Page 36 of 37

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 4015 August 24, 1908ANGEL JAVELLANA,plaintiff-appellee,vs.JOSE LIM, ET AL.,defendants-appellants.R. Zaldarriaga for appellants.B. Montinola for appellee.TORRES,J.:The attorney for the plaintiff, Angel Javellana, file a complaint on the 30th of October, 1906, with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, praying that the defendants, Jose Lim and Ceferino Domingo Lim, he sentenced to jointly and severally pay the sum of P2,686.58, with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the 20th of January, 1898, until full payment should be made, deducting from the amount of interest due the sum of P1,102.16, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.Authority from the court having been previously obtained, the complaint was amended on the 10th of January, 1907; it was then alleged, on the 26th of May, 1897, the defendants executed and subscribed a document in favor of the plaintiff reading as follows:We have received from Angel Javellana, as a deposit without interest, the sum of two thousand six hundred and eighty-six cents ofpesos fuertes, which we will return to the said gentleman, jointly and severally, on the 20th of January, 1898. Jaro, 26th of May, 1897. Signed Jose Lim. Signed: Ceferino Domingo Lim.That, when the obligation became due, the defendants begged the plaintiff for an extension of time for the payment thereof, building themselves to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent on the amount of their indebtedness, to which the plaintiff acceded; that on the 15th of May, 1902, the debtors paid on account of interest due the sum of P1,000 pesos, with the exception of either capital or interest, had thereby been subjected to loss and damages.A demurrer to the original complaint was overruled, and on the 4th of January, 1907, the defendants answered the original complaint before its amendment, setting forth that they acknowledged the facts stated in Nos. 1 and 2 of the complaint; that they admitted the statements of the plaintiff relative to the payment of 1,102.16 pesos made on the 15th of November, 1902, not, however, as payment of interest on the amount stated in the foregoing document, but on account of the principal, and denied that there had been any agreement as to an extension of the time for payment and the payment of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint, and also denied all the other statements contained therein.As a counterclaim, the defendants alleged that they had paid to the plaintiff sums which, together with the P1,102.16 acknowledged in the complaint, aggregated the total sum of P5,602.16, and that, deducting therefrom the total sum of P2,686.58 stated in the document transcribed in the complaint, the plaintiff still owed the defendants P2,915.58; therefore, they asked that judgment be entered absolving them, and sentencing the plaintiff to pay them the sum of P2,915.58 with the costs.Evidence was adduced by both parties and, upon their exhibits, together with an account book having been made of record, the court below rendered judgment on the 15th of January, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the sum of P5,714.44 and costs.The defendants excepted to the above decision and moved for a new trial. This motion was overruled and was also excepted to by them; the bill of exceptions presented by the appellants having been approved, the same was in due course submitted to this court.The document of indebtedness inserted in the complaint states that the plaintiff left on deposit with the defendants a given sum of money which they were jointly and severally obliged to return on a certain date fixed in the document; but that, nevertheless, when the document appearing as Exhibits 2, written in the Visayan dialect and followed by a translation into Spanish was executed, it was acknowledged, at the date thereof, the 15th of November, 1902, that the amount deposited had not yet been returned to the creditor, whereby he was subjected to losses and damages amounting to 830 pesos since the 20th of January, 1898, when the return was again stipulated with the further agreement that the amount deposited should bear interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, from the aforesaid date of January 20, and that the 1,000 pesos paid to the depositor on the 15th of May, 1900, according to the receipt issued by him to the debtors, would be included, and that the said rate of interest would obtain until the debtors on the 20th of May, 1897, it is called a deposit consisted, and they could have accomplished the return agreed upon by the delivery of a sum equal to the one received by them. For this reason it must be understood that the debtors were lawfully authorized to make use of the amount deposited, which they have done, as subsequent shown when asking for an extension of the time for the return thereof, inasmuch as, acknowledging that they have subjected the letter, their creditor, to losses and damages for not complying with what had been stipulated, and being conscious that they had used, for their own profit and gain, the money that they received apparently as a deposit, they engaged to pay interest to the creditor from the date named until the time when the refund should be made. Such conduct on the part of the debtors is unquestionable evidence that the transaction entered into between the interested parties was not a deposit, but a real contract of loan.Article 1767 of the Civil Code provides that The depository cannot make use of the thing deposited without the express permission of the depositor.Otherwise he shall be liable for losses and damages.Article 1768 also provides that When the depository has permission to make use of the thing deposited, the contract loses the character of a deposit and becomes a loan or bailment.The permission shall not be presumed, and its existence must be proven.When on one of the latter days of January, 1898, Jose Lim went to the office of the creditor asking for an extension of one year, in view of the fact the money was scare, and because neither himself nor the other defendant were able to return the amount deposited, for which reason he agreed to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, it was because, as a matter of fact, he did not have in his possession the amount deposited, he having made use of the same in his business and for his own profit; and the creditor, by granting them the extension, evidently confirmed the express permission previously given to use and dispose of the amount stated as having been deposited, which, in accordance with the loan, to all intents and purposes gratuitously, until the 20th of January, 1898, and from that dated with interest at 15 per cent per annum until its full payment, deducting from the total amount of interest the sum of 1,000 pesos, in accordance with the provisions of article 1173 of the Civil Code.Notwithstanding that it does not appear that Jose Lim signed the document (Exhibit 2) executed in the presence of three witnesses on the 15th of November, 1902, by Ceferino Domingo Lim on behalf of himself and the former, nevertheless, the said document has not been contested as false, either by a criminal or by a civil proceeding, nor has any doubt been cast upon the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses who attested the execution of the same; and from the evidence in the case one is sufficiently convinced that the said Jose Lim was perfectly aware of and authorized his joint codebtor to liquidate the interest, to pay the sum of 1,000 pesos, on account thereof, and to execute the aforesaid document No. 2. A true ratification of the original document of deposit was thus made, and not the least proof is shown in the record that Jose Lim had ever paid the whole or any part of the capital stated in the original document, Exhibit 1.If the amount, together with interest claimed in the complaint, less 1,000 pesos appears as fully established, such is not the case with the defendant's counterclaim for P5,602.16, because the existence and certainty of said indebtedness imputed to the plaintiff has not been proven, and the defendants, who call themselves creditors for the said amount have not proven in a satisfactory manner that the plaintiff had received partial payments on account of the same; the latter alleges with good reason, that they should produce the receipts which he may have issued, and which he did issue whenever they paid him any money on account. The plaintiffs allegation that the two amounts of 400 and 1,200 pesos, referred to in documents marked "C" and "D" offered in evidence by the defendants, had been received from Ceferino Domingo Lim on account of other debts of his, has not been contradicted, and the fact that in the original complaint the sum of 1,102.16 pesos, was expressed in lieu of 1,000 pesos, the only payment made on account of interest on the amount deposited according to documents No. 2 and letter "B" above referred to, was due to a mistake.Moreover, for the reason above set forth it may, as a matter of course, be inferred that there was no renewal of the contract deposited converted into a loan, because, as has already been stated, the defendants received said amount by virtue of real loan contract under the name of a deposit, since the so-called bailees were forthwith authorized to dispose of the amount deposited. This they have done, as has been clearly shown.The original joint obligation contracted by the defendant debtor still exists, and it has not been shown or proven in the proceedings that the creditor had released Joe Lim from complying with his obligation in order that he should not be sued for or sentenced to pay the amount of capital and interest together with his codebtor, Ceferino Domingo Lim, because the record offers satisfactory evidence against the pretension of Jose Lim, and it further appears that document No. 2 was executed by the other debtor, Ceferino Domingo Lim, for himself and on behalf of Jose Lim; and it has also been proven that Jose Lim, being fully aware that his debt had not yet been settled, took steps to secure an extension of the time for payment, and consented to pay interest in return for the concession requested from the creditor.In view of the foregoing, and adopting the findings in the judgment appealed from, it is our opinion that the same should be and is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant, provided that the interest agreed upon shall be paid until the complete liquidation of the debt. So ordered.Arellano, C.J., Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ.,concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. Nos. L-26948 and L-26949 October 8, 1927SILVESTRA BARON,plaintiff-appellant,vs.PABLO DAVID,defendant-appellant.AndGUILLERMO BARON,plaintiff-appellant,vs.PABLO DAVID,defendant-appellant.STREET,J.:These two actions were instituted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pampanga by the respective plaintiffs, Silvestra Baron and Guillermo Baron, for the purpose of recovering from the defendant, Pablo David, the value of palay alleged to have been sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant in the year 1920. Owing to the fact that the defendant is the same in both cases and that the two cases depend in part upon the same facts, the cases were heard together in the trial court and determined in a single opinion. The same course will accordingly be followed here.In the first case, i. e., that which Silvestra Baron is plaintiff, the court gave judgment for her to recover of the defendant the sum of P5,238.51, with costs. From this judgment both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.In the second case, i. e., that in which Guillermo Baron, is plaintiff, the court gave judgment for him to recover of the defendant the sum of P5,734.60, with costs, from which judgment both the plaintiff and the defendant also appealed. In the same case the defendant interposed a counterclaim in which he asked credit for the sum of P2,800 which he had advanced to the plaintiff Guillermo Baron on various occasions. This credit was admitted by the plaintiff and allowed by the trial court. But the defendant also interposed a cross-action against Guillermo Baron in which the defendant claimed compensation for damages alleged to have Ben suffered by him by reason of the alleged malicious and false statements made by the plaintiff against the defendant in suing out an attachment against the defendant's property soon after the institution of the action. In the same cross-action the defendant also sought compensation for damages incident to the shutting down of the defendant's rice mill for the period of one hundred seventy days during which the above-mentioned attachment was in force. The trial judge disallowed these claims for damages, and from this feature of the decision the defendant appealed. We are therefore confronted with five distinct appeals in this record.Prior to January 17, 1921, the defendant Pablo David has been engaged in running a rice mill in the municipality of Magalang, in the Province of Pampanga, a mill which was well patronized by the rice growers of the vicinity and almost constantly running. On the date stated a fire occurred that destroyed the mill and its contents, and it was some time before the mill could be rebuilt and put in operation again. Silvestra Baron, the plaintiff in the first of the actions before us, is an aunt of the defendant; while Guillermo Baron, the plaintiff in the other action; is his uncle. In the months of March, April, and May, 1920, Silvestra Baron placed a quantity of palay in the defendant's mill; and this, in connection with some that she took over from Guillermo Baron, amounted to 1,012 cavans and 24 kilos. During approximately the same period Guillermo Baron placed other 1,865 cavans and 43 kilos of palay in the mill. No compensation has ever been received by Silvestra Baron upon account of the palay delivered by Guillermo Baron, he has received from the defendant advancements amounting to P2,800; but apart from this he has not been compensated. Both the plaintiffs claim that the palay which was delivered by them to the defendant was sold to the defendant; while the defendant, on the other hand, claims that the palay was deposited subject to future withdrawal by the depositors or subject to some future sale which was never effected. He therefore supposes himself to be relieved from all responsibility by virtue of the fire of January 17, 1921, already mentioned.The plaintiff further say that their palay was delivered to the defendant at his special request, coupled with a promise on his part to pay for the same at the highest price per cavan at which palay would sell during the year 1920; and they say that in August of that year the defendant promised to pay them severally the price of P8.40 per cavan, which was about the top of the market for the season, provided they would wait for payment until December. The trial judge found that no such promise had been given; and the incredulity of the court upon this point seems to us to be justified. A careful examination of the proof, however, leads us to the conclusion that the plaintiffs did, some time in the early part of August, 1920, make demand upon the defendant for a settlement, which he evaded or postponed leaving the exact amount due to the plaintiffs undetermined.It should be stated that the palay in question was place by the plaintiffs in the defendant's mill with the understanding that the defendant was at liberty to convert it into rice and dispose of it at his pleasure. The mill was actively running during the entire season, and as palay was daily coming in from many customers and as rice was being constantly shipped by the defendant to Manila, or other rice markets, it was impossible to keep the plaintiffs' palay segregated. In fact the defendant admits that the plaintiffs' palay was mixed with that of others. In view of the nature of the defendant's activities and the way in which the palay was handled in the defendant's mill, it is quite certain that all of the plaintiffs' palay, which was put in before June 1, 1920, been milled and disposed of long prior to the fire of January 17, 1921. Furthermore, the proof shows that when the fire occurred there could not have been more than about 360 cavans of palay in the mill, none of which by any reasonable probability could have been any part of the palay delivered by the plaintiffs. Considering the fact that the defendant had thus milled and doubtless sold the plaintiffs' palay prior to the date of the fire, it result that he is bound to account for its value, and his liability was not extinguished by the occurence of the fire. In the briefs before us it seems to have been assumed by the opposing attorneys that in order for the plaintiffs to recover, it is necessary that they should be able to establish that the plaintiffs' palay was delivered in the character of a sale, and that if, on the contrary, the defendant should prove that the delivery was made in the character of deposit, the defendant should be absolved. But the case does not depend precisely upon this explicit alternative; for even supposing that the palay may have been delivered in the character of deposit, subject to future sale or withdrawal at plaintiffs' election, nevertheless if it was understood that the defendant might mill the palay and he has in fact appropriated it to his own use, he is of course bound to account for its value. Under article 1768 of the Civil Code, when the depository has permission to make use of the thing deposited, the contract loses the character of mere deposit and becomes a loan or acommodatum; and of course by appropriating the thing, the bailee becomes responsible for its value. In this connection we wholly reject the defendant's pretense that the palay delivered by the plaintiffs or any part of it was actually consumed in the fire of January, 1921. Nor is the liability of the defendant in any wise affected by the circumstance that, by a custom prevailing among rice millers in this country, persons placing palay with them without special agreement as to price are at liberty to withdraw it later, proper allowance being made for storage and shrinkage, a thing that is sometimes done, though rarely.In view of what has been said it becomes necessary to discover the price which the defendant should be required to pay for the plaintiffs' palay. Upon this point the trial judge fixed upon P6.15 per cavan; and although we are not exactly in agreement with him as to the propriety of the method by which he arrived at this figure, we are nevertheless of the opinion that, all things considered, the result is approximately correct. It appears that the price of palay during the months of April, May, and June, 1920, had been excessively high in the Philippine Islands and even prior to that period the Government of the Philippine Islands had been attempting to hold the price in check by executive regulation. The highest point was touched in this season was apparently about P8.50 per cavan, but the market began to sag in May or June and presently entered upon a precipitate decline. As we have already stated, the plaintiffs made demand upon the defendant for settlement in the early part of August; and, so far as we are able to judge from the proof, the price of P6.15 per cavan, fixed by the trial court, is about the price at which the defendant should be required to settle as of that date. It was the date of the demand of the plaintiffs for settlement that determined the price to be paid by the defendant, and this is true whether the palay was delivered in the character of sale with price undetermined or in the character of deposit subject to use by the defendant. It results that the plaintiffs are respectively entitle to recover the value of the palay which they had placed with the defendant during the period referred to, with interest from the date of the filing of their several complaints.As already stated, the trial court found that at the time of the fire there were about 360 cavans of palay in the mill and that this palay was destroyed. His Honor assumed that this was part of the palay delivered by the plaintiffs, and he held that the defendant should be credited with said amount. His Honor therefore deducted from the claims of the plaintiffs their respective proportionate shares of this amount of palay. We are unable to see the propriety of this feature of the decision. There were many customers of the defendant's rice mill who had placed their palay with the defendant under the same conditions as the plaintiffs, and nothing can be more certain than that the palay which was burned did not belong to the plaintiffs. That palay without a doubt had long been sold and marketed. The assignments of error of each of the plaintiffs-appellants in which this feature of the decision is attacked are therefore well taken; and the appealed judgments must be modified by eliminating the deductions which the trial court allowed from the plaintiffs' claims.The trial judge also allowed a deduction from the claim of the plaintiff Guillermo Baron of 167 cavans of palay, as indicated in Exhibit 12, 13, 14, and 16. This was also erroneous. These exhibits relate to transactions that occurred nearly two years after the transactions with which we are here concerned, and they were offered in evidence merely to show the character of subsequent transactions between the parties, it appearing that at the time said exhibits came into existence the defendant had reconstructed his mill and that business relations with Guillermo Baron had been resumed. The transactions shown by these exhibits (which relate to palay withdrawn by the plaintiff from the defendant's mill) were not made the subject of controversy in either the complaint or the cross-complaint of the defendant in the second case. They therefore should not have been taken into account as a credit in favor of the defendant. Said credit must therefore be likewise of course be without prejudice to any proper adjustment of the rights of the parties with respect to these subsequent transactions that they have heretofore or may hereafter effect.The preceding discussion disposes of all vital contentions relative to the liability of the defendant upon the causes of action stated in the complaints. We proceed therefore now to consider the question of the liability of the plaintiff Guillermo Baron upon the cross-complaint of Pablo David in case R. G. No. 26949. In this cross-action the defendant seek, as the stated in the third paragraph of this opinion, to recover damages for the wrongful suing out of an attachment by the plaintiff and the levy of the same upon the defendant's rice mill. It appears that about two and one-half months after said action was begun, the plaintiff, Guillermo Baron, asked for an attachment to be issued against the property of the defendant; and to procure the issuance of said writ the plaintiff made affidavit to the effect that the defendant was disposing, or attempting the plaintiff. Upon this affidavit an attachment was issued as prayed, and on March 27, 1924, it was levied upon the defendant's rice mill, and other property, real and personal.1awph!l.netUpon attaching the property the sheriff closed the mill and placed it in the care of a deputy. Operations were not resumed until September 13, 1924, when the attachment was dissolved by an order of the court and the defendant was permitted to resume control. At the time the attachment was levied there were, in the bodega, more than 20,000 cavans of palay belonging to persons who held receipts therefor; and in order to get this grain away from the sheriff, twenty-four of the depositors found it necessary to submit third-party claims to the sheriff. When these claims were put in the sheriff notified the plaintiff that a bond in the amount of P50,000 must be given, otherwise the grain would be released. The plaintiff, being unable or unwilling to give this bond, the sheriff surrendered the palay to the claimants; but the attachment on the rice mill was maintained until September 13, as above stated, covering a period of one hundred seventy days during which the mill was idle. The ground upon which the attachment was based, as set forth in the plaintiff's affidavit was that the defendant was disposing or attempting to dispose of his property for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff. That this allegation was false is clearly apparent, and not a word of proof has been submitted in support of the assertion. On the contrary, the defendant testified that at the time this attachment was secured he was solvent and could have paid his indebtedness to the plaintiff if judgment had been rendered against him in ordinary course. His financial conditions was of course well known to the plaintiff, who is his uncle. The defendant also states that he had not conveyed away any of his property, nor had intended to do so, for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff. We have before us therefore a case of a baseless attachment, recklessly sued out upon a false affidavit and levied upon the defendant's property to his great and needless damage. That the act of the plaintiff in suing out the writ was wholly unjustifiable is perhaps also indicated in the circumstance that the attachment was finally dissolved upon the motion of the plaintiff himself.The defendant testified that his mill was accustomed to clean from 400 to 450 cavans of palay per day, producing 225 cavans of rice of 57 kilos each. The price charged for cleaning each cavan rice was 30 centavos. The defendant also stated that the expense of running the mill per day was from P18 to P25, and that the net profit per day on the mill was more than P40. As the mill was not accustomed to run on Sundays and holiday, we estimate that the defendant lost the profit that would have been earned on not less than one hundred forty work days. Figuring his profits at P40 per day, which would appear to be a conservative estimate, the actual net loss resulting from his failure to operate the mill during the time stated could not have been less than P5,600. The reasonableness of these figures is also indicated in the fact that the twenty-four customers who intervened with third-party claims took out of thecamarin20,000 cavans of palay, practically all of which, in the ordinary course of events, would have been milled in this plant by the defendant. And of course other grain would have found its way to this mill if it had remained open during the one hundred forty days when it was closed.But this is not all. When the attachment was dissolved and the mill again opened, the defendant found that his customers had become scattered and could not be easily gotten back. So slow, indeed, was his patronage in returning that during the remainder of the year 1924 the defendant was able to mill scarcely more than the grain belonging to himself and his brothers; and even after the next season opened many of his old customers did not return. Several of these individuals, testifying as witnesses in this case, stated that, owing to the unpleasant experience which they had in getting back their grain from the sheriff to the mill of the defendant, though they had previously had much confidence in him.As against the defendant's proof showing the facts above stated the plaintiff submitted no evidence whatever. We are therefore constrained to hold that the defendant was damaged by the attachment to the extent of P5,600, in profits lost by the closure of the mill, and to the extent of P1,400 for injury to the good-will of his business, making a total of P7,000. For this amount the defendant must recover judgment on his cross-complaint.The trial court, in dismissing the defendant's cross-complaint for damages resulting from the wrongful suing out of the attachment, suggested that the closure of the rice mill was a mere act of the sheriff for which the plaintiff was not responsible and that the defendant might have been permitted by the sheriff to continue running the mill if he had applied to the sheriff for permission to operate it. This singular suggestion will not bear a moment's criticism. It was of course the duty of the sheriff, in levying the attachment, to take the attached property into his possession, and the closure of the mill was a natural, and even necessary, consequence of the attachment. For the damage thus inflicted upon the defendant the plaintiff is undoubtedly responsible.One feature of the cross-complaint consist in the claim of the defendant (cross-complaint) for the sum of P20,000 as damages caused to the defendant by the false and alleged malicious statements contained in the affidavit upon which the attachment was procured. The additional sum of P5,000 is also claimed as exemplary damages. It is clear that with respect to these damages the cross-action cannot be maintained, for the reason that the affidavit in question was used in course of a legal proceeding for the purpose of obtaining a legal remedy, and it is therefore privileged. But though the affidavit is not actionable as a libelous publication, this fact in no obstacle to the maintenance of an action to recover the damage resulting from the levy of the attachment.Before closing this opinion a word should be said upon the point raised in the first assignment of error of Pablo David as defendant in case R. G. No. 26949. In this connection it appears that the deposition of Guillermo Baron was presented in court as evidence and was admitted as an exhibit, without being actually read to the court. It is supposed in the assignment of error now under consideration that the deposition is not available as evidence to the plaintiff because it was not actually read out in court. This connection is not well founded. It is true that in section 364 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is said that a deposition, once taken, may be read by either party and will then be deemed the evidence of the party reading it. The use of the word "read" in this section finds its explanation of course in the American practice of trying cases for the most part before juries. When a case is thus tried the actual reading of the deposition is necessary in order that the jurymen may become acquainted with its contents. But in courts of equity, and in all courts where judges have the evidence before them for perusal at their pleasure, it is not necessary that the deposition should be actually read when presented as evidence.From what has been said it result that judgment of the court below must be modified with respect to the amounts recoverable by the respective plaintiffs in the two actions R. G. Nos. 26948 and 26949 and must be reversed in respect to the disposition of the cross-complaint interposed by the defendant in case R. G. No. 26949, with the following result: In case R. G. No. 26948 the plaintiff Silvestra Baron will recover of the Pablo David the sum of P6,227.24, with interest from November 21, 1923, the date of the filing of her complaint, and with costs. In case R. G. No. 26949 the plaintiff Guillermo Baron will recover of the defendant Pablo David the sum of P8,669.75, with interest from January 9, 1924. In the same case the defendant Pablo David, as plaintiff in the cross-complaint, will recover of Guillermo Baron the sum of P7,000, without costs. So ordered.Avancea, C.J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. L-66826 August 19, 1988BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,petitioner,vs.THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ZSHORNACKrespondents.Pacis & Reyes Law Office for petitioner.Ernesto T. Zshornack, Jr. for private respondent.CORTES,J.:The original parties to this case were Rizaldy T. Zshornack and the Commercial Bank and Trust Company of the Philippines [hereafter referred to as "COMTRUST."] In 1980, the Bank of the Philippine Islands (hereafter referred to as BPI absorbed COMTRUST through a corporate merger, and was substituted as party to the case.Rizaldy Zshornack initiated proceedings on June 28,1976 by filing in the Court of First Instance of Rizal Caloocan City a complaint against COMTRUST alleging four causes of action. Except for the third cause of action, the CFI ruled in favor of Zshornack. The bank appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court which modified the CFI decision absolving the bank from liability on the fourth cause of action. The pertinent portions of the judgment, as modified, read:IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court renders judgment as follows:1. Ordering the defendant COMTRUST to restore to the dollar savings account of plaintiff (No. 25-4109) the amount of U.S $1,000.00 as of October 27, 1975 to earn interest together with the remaining balance of the said account at the rate fixed by the bank for dollar deposits under Central Bank Circular 343;2. Ordering defendant COMTRUST to return to the plaintiff the amount of U.S. $3,000.00 immediately upon the finality of this decision, without interest for the reason that the said amount was merely held in custody for safekeeping, but was not actually deposited with the defendant COMTRUST because being cash currency, it cannot by law be deposited with plaintiffs dollar account and defendant's only obligation is to return the same to plaintiff upon demand;xxx xxx xxx5. Ordering defendant COMTRUST to pay plaintiff in the amount of P8,000.00 as damages in the concept of litigation expenses and attorney's fees suffered by plaintiff as a result of the failure of the defendant bank to restore to his (plaintiffs) account the amount of U.S. $1,000.00 and to return to him (plaintiff) the U.S. $3,000.00 cash left for safekeeping.Costs against defendant COMTRUST.SO ORDERED. [Rollo, pp. 47-48.]Undaunted, the bank comes to this Court praying that it be totally absolved from any liability to Zshornack. The latter not having appealed the Court of Appeals decision, the issues facing this Court are limited to the bank's liability with regard to the first and second causes of action and its liability for damages.1. We first consider the first cause of action, On the dates material to this case, Rizaldy Zshornack and his wife, Shirley Gorospe, maintained in COMTRUST, Quezon City Branch, a dollar savings account and a peso current account.On October 27, 1975, an application for a dollar draft was accomplished by Virgilio V. Garcia, Assistant Branch Manager of COMTRUST Quezon City, payable to a certain Leovigilda D. Dizon in the amount of $1,000.00. In the application, Garcia indicated that the amount was to be charged to Dollar Savings Acct. No. 25-4109, the savings account of the Zshornacks; the charges for commission, documentary stamp tax and others totalling P17.46 were to be charged to Current Acct. No. 210465-29, again, the current account of the Zshornacks. There was no indication of the name of the purchaser of the dollar draft.On the same date, October 27,1975, COMTRUST, under the signature of Virgilio V. Garcia, issued a check payable to the order of Leovigilda D. Dizon in the sum of US $1,000 drawn on the Chase Manhattan Bank, New York, with an indication that it was to be charged to Dollar Savings Acct. No. 25-4109.When Zshornack noticed the withdrawal of US$1,000.00 from his account, he demanded an explanation from the bank. In answer, COMTRUST claimed that the peso value of the withdrawal was given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, Jr., brother of Rizaldy, on October 27, 1975 when he (Ernesto) encashed with COMTRUST a cashier's check for P8,450.00 issued by the Manila Banking Corporation payable to Ernesto.Upon consideration of the foregoing facts, this Court finds no reason to disturb the ruling of both the trial court and the Appellate Court on the first cause of action. Petitioner must be held liable for the unauthorized withdrawal of US$1,000.00 from private respondent's dollar account.In its desperate attempt to justify its act of withdrawing from its depositor's savings account, the bank has adopted inconsistent theories. First, it still maintains that the peso value of the amount withdrawn was given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, Jr. when the latter encashed the Manilabank Cashier's Check. At the same time, the bank claims that the withdrawal was made pursuant to an agreement where Zshornack allegedly authorized the bank to withdraw from his dollar savings account such amount which, when converted to pesos, would be needed to fund his peso current account. If indeed the peso equivalent of the amount withdrawn from the dollar account was credited to the peso current account, why did the bank still have to pay Ernesto?At any rate, both explanations are unavailing. With regard to the first explanation, petitioner bank has not shown how the transaction involving the cashier's check is related to the transaction involving the dollar draft in favor of Dizon financed by the withdrawal from Rizaldy's dollar account. The two transactions appear entirely independent of each other. Moreover, Ernesto Zshornack, Jr., possesses a personality distinct and separate from Rizaldy Zshornack. Payment made to Ernesto cannot be considered payment to Rizaldy.As to the second explanation, even if we assume that there was such an agreement, the evidence do not show that the withdrawal was made pursuant to it. Instead, the record reveals that the amount withdrawn was used to finance a dollar draft in favor of Leovigilda D. Dizon, and not to fund the current account of the Zshornacks. There is no proof whatsoever that peso Current Account No. 210-465-29 was ever credited with the peso equivalent of the US$1,000.00 withdrawn on October 27, 1975 from Dollar Savings Account No. 25-4109.2. As for the second cause of action, the complaint filed with the trial court alleged that on December 8, 1975, Zshornack entrusted to COMTRUST, thru Garcia, US $3,000.00cash(popularly known as greenbacks) forsafekeeping,and that the agreement was embodied in a document, a copy of which was attached to and made part of the complaint. The document reads:Makati Cable Address:Philippines "COMTRUST"COMMERCIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANYof the PhilippinesQuezon City BranchDecember 8, 1975MR. RIZALDY T. ZSHORNACK&/OR MRS SHIRLEY E. ZSHORNACKSir/Madam:We acknowledged (sic) having received from you today the sum of US DOLLARS: THREE THOUSAND ONLY (US$3,000.00) for safekeeping.Received by:(Sgd.) VIRGILIO V. GARCIAIt was also alleged in the complaint that despite demands, the bank refused to return the money.In its answer, COMTRUST averred that the US$3,000 was credited to Zshornack's peso current account at prevailing conversion rates.It must be emphasized that COMTRUST did not deny specifically under oath the authenticity and due execution of the above instrument.During trial, it was established that on December 8, 1975 Zshornack indeed delivered to the bank US $3,000 for safekeeping. When he requested the return of the money on May 10, 1976, COMTRUST explained that the sum was disposed of in this manner: US$2,000.00 was sold on December 29, 1975 and the peso proceeds amounting to P14,920.00 were deposited to Zshornack's current account per deposit slip accomplished by Garcia; the remaining US$1,000.00 was sold on February 3, 1976 and the peso proceeds amounting to P8,350.00 were deposited to his current account per deposit slip also accomplished by Garcia.Aside from asserting that the US$3,000.00 was properly credited to Zshornack's current account at prevailing conversion rates, BPI now posits another ground to defeat private respondent's claim. It now argues that the contract embodied in the document is the contract of depositum (as defined in Article 1962, New Civil Code), which banks do not enter into. The bank alleges that Garcia exceeded his powers when he entered into the transaction. Hence, it is claimed, the bank cannot be liable under the contract, and the obligation is purely personal to Garcia.Before we go into the nature of the contract entered into, an important point which arises on the pleadings, must be considered.The second cause of action is based on a document purporting to be signed by COMTRUST, a copy of which document was attached to the complaint. In short, the second cause of action was based on an actionable document. It was therefore incumbent upon the bank to specifically deny under oath the due execution of the document, as prescribed under Rule 8, Section 8, if it desired: (1) to question the authority of Garcia to bind the corporation; and (2) to deny its capacity to enter into such contract. [See, E.B. Merchant v. International Banking Corporation, 6 Phil. 314 (1906).] No sworn answer denying the due execution of the document in question, or questioning the authority of Garcia to bind the bank, or denying the bank's capacity to enter into the contract, was ever filed. Hence, the bank is deemed to have admitted not only Garcia's authority, but also the bank's power, to enter into the contract in question.In the past, this Court had occasion to explain the reason behind this procedural requirement.The reason for the rule enunciated in the foregoing authorities will, we think, be readily appreciated. In dealing with corporations the public at large is bound to rely to a large extent upon outward appearances. If a man is found acting for a corporation with the external indicia of authority, any person, not having notice of want of authority, may usually rely upon those appearances; and if it be found that the directors had permitted the agent to exercise that authority and thereby held him out as a person competent to bind the corporation, or had acquiesced in a contract and retained the benefit supposed to have been conferred by it, the corporation will be bound, notwithstanding the actual authority may never have been granted... Whether a particular officer actually possesses the authority which he assumes to exercise is frequently known to very few, and the proof of it usually is not readily accessible to the stranger who deals with the corporation on the faith of the ostensible authority exercised by some of the corporate officers. It is therefore reasonable, in a case where an officer of a corporation has made a contract in its name, that the corporation should be required, if it denies his authority, to state such defense in its answer. By this means the plaintiff is apprised of the fact that the agent's authority is contested; and he is given an opportunity to adduce evidence showing either that the authority existed or that the contract was ratified and approved. [Ramirez v. Orientalist Co. and Fernandez, 38 Phil. 634, 645- 646 (1918).]Petitioner's argument must also be rejected for another reason. The practical effect of absolving a corporation from liability every time an officer enters into a contract which is beyond corporate powers, even without the proper allegation or proof that the corporation has not authorized nor ratified the officer's act, is to cast corporations in so perfect a mold that transgressions and wrongs by such artificial beings become impossible [Bissell v. Michigan Southern and N.I.R. Cos 22 N.Y 258 (1860).] "To say that a corporation has no right to do unauthorized acts is only to put forth a very plain truism but to say that such bodies have no power or capacity to err is to impute to them an excellence which does not belong to any created existence with which we are acquainted. The distinction between power and right is no more to be lost sight of in respect to artificial than in respect to natural persons." [Ibid.]Having determined that Garcia's act of entering into the contract binds the corporation, we now determine the correct nature of the contract, and its legal consequences, including its enforceability.The document which embodies the contract states that the US$3,000.00 was received by the bank for safekeeping. The subsequent acts of the parties also show that the intent of the parties was really for the bank to safely keep the dollars and to return it to Zshornack at a later time, Thus, Zshornack demanded the return of the money on May 10, 1976, or over five months later.The above arrangement is that contract defined under Article 1962, New Civil Code, which reads:Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and of returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other contract.Note that the object of the contract between Zshornack and COMTRUST was foreign exchange. Hence, the transaction was covered by Central Bank Circular No. 20, Restrictions on Gold and Foreign Exchange Transactions, promulgated on December 9, 1949, which was in force at the time the parties entered into the transaction involved in this case. The circular provides:xxx xxx xxx2. Transactionsin the assets described below and all dealings in them of whatever nature, including, where applicable their exportation and importation,shall NOT be effected, except with respect to deposit accounts included in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of this paragraph, when such deposit accounts are owned by and in the name of, banks.(a) Any and all assets, provided they are held through, in, or with banks or banking institutions located in the Philippines, includingmoney, checks, drafts, bullions bank drafts, deposit accounts (demand, time and savings), all debts, indebtedness or obligations, financial brokers and investment houses, notes, debentures, stocks, bonds, coupons, bank acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security,expressed in foreign currencies, or if payable abroad, irrespective of the currency in which they are expressed, and belonging to any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or corporation residing or located within the Philippines;(b) Any and all assets of the kinds included and/or described in subparagraph (a) above, whether or not held through, in, or with banks or banking institutions, and existent within the Philippines, which belong to any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or corporation not residing or located within the Philippines;(c) Any and all assets existent within the Philippines including money, checks, drafts, bullions, bank drafts, all debts, indebtedness or obligations, financial securities commonly dealt in by bankers, brokers and investment houses, notes, debentures, stock, bonds, coupons, bank acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security expressed in foreign currencies, or if payable abroad, irrespective of the currency in which they are expressed, and belonging to any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or corporation residing or located within the Philippines.xxx xxx xxx4. (a)All receipts of foreign exchange shall be sold daily to theCentral Bankby those authorized to deal in foreign exchange. All receipts of foreign exchange by any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or corporation shall be sold to the authorized agents of the Central Bank by therecipients within one business day following the receipt of such foreign exchange. Any person, firm, partnership, association, branch office, agency, company or other unincorporated body or corporation, residing or located within the Philippines, who acquires on and after the date of this Circular foreign exchange shall not, unless licensed by the Central Bank, dispose of such foreign exchange in whole or in part, nor receive less than its full value, nor delay taking ownership thereof except as such delay is customary; Provided, further, That within one day upon taking ownership, or receiving payment, of foreign exchange the aforementioned persons and entities shall sell such foreign exchange to designated agents of the Central Bank.xxx xxx xxx8. Strict observance of the provisions of this Circular is enjoined; and any person, firm or corporation, foreign or domestic, who being bound to the observance thereof, or of such other rules, regulations or directives as may hereafter be issued in implementation of this Circular, shall fail or refuse to comply with, or abide by, or shall violate the same, shall besubject to the penal sanctions provided in the Central Bank Act.xxx xxx xxxParagraph 4 (a) above was modified by Section 6 of Central Bank Circular No. 281, Regulations on Foreign Exchange, promulgated on November 26, 1969 by limiting its coverage to Philippine residents only. Section 6 provides:SEC. 6. All receipts of foreign exchange by anyresidentperson, firm, company or corporation shall be sold to authorized agents of the Central Bank by the recipients within one business day following the receipt of such foreign exchange. Anyresidentperson, firm, company or corporationresiding or located within the Philippines, who acquires foreign exchange shall not, unless authorized by the Central Bank, dispose of such foreign exchange in whole or in part, nor receive less than its full value, nor delay taking ownership thereof except as such delay is customary; Provided, That, within one business day upon taking ownership or receiving payment of foreign exchange the aforementioned persons and entities shall sell such foreign exchange to the authorized agents of the Central Bank.As earlier stated, the document and the subsequent acts of the parties show that they intended the bank to safekeep the foreign exchange, and return it later to Zshornack, who alleged in his complaint that he is a Philippine resident. The parties did not intended to sell the US dollars to the Central Bank within one business day from receipt. Otherwise, the contract ofdepositumwould never have been entered into at all.Since the mere safekeeping of the greenbacks, without selling them to the Central Bank within one business day from receipt, is a transaction which is not authorized by CB Circular No. 20, it must be considered as one which falls under the general class of prohibited transactions. Hence, pursuant to Article 5 of the Civil Code, it is void, having been executed against the provisions of a mandatory/prohibitory law. More importantly, it affords neither of the parties a cause of action against the other. "When the nullity proceeds from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract, and the act constitutes a criminal offense, both parties beingin pari delicto, they shall have no cause of action against each other. . ." [Art. 1411, New Civil Code.] The only remedy is one on behalf of the State to prosecute the parties for violating the law.We thus rule that Zshornack cannot recover under the second cause of action.3. Lastly, we find the P8,000.00 awarded by the courtsa quoas damages in the concept of litigation expenses and attorney's fees to be reasonable. The award is sustained.WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner is ordered to restore to the dollar savings account of private respondent the amount of US$1,000.00 as of October 27, 1975 to earn interest at the rate fixed by the bank for dollar savings deposits. Petitioner is further ordered to pay private respondent the amount of P8,000.00 as damages. The other causes of action of private respondent are ordered dismissed.SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-6913 November 21, 1913THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO,plaintiff-appellee,vs.GREGORIO DE LA PEA, administrator of the estate of Father Agustin de la Pea,defendant-appellant.J. Lopez Vito, for appellant.Arroyo and Horrilleno, for appellee.MORELAND,J.:This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, awarding to the plaintiff the sum of P6,641, with interest at the legal rate from the beginning of the action.It is established in this case that the plaintiff is the trustee of a charitable bequest made for the construction of a leper hospital and that father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorized representative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. The defendant is the administrator of the estate of Father De la Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De la Pea, as trustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee the sum of P6,641, collected by him for the charitable purposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposited in his personal account P19,000 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo. Shortly thereafter and during the war of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrested by the military authorities as a political prisoner, and while thus detained made an order on said bank in favor of the United States Army officer under whose charge he then was for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrest of Father De la Pea and the confiscation of the funds in the bank were the result of the claim of the military authorities that he was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken from the bank by the military authorities by virtue of such order, was confiscated and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the case over the question whether the P6,641 of trust funds was included in the P19,000 deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, a careful examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the United States.That branch of the law known in England and America as the law of trusts had no exact counterpart in the Roman law and has none under the Spanish law. In this jurisdiction, therefore, Father De la Pea's liability is determined by those portions of the Civil Code which relate to obligations. (Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family" (art. 1094), it also provides, following the principle of the Roman law,major casus est, cui humana infirmitas resistere non potest, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his personal funds De la Pea did not thereby assume an obligation different from that under which he would have lain if such deposit had not been made, nor did he thereby make himself liable to repay the money at all hazards. If the had been forcibly taken from his pocket or from his house by the military forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is clear that under the provisions of the Civil Code he would have been exempt from responsibility. The fact that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards.We do not enter into a discussion for the purpose of determining whether he acted more or less negligently by depositing the money in the bank than he would if he had left it in his home; or whether he was more or less negligent by depositing the money in his personal account than he would have been if he had deposited it in a separate account as trustee. We regard such discussion as substantially fruitless, inasmuch as the precise question is not one of negligence. There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the deposit. While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do or give a thing is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching the results of which will be dangerous to his trust, to take all reasonable means and measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do not feel constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally legal, he is culpably negligent in selecting one whereas he would not have been if he had selected the other.The court, therefore, finds and declares that the money which is the subject matter of this action was deposited by Father De la Pea in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said money was forcibly taken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of the insurrection; and that said Father De la Pea was not responsible for its loss.The judgment is therefore reversed, and it is decreed that the plaintiff shall take nothing by his complaint.Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993CA AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.,petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,respondents.Dolorfino & Dominguez Law Offices for petitioner.Danilo B. Banares for private respondent.DAVIDE, JR.,J.:Is the contractual relation between a commercial bank and another party in a contract of rent of a safety deposit box with respect to its contents placed by the latter one of bailor and bailee or one of lessor and lessee?This is the crux of the present controversy.On 3 July 1979, petitioner (through its President, Sergio Aguirre) and the spouses Ramon and Paula Pugao entered into an agreement whereby the former purchased from the latter two (2) parcels of land for a consideration of P350,625.00. Of this amount, P75,725.00 was paid as downpayment while the balance was covered by three (3) postdated checks. Among the terms and conditions of the agreement embodied in a Memorandum of True and Actual Agreement of Sale of Land were that the titles to the lots shall be transferred to the petitioner upon full payment of the purchase price and that the owner's copies of the certificates of titles thereto, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 284655 and 292434, shall be deposited in a safety deposit box of any bank. The same could be withdrawn only upon the joint signatures of a representative of the petitioner and the Pugaos upon full payment of the purchase price. Petitioner, through Sergio Aguirre, and the Pugaos then rented Safety Deposit Box No. 1448 of private respondent Security Bank and Trust Company, a domestic banking corporation hereinafter referred to as the respondent Bank. For this purpose, both signed a contract of lease (Exhibit "2") which contains,inter alia, the following conditions:13. The bank is not a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the same.14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith.1After the execution of the contract, two (2) renter's keys were given to the renters one to Aguirre (for the petitioner) and the other to the Pugaos. A guard key remained in the possession of the respondent Bank. The safety deposit box has two (2) keyholes, one for the guard key and the other for the renter's key, and can be opened only with the use of both keys. Petitioner claims that the certificates of title were placed inside the said box.Thereafter, a certain Mrs. Margarita Ramos offered to buy from the petitioner the two (2) lots at a price of P225.00 per square meter which, as petitioner alleged in its complaint, translates to a profit of P100.00 per square meter or a total of P280,500.00 for the entire property. Mrs. Ramos demanded the execution of a deed of sale which necessarily entailed the production of the certificates of title. In view thereof, Aguirre, accompanied by the Pugaos, then proceeded to the respondent Bank on 4 October 1979 to open the safety deposit box and get the certificates of title. However, when opened in the presence of the Bank's representative, the box yielded no such certificates. Because of the delay in the reconstitution of the title, Mrs. Ramos withdrew her earlier offer to purchase the lots; as a consequence thereof, the petitioner allegedly failed to realize the expected profit of P280,500.00. Hence, the latter filed on 1 September 1980 a complaint2for damages against the respondent Bank with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Pasig, Metro Manila which docketed the same as Civil Case No. 38382.In its Answer with Counterclaim,3respondent Bank alleged that the petitioner has no cause of action because of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the contract of lease (Exhibit "2"); corollarily, loss of any of the items or articles contained in the box could not give rise to an action against it. It then interposed a counterclaim for exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00. Petitioner subsequently filed an answer to the counterclaim.4In due course, the trial court, now designated as Branch 161 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Metro Manila, rendered a decision5adverse to the petitioner on 8 December 1986, the dispositive portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiff's complaint.On defendant's counterclaim, judgment is hereby rendered ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the amount of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS as attorney's fees.With costs against plaintiff.6The unfavorable verdict is based on the trial court's conclusion that under paragraphs 13 and 14 of the contract of lease, the Bank has no liability for the loss of the certificates of title. The court declared that the said provisions are binding on the parties.Its motion for reconsideration7having been denied, petitioner appealed from the adverse decision to the respondent Court of Appeals which docketed the appeal as CA-G.R. CV No. 15150. Petitioner urged the respondent Court to reverse the challenged decision because the trial court erred in (a) absolving the respondent Bank from liability from the loss, (b) not declaring as null and void, for being contrary to law, public order and public policy, the provisions in the contract for lease of the safety deposit box absolving the Bank from any liability for loss, (c) not concluding that in this jurisdiction, as well as under American jurisprudence, the liability of the Bank is settled and (d) awarding attorney's fees to the Bank and denying the petitioner's prayer for nominal and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.8In its Decision promulgated on 4 July 1989,9respondent Court affirmed the appealed decision principally on the theory that the contract (Exhibit "2") executed by the petitioner and respondent Bank is in the nature of a contract of lease by virtue of which the petitioner and its co-renter were given control over the safety deposit box and its contents while the Bank retained no right to open the said box because it had neither the possession nor control over it and its contents. As such, the contract is governed by Article 1643 of the Civil Code10which provides:Art. 1643. In the lease of things, one of the parties binds himself to give to another the enjoyment or use of a thing for a price certain, and for a period which may be definite or indefinite. However, no lease for more than ninety-nine years shall be valid.It invokedTolentino vs. Gonzales11which held that the owner of the property loses his control over the property leased during the period of the contract and Article 1975 of the Civil Code which provides:Art. 1975. The depositary holding certificates, bonds, securities or instruments which earn interest shall be bound to collect the latter when it becomes due, and to take such steps as may be necessary in order that the securities may preserve their value and the rights corresponding to them according to law.The above provision shall not apply to contracts for the rent of safety deposit boxes.and then concluded that "[c]learly, the defendant-appellee is not under any duty to maintain the contents of the box. The stipulation absolving the defendant-appellee from liability is in accordance with the nature of the contract of lease and cannot be regarded as contrary to law, public order and public policy."12The appellate court was quick to add, however, that under the contract of lease of the safety deposit box, respondent Bank is not completely free from liability as it may still be made answerable in case unauthorized persons enter into the vault area or when the rented box is forced open. Thus, as expressly provided for in stipulation number 8 of the contract in question:8. The Bank shall use due diligence that no unauthorized person shall be admitted to any rented safe and beyond this, the Bank will not be responsible for the contents of any safe rented from it.13Its motion for reconsideration14having been denied in the respondent Court's Resolution of 28 August 1989,15petitioner took this recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and urges Us to review and set aside the respondent Court's ruling. Petitioner avers that both the respondent Court and the trial court (a) did not properly and legally apply the correct law in this case, (b) acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction amounting to lack thereof and (c) set a precedent that is contrary to, or is a departure from precedents adhered to and affirmed by decisions of this Court and precepts in American jurisprudence adopted in the Philippines. It reiterates the arguments it had raised in its motion to reconsider the trial court's decision, the brief submitted to the respondent Court and the motion to reconsider the latter's decision. In a nutshell, petitioner maintains that regardless of nomenclature, the contract for the rent of the safety deposit box (Exhibit "2") is actually a contract of deposit governed by Title XII, Book IV of the Civil Code of thePhilippines.16Accordingly, it is claimed that the respondent Bank is liable for the loss of the certificates of title pursuant to Article 1972 of the said Code which provides:Art. 1972. The depositary is obliged to keep the thing safely and to return it, when required, to the depositor, or to his heirs and successors, or to the person who may have been designated in the contract. His responsibility, with regard to the safekeeping and the loss of the thing, shall be governed by the provisions of Title I of this Book.If the deposit is gratuitous, this fact shall be taken into account in determining the degree of care that the depositary must observe.Petitioner then quotes a passage from American Jurisprudence17which is supposed to expound on the prevailing rule in the United States, to wit:The prevailing rule appears to be that where a safe-deposit company leases a safe-deposit box or safe and the lessee takes possession of the box or safe and places therein his securities or other valuables, the relation of bailee and bail or is created between the parties to the transaction as to such securities or other valuables; the fact that thesafe-deposit company does not know, and that it is not expected that it shall know, the character or description of the property which is deposited in such safe-deposit box or safe does not change that relation. That access to the contents of the safe-deposit box can be had only by the use of a key retained by the lessee ( whether it is the sole key or one to be used in connection with one retained by the lessor) does not operate to alter the foregoing rule. The argument that there is not, in such a case, a delivery of exclusive possession and control to the deposit company, and that therefore the situation is entirely different from that of ordinary bailment, has been generally rejected by the courts, usually on the ground that as possession must be either in the depositor or in the company, it should reasonably be considered as in the latter rather than in the former, since the company is, by the nature of the contract, given absolute control of access to the property, and the depositor cannot gain access thereto without the consent and active participation of the company. . . . (citations omitted).and a segment from Words and Phrases18which states that a contract for the rental of a bank safety deposit box in consideration of a fixed amount at stated periods is a bailment for hire.Petitioner further argues that conditions 13 and 14 of the questioned contract are contrary to law and public policy and should be declared null and void. In support thereof, it cites Article 1306 of the Civil Code which provides that parties to a contract may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.After the respondent Bank filed its comment, this Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to simultaneously submit their respective Memoranda.The petition is partly meritorious.We agree with the petitioner's contention that the contract for the rent of the safety deposit box is not an ordinary contract of lease as defined in Article 1643 of the Civil Code. However, We do not fully subscribe to its view that the same is a contract of deposit that is to be strictly governed by the provisions in the Civil Code on deposit;19the contract in the case at bar is a special kind of deposit. It cannot be characterized as an ordinary contract of lease under Article 1643 because the full and absolute possession and control of the safety deposit box was not given to the joint renters the petitioner and the Pugaos. The guard key of the box remained with the respondent Bank; without this key, neither of the renters could open the box. On the other hand, the respondent Bank could not likewise open the box without the renter's key. In this case, the said key had a duplicate which was made so that both renters could have access to the box.Hence, the authorities cited by the respondent Court20on this point do not apply. Neither could Article 1975, also relied upon by the respondent Court, be invoked as an argument against the deposit theory. Obviously, the first paragraph of such provision cannot apply to a depositary of certificates, bonds, securities or instruments which earn interest if such documents are kept in a rented safety deposit box. It is clear that the depositary cannot open the box without the renter being present.We observe, however, that the deposit theory itself does not altogether find unanimous support even in American jurisprudence. We agree with the petitioner that under the latter, the prevailing rule is that the relation between a bank renting out safe-deposit boxes and its customer with respect to the contents of the box is that of a bail or and bailee, the bailment being for hire and mutual benefit.21This is just the prevailing view because:There is, however, some support for the view that the relationship in question might be more properly characterized as that of landlord and tenant, or lessor and lessee. It has also been suggested that it should be characterized as that of licensor and licensee. The relation between a bank, safe-deposit company, or storage company, and the renter of a safe-deposit box therein, is often described as contractual, express or implied, oral or written, in whole or in part. But there is apparently no jurisdiction in which any rule other than that applicable to bailments governs questions of the liability and rights of the parties in respect of loss of the contents of safe-deposit boxes.22(citations omitted)In the context of our laws which authorize banking institutions to rent out safety deposit boxes, it is clear that in this jurisdiction, the prevailing rule in the United States has been adopted. Section 72 of the General Banking Act23pertinently provides:Sec. 72. In addition to the operations specifically authorized elsewhere in this Act, banking institutions other than building and loan associations may perform the following services:(a) Receive in custody funds, documents, and valuable objects, and rent safety deposit boxes for the safeguarding of such effects.xxx xxx xxxThe banks shall perform the services permitted under subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section asdepositoriesor as agents. . . .24(emphasis supplied)Note that the primary function is still found within the parameters of a contract ofdeposit,i.e., the receiving in custody of funds, documents and other valuable objects for safekeeping. The renting out of the safety deposit boxes is not independent from, but related to or in conjunction with, this principal function. A contract of deposit may be entered into orally or in writing25and, pursuant to Article 1306 of the Civil Code, the parties thereto may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The depositary's responsibility for the safekeeping of the objects deposited in the case at bar is governed by Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code. Accordingly, the depositary would be liable if, in performing its obligation, it is found guilty of fraud, negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of the agreement.26In the absence of any stipulation prescribing the degree of diligence required, that of a good father of a family is to be observed.27Hence, any stipulation exempting the depositary from any liability arising from the loss of the thing deposited on account of fraud, negligence or delay would be void for being contrary to law and public policy. In the instant case, petitioner maintains that conditions 13 and 14 of the questioned contract of lease of the safety deposit box, which read:13. The bank is not a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the same.14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith.28are void as they are contrary to law and public policy. We find Ourselves in agreement with this proposition for indeed, said provisions are inconsistent with the respondent Bank's responsibility as a depositary under Section 72(a) of the General Banking Act. Both exempt the latter from any liability except as contemplated in condition 8 thereof which limits its duty to exercise reasonable diligence only with respect to who shall be admitted to any rented safe, to wit:8. The Bank shall use due diligence that no unauthorized person shall be admitted to any rented safe and beyond this, the Bank will not be responsible for the contents of any safe rented from it.29Furthermore, condition 13 stands on a wrong premise and is contrary to the actual practice of the Bank. It is not correct to assert that the Bank has neither the possession nor control of the contents of the box since in fact, the safety deposit box itself is located in its premises and is under its absolute control; moreover, the respondent Bank keeps the guard key to the said box. As stated earlier, renters cannot open their respective boxes unless the Bank cooperates by presenting and using this guard key. Clearly then, to the extent above stated, the foregoing conditions in the contract in question are void and ineffective. It has been said:With respect to property deposited in a safe-deposit box by a customer of a safe-deposit company, the parties, since the relation is a contractual one, may by special contract define their respective duties or provide for increasing or limiting the liability of the deposit company, provided such contract is not in violation of law or public policy. It must clearly appear that there actually was such a special contract, however, in order to vary the ordinary obligations implied by law from the relationship of the parties; liability of the deposit company will not be enlarged or restricted by words of doubtful meaning. The company, in rentingsafe-deposit boxes, cannot exempt itself from liability for loss of the contents by its own fraud or negligence or that of its agents or servants, and if a provision of the contract may be construed as an attempt to do so, it will be held ineffective for the purpose. Although it has been held that the lessor of a safe-deposit box cannot limit its liability for loss of the contents thereof through its own negligence, the view has been taken that such a lessor may limits its liability to some extent by agreement or stipulation.30(citations omitted)Thus, we reach the same conclusion which the Court of Appeals arrived at, that is, that the petition should be dismissed, but on grounds quite different from those relied upon by the Court of Appeals. In the instant case, the respondent Bank's exoneration cannot, contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals, be based on or proceed from a characterization of the impugned contract as a contract of lease, but rather on the fact that no competent proof was presented to show that respondent Bank was aware of the agreement between the petitioner and the Pugaos to the effect that the certificates of title were withdrawable from the safety deposit box only upon both parties' joint signatures, and that no evidence was submitted to reveal that the loss of the certificates of title was due to the fraud or negligence of the respondent Bank. This in turn flows from this Court's determination that the contract involved was one of deposit. Since both the petitioner and the Pugaos agreed that each should have one (1) renter's key, it was obvious that either of them could ask the Bank for access to the safety deposit box and, with the use of such key and the Bank's own guard key, could open the said box, without the other renter being present.Since, however, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the filing of the complaint and no bad faith on its part had been established, the trial court erred in condemning the petitioner to pay the respondent Bank attorney's fees. To this extent, the Decision (dispositive portion) of public respondent Court of Appeals must be modified.WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is partially GRANTED by deleting the award for attorney's fees from the 4 July 1989 Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 15150. As modified, and subject to the pronouncement We made above on the nature of the relationship between the parties in a contract of lease of safety deposit boxes, the dispositive portion of the said Decision is hereby AFFIRMED and the instant Petition for Review is otherwise DENIED for lack of merit.No pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 126780 February 17, 2005YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM,petitioners,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN,respondents.D E C I S I O NTINGA,J.:The primary question of interest before this Court is the only legal issue in the case: It is whether a hotel may evade liability for the loss of items left with it for safekeeping by its guests, by having these guests execute written waivers holding the establishment or its employees free from blame for such loss in light of Article 2003 of the Civil Code which voids such waivers.Before this Court is a Rule 45 petition for review of theDecision1dated 19 October 1995 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed theDecision2dated 16 December 1991 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, of Manila, finding YHT Realty Corporation, Brunhilda Mata-Tan (Tan), Erlinda Lainez (Lainez) and Anicia Payam (Payam) jointly and solidarily liable for damages in an action filed by Maurice McLoughlin (McLoughlin) for the loss of his American and Australian dollars deposited in the safety deposit box of Tropicana Copacabana Apartment Hotel, owned and operated by YHT Realty Corporation.The factual backdrop of the case follow.Private respondent McLoughlin, an Australian businessman-philanthropist, used to stay at Sheraton Hotel during his trips to the Philippines prior to 1984 when he met Tan. Tan befriended McLoughlin by showing him around, introducing him to important people, accompanying him in visiting impoverished street children and assisting him in buying gifts for the children and in distributing the same to charitable institutions for poor children. Tan convinced McLoughlin to transfer from Sheraton Hotel to Tropicana where Lainez, Payam and Danilo Lopez were employed. Lopez served as manager of the hotel while Lainez and Payam had custody of the keys for the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana. Tan took care of McLoughlin's booking at the Tropicana where he started staying during his trips to the Philippines from December 1984 to September 1987.3On 30 October 1987, McLoughlin arrived from Australia and registered with Tropicana. He rented a safety deposit box as it was his practice to rent a safety deposit box every time he registered at Tropicana in previous trips. As a tourist, McLoughlin was aware of the procedure observed by Tropicana relative to its safety deposit boxes. The safety deposit box could only be opened through the use of two keys, one of which is given to the registered guest, and the other remaining in the possession of the management of the hotel. When a registered guest wished to open his safety deposit box, he alone could personally request the management who then would assign one of its employees to accompany the guest and assist him in opening the safety deposit box with the two keys.4McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box: Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00) which he placed in two envelopes, one envelope containing Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$10,000.00) and the other envelope Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00); Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00) which he also placed in another envelope; two (2) other envelopes containing letters and credit cards; two (2) bankbooks; and a checkbook, arranged side by side inside the safety deposit box.5On 12 December 1987, before leaving for a brief trip to Hongkong, McLoughlin opened his safety deposit box with his key and with the key of the management and took therefrom the envelope containing Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00), the envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), his passports and his credit cards.6McLoughlin left the other items in the box as he did not check out of his room at the Tropicana during his short visit to Hongkong. When he arrived in Hongkong, he opened the envelope which contained Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00) and discovered upon counting that only Three Thousand US Dollars (US$3,000.00) were enclosed therein.7Since he had no idea whether somebody else had tampered with his safety deposit box, he thought that it was just a result of bad accounting since he did not spend anything from that envelope.8After returning to Manila, he checked out of Tropicana on 18 December 1987 and left for Australia. When he arrived in Australia, he discovered that the envelope with Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$10,000.00) was short of Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000). He also noticed that the jewelry which he bought in Hongkong and stored in the safety deposit box upon his return to Tropicana was likewise missing, except for a diamond bracelet.9When McLoughlin came back to the Philippines on 4 April 1988, he asked Lainez if some money and/or jewelry which he had lost were found and returned to her or to the management. However, Lainez told him that no one in the hotel found such things and none were turned over to the management. He again registered at Tropicana and rented a safety deposit box. He placed therein one (1) envelope containing Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00), another envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00) and other envelopes containing his traveling papers/documents. On 16 April 1988, McLoughlin requested Lainez and Payam to open his safety deposit box. He noticed that in the envelope containing Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00), Two Thousand US Dollars (US$2,000.00) were missing and in the envelope previously containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), Four Thousand Five Hundred Australian Dollars (AUS$4,500.00) were missing.10When McLoughlin discovered the loss, he immediately confronted Lainez and Payam who admitted that Tan opened the safety deposit box with the key assigned to him.11McLoughlin went up to his room where Tan was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen McLoughlin's key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez, Payam and Lainez.12Lopez also told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to McLoughlin while the latter was asleep.13McLoughlin requested the management for an investigation of the incident. Lopez got in touch with Tan and arranged for a meeting with the police and McLoughlin. When the police did not arrive, Lopez and Tan went to the room of McLoughlin at Tropicana and thereat, Lopez wrote on a piece of paper a promissory note dated 21 April 1988. The promissory note reads as follows:I promise to pay Mr. Maurice McLoughlin the amount of AUS$4,000.00 and US$2,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency on or before May 5, 1988.14Lopez requested Tan to sign the promissory note which the latter did and Lopez also signed as a witness. Despite the execution of promissory note by Tan, McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility for the loss he suffered. However, Lopez refused to accept the responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the safety deposit box entitled"Undertaking For the Use Of Safety Deposit Box,"15specifically paragraphs (2) and (4) thereof, to wit:2. To release and hold free and blameless TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL from any liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the said deposit box for any cause whatsoever, including but not limited to the presentation or use thereof by any other person should the key be lost;. . .4. To return the key and execute the RELEASE in favor of TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL upon giving up the use of the box.16On 17 May 1988, McLoughlin went back to Australia and he consulted his lawyers as to the validity of the abovementioned stipulations. They opined that the stipulations are void for being violative of universal hotel practices and customs. His lawyers prepared a letter dated 30 May 1988 which was signed by McLoughlin and sent to President Corazon Aquino.17The Office of the President referred the letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) which forwarded the same to the Western Police District (WPD).18After receiving a copy of the indorsement in Australia, McLoughlin came to the Philippines and registered again as a hotel guest of Tropicana. McLoughlin went to Malacaang to follow up on his letter but he was instructed to go to the DOJ. The DOJ directed him to proceed to the WPD for documentation. But McLoughlin went back to Australia as he had an urgent business matter to attend to.For several times, McLoughlin left for Australia to attend to his business and came back to the Philippines to follow up on his letter to the President but he failed to obtain any concrete assistance.19McLoughlin left again for Australia and upon his return to the Philippines on 25 August 1989 to pursue his claims against petitioners, the WPD conducted an investigation which resulted in the preparation of an affidavit which was forwarded to the Manila City Fiscal's Office. Said affidavit became the basis of preliminary investigation. However, McLoughlin left again for Australia without receiving the notice of the hearing on 24 November 1989. Thus, the case at the Fiscal's Office was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Mcloughlin requested the reinstatement of the criminal charge for theft. In the meantime, McLoughlin and his lawyers wrote letters of demand to those having responsibility to pay the damage. Then he left again for Australia.Upon his return on 22 October 1990, he registered at the Echelon Towers at Malate, Manila. Meetings were held between McLoughlin and his lawyer which resulted to the filing of a complaint for damages on 3 December 1990 against YHT Realty Corporation, Lopez, Lainez, Payam and Tan (defendants) for the loss of McLoughlin's money which was discovered on 16 April 1988. After filing the complaint, McLoughlin left again for Australia to attend to an urgent business matter. Tan and Lopez, however, were not served with summons, and trial proceeded with only Lainez, Payam and YHT Realty Corporation as defendants.After defendants had filed their Pre-Trial Brief admitting that they had previously allowed and assisted Tan to open the safety deposit box, McLoughlin filed anAmended/Supplemental Complaint20dated 10 June 1991 which included another incident of loss of money and jewelry in the safety deposit box rented by McLoughlin in the same hotel which took place prior to 16 April 1988.21The trial court admitted theAmended/Supplemental Complaint.During the trial of the case, McLoughlin had been in and out of the country to attend to urgent business in Australia, and while staying in the Philippines to attend the hearing, he incurred expenses for hotel bills, airfare and other transportation expenses, long distance calls to Australia, Meralco power