bank Circular No. 281 it requires any resident
person xxx residing or located within the Philippines who acquires
foreign exchange shall not, unless authorized, dispose of such foreign
exchange in whole or in part, nor receive less than its full value xxx
provided, that within one business day upon taking ownership or
receiving payment of foreign exchange, the persons and entities, shall
sell such foreign exchange to the Central Bank.
The parties (BPI and Zshornack) did not intend to sell the US dollars to
Central Bank within one business day from receipt. Otherwise, the
contract of deposit would have never been entered at all. Deposit, as we
all know, requires the safekeeping of a thing and returning the same.
Hence, the mere safekeeping of greenbacks without selling them to the
Central Bank within one business day from receipt is a transaction
which is not authorized by the CB Circ. No. 281. Since it falls under the
general class of prohibited transactions it is therefore considered as
VOID being against a prohibitory/mandatory law.
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.