GR 30511; (February, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30511 February 14, 1980
MANUEL M. SERRANO, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA; EMERITO M. RAMOS, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Manuel M. Serrano made and was assigned time deposits totaling P350,000 with the Overseas Bank of Manila (OBM) in 1966 and 1967. OBM failed to honor these deposits despite demands. Serrano filed this petition for mandamus and prohibition against the Central Bank (CB) and OBM, including its stockholders. He sought to hold them jointly and solidarily liable, arguing that CB failed in its statutory duty to exercise strict supervision over OBM to protect depositors. He further prayed that properties mortgaged or assigned by OBM and the Ramos family to CB be declared a trust fund for OBM’s depositors.
The Central Bank admitted its supervisory role but denied any duty to rigidly monitor every bank activity or guarantee a bank’s solvency. It revealed that OBM had been under limited operations since 1965 due to chronic reserve deficiencies but was not declared insolvent until later. Serrano had previously attempted to intervene in a related case (G.R. No. L-29352, Ramos vs. CB), which was denied by the Court. That case resulted in a decision annulling CB’s resolutions to liquidate OBM, though OBM was later found insolvent.
ISSUE
Whether the Central Bank can be held jointly and solidarily liable with the Overseas Bank of Manila for the latter’s failure to return the petitioner’s time deposits.
RULING
No. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court clarified the legal nature of a bank deposit. Citing Article 1980 of the Civil Code and jurisprudence, it ruled that bank deposits are not true deposits but are in the nature of loans. When a client places money in a bank that earns interest, the relationship created is that of creditor and debtor, not depositor and depositary. Therefore, Serrano, as a time deposit holder, was a creditor of OBM, and OBM’s failure to pay was a failure to settle a debt, not a breach of a trust obligation.
Consequently, the Central Bank’s supervisory duties do not make it a guarantor of the solvency of individual banks or their debtor-creditor obligations. The petitioner’s remedy was not a direct action against the CB for solidary liability but to file his claim in the liquidation proceedings of the insolvent OBM. The separate concurring opinion emphasized that mandamus and prohibition were improper remedies against the CB, as it had no ministerial duty to pay the deposits or hold properties in trust for depositors.