Case Digest: Guingona, Jr. vs City Fiscal of Manila, G.R. No. L-60033

Guingona, Jr. vs City Fiscal of Manila, GR No. L-60033, April 4, 1984

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

Facts:

David charged petitioners with estafa and violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related Central Bank regulations on foreign exchange transactions. David invested with the Nation Savings and Loan Association (NSLA) sums of money on savings account deposits and time deposits. As NSLA was placed under receivership, David filed claims for his investments and those of his sister. However, David received a report from the Central Bank that only P305,821.92 of those investments were entered in the records of NSLA. David alleges that the respondents in I.S. No. 81-31938 misappropriated the balance of the investments, at the same time violating Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related Central Bank regulations on foreign exchange transactions. Petitioner seeks to prohibit respondents from proceeding with the preliminary investigation of I.S. No. 81-31938 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in that the allegations of the charged, as well as the testimony of the private respondent's principal witness and the evidence through said witness, showed that petitioners' obligation is civil in nature.

Issue:

Whether or not there is misappropriation as to charge respondents with estafa.

Ruling:

No.

Under the law (Art 1305, NCC), a contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.

In this case, when private respondent David invested his money on time and savings deposits with the aforesaid bank, the contract that was perfected was a contract of simple loan or mutuum and not a contract of deposit. Art. 1980 of the New Civil Code provides that, “Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan.” The relationship between the private respondent and the NSLA is that of creditor and debtor; consequently, the ownership of the amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank upon the perfection of the contract and it can make use of the amount deposited for its banking operations, such as to pay interests on deposits and to pay withdrawals. While the Bank has the obligation to return the amount deposited, it has, however, no obligation to return or deliver the same money that was deposited. And, the failure of the Bank to return the amount deposited will not constitute estafa through misappropriation punishable under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it will only give rise to civil liability over which the public respondents have no jurisdiction.