Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v Rosales, G.R. No. 183204, January 13, 2014 CASE DIGEST

 Facts:

    The respondent and her mother open a joint peso account with one of the petitioners' branches, this was around the year 2000. In May of 2002, the respondent accompanied her client Liu Chiu Fang to open a savings account with the petitioner. The respondent acted as an interpreter on behalf of her client. On March 3, 2003, the respondent opened with the petitioner a joint dollar account. On July 31, 2003, the petitioner issued a "Hold Out' order against the respondents' accounts. On September 3, 2003, the petitioner filed a criminal case for estafa against the respondent, accusing the respondent as the ones responsible for the unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawal from Liu Chiu Fangs's dollar account. The case was dismissed for lack of probable cause. On September 10, 2004, the respondent filed a complaint for breach of obligation and contract against the petitioner. The respondent alleged that they attempted several times to withdraw their deposits but were unable to because petitioner had place their accounts under "Hold Out" status without any explanation as to why it issued saif status. The petitioner alleged that respondent have no cause of action because it had a valid reason for issuing the "Hold Out" order. It averred that due to the fraudulent scheme of the respondent, it was compelled to reimburse Liu Chiu Fang and to file a criminal complaint of estafa against her.

Issue:

    WoN petitioner has an obligation to release the deposit  accounts of the respondent?

Ruling:

(Article 1162; 2176; 2180)

    Yes, the petitioner has an obligation to release the deposit accounts of the respondent.

    Bank deposits, which are in the nature of a simple loan or mutuum, must be paid upon demand by the depositor.

    The "Hold Out" clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation from any of the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code.

    Petitioner failed to show that respondents have an obligation to it under any law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict.

    Considering that respondent is not liable under any of the five sources of obligation, there was no legal basis for petitioner to issue the "Hold Out" order.