[G.R. No. 128996.February 15, 2002]

CARMEN LL. INTENGAN, ROSARIO LL. NERI, and RITA P. BRAWNER,petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AZIZ RAJKOTWALA, WILLIAM FERGUSON, JOVEN REYES, and VIC LIM,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

DE LEON, JR.,J.:

Before us is a petition for review oncertiorari, seeking the reversal of the Decision[1]datedJuly 8, 1996of the former Fifteenth Division[2]of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37577 as well as its Resolution[3]datedApril 16, 1997denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. The appellate court, in its Decision, sustained a resolution of the Department of Justice ordering the withdrawal of informations for violation of Republic Act No. 1405 against private respondents.

The facts are:

On September 21, 1993, Citibank filed a complaint for violation of section 31,[4]in relation to section 144[5]of the Corporation Code against two (2) of its officers, Dante L. Santos and Marilou Genuino. Attached to the complaint was an affidavit[6]executed by private respondent Vic Lim, a vice-president of Citibank. Pertinent portions of his affidavit are quoted hereunder:

2.1Sometime this year, the higher management of Citibank, N.A. assigned me to assist in the investigation of certain anomalous/highly irregular activities of the Treasurer of the Global Consumer Group of the bank, namely, Dante L. Santos and the Asst. Vice President in the office of Mr. Dante L. Santos, namely Ms. Marilou (also called Malou) Genuino. Ms. Marilou Genuino apart from being an Assistant Vice President in the office of Mr. Dante L. Santos also performed the duties of an Account Officer. An Account Officer in the office of Mr. Dante L.Santospersonally attends to clients of the bank in the effort to persuade clients to place and keep their monies in the products of Citibank, NA., such as peso and dollar deposits, mortgage backed securities and money placements, among others.

xxxxxxxxx

4.1The investigation in which I was asked to participate was undertaken because the bank had found records/evidence showing that Mr. Dante L. Santos and Ms. Malou Genuino, contrary to their disclosures and the aforementioned bank policy, appeared to have been actively engaged in business endeavors that were in conflict with the business of the bank. It was found that with the use of two (2) companies in which they have personal financial interest, namely Torrance Development Corporation and Global Pacific Corporation, they managed or caused existing bank clients/depositors to divert their money from Citibank, N.A., such as those placed in peso and dollar deposits and money placements, to products offered by other companies that were commanding higher rate of yields. This was done by first transferring bank clients monies to Torrance and Global which in turn placed the monies of the bank clients in securities, shares of stock and other certificates of third parties. It also appeared that out of these transactions, Mr. Dante L. Santos and Ms. Marilou Genuino derived substantial financial gains.

5.1In the course of the investigation, I was able to determine that the bank clients which Mr. Santos and Ms. Genuino helped/caused to divert their deposits/money placements with Citibank, NA. toTorranceand Global (their family corporations) for subsequent investment in securities, shares of stocks and debt papers in other companies were as follows:

xxx

b)Carmen Intengan

xxx

d)Rosario Neri

xxx

i)Rita Brawner

All the above persons/parties have long standing accounts with Citibank, N.A. in savings/dollar deposits and/or in trust accounts and/or money placements.

As evidence, Lim annexed bank records purporting to establish the deception practiced bySantosand Genuino. Some of the documents pertained to the dollar deposits of petitioners Carmen Ll. Intengan, Rosario Ll. Neri, and Rita P. Brawner, as follows:

a)Annex A-6[7]- an Application for Money Transfer in the amount of US $140,000.00, executed by Intengan in favor of Citibank $ S/A No. 24367796, to be debited from her Account No. 22543341;

b)Annex A-7[8]- a Money Transfer Slip in the amount of US $45,996.30, executed by Brawner in favor of Citibank $ S/A No. 24367796, to be debited from her Account No. 22543236; and

c)Annex A-9[9]- an Application for Money Transfer in the amount of US $100,000.00, executed by Neri in favor of Citibank $ S/A No. 24367796, to be debited from her Account No. 24501018.

In turn, private respondent Joven Reyes, vice-president/business manager of the Global Consumer Banking Group of Citibank, admits to having authorized Lim to state the names of the clients involved and to attach the pertinent bank records, including those of petitioners.[10]He states that private respondents Aziz Rajkotwala and William Ferguson, Citibank, N.A. Global Consumer Banking Country Business Manager and Country Corporate Officer, respectively, had no hand in the disclosure, and that he did so upon the advice of counsel.

In his memorandum, the Solicitor General described the scheme as having been conducted in this manner:

First step:Santosand/or Genuino would tell the bank client that they knew of financial products of other companies that were yielding higher rates of interests in which the bank client can place his money. Acting on this information, the bank client would then authorize the transfer of his funds from his Citibank account to the Citibank account of eitherTorranceor Global.

The transfer of the Citibank clients deposits was done through the accomplishment of either an Application For Managers Checks or a Term Investment Application in favor of Global orTorrancethat was prepared/filed by Genuino herself.

Upon approval of theApplication for Managers ChecksorTerm Investment Application, the funds of the bank client covered thereof were then deposited in the Citibank accounts ofTorranceand/or Global.

Second step: Once the said fund transfers had been effected, Global and/or Torrance would then issue its/ their checks drawn against its/their Citibank accounts in favor of the other companies whose financial products, such as securities, shares of stocks and other certificates, were offering higher yields.

Third step: On maturity date(s) of the placements made byTorranceand/or Global in the other companies, using the monies of the Citibank client, the other companies would then. return the placements to Global and/orTorrancewith the corresponding interests earned.

Fourth step: Upon receipt by Global and/orTorranceof the remittances from the other companies, Global and/orTorrancewould then issue its/their own checks drawn against their Citibank accounts in favor ofSantosand Genuino.

The amounts covered by the checks represent the shares ofSantosand Genuino in the margins Global and/orTorrancehad realized out of the placements [using the diverted monies of the Citibank clients] made with the other companies.

Fifth step: At the same time, Global and/orTorrancewould also issue its/their check(s) drawn against its/their Citibank accounts in favor of the bank client.

The check(s) cover the principal amount (or parts thereof) which the Citibank client had previously transferred, with the help of Santos and/or Genuino, from his Citibank account to the Citibank account(s) of Global and/or Torrance for placement in the other companies, plus the interests or earnings his placements in other companies had made less the spreads made by Global, Torrance, Santos and Genuino.

The complaints which were docketed as I.S. Nos. 93-9969, 93-10058 and 94-1215 were subsequently amended to include a charge ofestafaunder Article 315, paragraph 1(b)[11]of the Revised Penal Code.

As an incident to the foregoing, petitioners filed respective motions for the exclusion and physical withdrawal of their bank records that were attached to Lims affidavit.

In due time, Lim and Reyes filed their respective counter-affidavits.[12]In separate Memoranda datedMarch 8, 1994andMarch 15, 19942nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Hermino T. Ubana, Sr. recommended the dismissal of petitioners complaints. The recommendation was overruled by Provincial Prosecutor Mauro M. Castro who, in a Resolution datedAugust 18, 1994,[13]directed the filing of informations against private respondents for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Law.

Private respondents counsel then filed an appeal before the Department of Justice (DOJ). OnNovember 17, 1994, then DOJ Secretary Franklin M. Drilon issued a Resolution[14]ordering,inter alia,the withdrawal of the aforesaid informations against private respondents. Petitioners motion for reconsideration[15]was denied by DOJ Acting Secretary Demetrio G. Demetria in a Resolution datedMarch 6, 1995.[16]Initially, petitioners sought the reversal of the DOJ resolutionsviaa petition forcertiorariandmandamusfiled with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 119999-120001.However, the former First Division of this Court, in a Resolution datedJune 5, 1995,[17]referred the matter to the Court of the Appeals, on the basis of the latter tribunals concurrent jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writs therein prayed for.The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37577 in the Court of Appeals.

OnJuly 8, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 37577 and declared therein, as follows:

Clearly, the disclosure of petitioners deposits was necessary to establish the allegation thatSantosand Genuino had violated Section 31 of the Corporation Code in acquiring any interest adverse to the corporation in respect of any matter which has been reposed in him in confidence. To substantiate the alleged scheme ofSantosand Genuino, private respondents had to present the records of the monies which were manipulated by the two officers which included the bank records of herein petitioners.

Although petitioners were not the parties involved in IS. No. 93-8469, their accounts were relevant to the complete prosecution of the case against Santos and Genuino and the respondent DOJ properly ruled that the disclosure of the same falls under the last exception of R.A. No. 1405. That ruling is consistent with the principle laid down in the case of Mellon Bank, N.A. vs. Magsino (190 SCRA 633) where the Supreme Court allowed the testimonies on the bank deposits of someone not a party to the case as it found that said bank deposits were material or relevant to the allegations in the complaint. Significantly, therefore, as long as the bank deposits are material to the case, although not necessarily the direct subject matter thereof, a disclosure of the same is proper and falls within the scope of the exceptions provided for by R.A. No. 1405.

xxxxxxxxx

Moreover, the language of the law itself is clear and cannot be subject to different interpretations. A reading of the provision itself would readily reveal that the exception or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation is not qualified by the phrase upon order of competent Court which refers only to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration was similarly denied in a Resolution datedApril 16, 1997. Appeal was made in due time to this Court.

The instant petition was actually denied by the former Third Division of this Court in a Resolution[18]datedJuly 16, 1997, on the ground that petitioners had failed to show that a reversible error had been committed. On motion, however, the petition was reinstated[19]and eventually given due course.[20]In assailing the appellate courts findings, petitioners assert that the disclosure of their bank records was unwarranted and illegal for the following reasons:

I.

IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF R.A. NO. 1405, PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ILLEGALLY MADE DISCLOSURES OF PETITIONERS CONFIDENTIAL BANK DEPOSITS FOR THEIR SELFISH ENDS IN PROSECUTING THEIR COMPLAINT IN IS. NO. 93-8469 THAT DID NOT INVOLVE PETITIONERS.

II.

PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DISCLOSURES DO NOT FALL UNDER THE FOURTH EXCEPTION OF R.A. NO. 1405 (i.e., in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation), NOR UNDER ANY OTHER EXCEPTION:

(1)

PETITIONERS DEPOSITS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY LITIGATION BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS. THERE IS NO LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES, MUCH LESS ONE INVOLVING PETITIONERS DEPOSITS AS THE SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF.

(2)

EVEN ASSUMINGARGUENDOTHAT THERE IS A LITIGATION INVOLVING PETITIONERS DEPOSITS AS THE SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF, PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DISCLOSURES OF PETITIONERS DEPOSITS ARE NEVERTHELESS ILLEGAL FOR WANT OF THE REQUISITE COURT ORDER, IN VIOLATION OF R.A. NO. 1405.

III.

THEREFORE, PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO PROSECUTE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF R.A. NO. 1405 FOR HAVING ILLEGALLY DISCLOSED PETITIONERS CONFIDENTIAL BANK DEPOSITS AND RECORDS IN IS. NO. 93-8469.

Apart from the reversal of the decision and resolution of the appellate court as well as the resolutions of the Department of Justice, petitioners pray that the latter agency be directed to issue a resolution ordering the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal to file the corresponding informations for violation of Republic Act No. 1405 against private respondents.

The petition is not meritorious.

Actually, this case should have been studied more carefully by all concerned. The finest legal minds in the country - from the parties respective counsel, the Provincial Prosecutor, the Department of Justice, the Solicitor General, and the Court of Appeals - all appear to have overlooked asingle factwhich dictates the outcome of the entire controversy. A circumspect review of the record shows us the reason. The accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits; consequently, the applicable law isnotRepublicAct No. 1405butRepublic Act (RA) No. 6426,known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of thePhilippines, section 8 of which provides:

Sec. 8.Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits.-All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and,except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall such foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative or any other entity whether public or private:Provided, however, that said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever.[21](italics supplied)

Thus, under R.A. No. 6426 there is only asingleexception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor. Incidentally, the acts of private respondents complained of happened before the enactment onSeptember 29, 2001of R.A. No. 9160 otherwise known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001.

A case for violation ofRepublic Act No. 6426should have been the proper case brought against private respondents. Private respondents Lim and Reyes admitted that they had disclosed details of petitioners dollar depositswithout the latters written permission.It does not matter if that such disclosure was necessary to establish Citibanks case against Dante L. Santos and Marilou Genuino. Lims act of disclosing details of petitioners bank records regarding their foreign currency deposits, with the authority of Reyes, would appear to belong to that species of criminal acts punishable by special laws, calledmalum prohibitum.In this regard, it has been held that:

While it is true that, as a rule and on principles of abstract justice, men are not and should not be held criminally responsible for acts committed by them without guilty knowledge and criminal or at least evil intent xxx, the courts have always recognized the power of the legislature, on grounds of public policy and compelled by necessity, the great master of things, to forbid in a limited class of cases the doing of certain acts, and to make their commission criminal without regard to the intent of the doer. xxx In such cases no judicial authority has the power to require, in the enforcement of the law, such knowledge or motive to be shown. As was said in the case of Statevs.McBrayer xxx:

It is a mistaken notion that positive, willful intent, as distinguished from a mere intent, to violate the criminal law, is an essential ingredient in every criminal offense, and that where there is the absence of such intent there is no offense; this is especially so as to statutory offenses. When the statute plainly forbids an act to be done, and it is done by some person, the law implies conclusively the guilty intent, although the offender was honestly mistaken as to the meaning of the law he violates. When the language is plain and positive, and the offense is not made to depend upon the positive, willful intent and purpose, nothing is left to interpretation.[22]Ordinarily, the dismissal of the instant petition would have been without prejudice to the filing of the proper charges against private respondents. The matter would have ended here were it not for the intervention of time, specifically the lapse thereof. So as not to unduly prolong the settlement of the case, we are constrained to rule on a material issue even though it was not raised by the parties. We refer to the issue of prescription.

Republic Act No. 6426 being a special law, the provisions of Act No. 3326,[23]as amended by Act No. 3763, are applicable:

SECTION 1.Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offences punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both: (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offence punished by imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty years:Provided, however,That all offences against any law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall prescribe after five years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months.

Violations of the regulations or conditions of certificates of public convenience issued by the Public Service Commission shall prescribe after two months.

SEC. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.

The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.

A violation of Republic Act No. 6426 shall subject the offender to imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or by a fine of not less than five thousand pesos nor more than twenty-five thousand pesos, or both.[24]Applying Act No. 3326, the offense prescribes in eight years.[25]Per available records, private respondents may no longer be haled before the courts for violation of Republic Act No. 6426. Private respondent Vic Lim made the disclosure in September of 1993 in his affidavit submitted before the Provincial Fiscal.[26]In her complaint-affidavit,[27]Intengan stated that she learned of the revelation of the details of her foreign currency bank account onOctober 14, 1993. On the other hand, Neri asserts that she discovered the disclosure onOctober 24, 1993.[28]As to Brawner, the material date isJanuary 5, 1994.[29]Based on any of these dates, prescription has set in.[30]The filing of the complaint or information in the case at bar for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 1405 did not have the effect of tolling the prescriptive period. For it is the filing of the complaint or information corresponding to the correct offense which produces that effect.[31]It may well be argued that the foregoing disquisition would leave petitioners with no remedy in law. We point out, however, that the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits mandated by Republic Act No. 6426, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1246, came into effectas far back as 1977.Hence, ignorance thereof cannot be pretended. On one hand, the existence of laws is a matter of mandatory judicial notice;[32]on the other,ignorantia legis non excusat.[33]Even during the pendency of this appeal, nothing prevented the petitioners from filing a complaint charging the correct offense against private respondents. This was not done, as everyone involved was content to submit the case on the basis of an alleged violation of Republic Act No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law), however, incorrectly invoked.[34]WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing,andBuena, JJ.,concur.

G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993

CA 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 xxx

The 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.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.

G.R. No. 102970 May 13, 1993

LUZAN SIA,petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK and TRUST COMPANY,respondents.

Asuncion Law Offices for petitioner.

Cauton, Banares, Carpio & Associates for private respondent.

DAVIDE, JR.,J.:The Decision of public respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 26737, promulgated on 21 August 1991,1reversing and setting aside the Decision, dated 19 February 1990,2of Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Civil Case No. 87-42601, entitled "LUZAN SIAvs.SECURITY BANK and TRUST CO.," is challenged in this petition for review oncertiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules Court.Civil Case No. 87-42601 is an action for damages arising out of the destruction or loss of the stamp collection of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) contained in Safety Deposit Box No. 54 which had been rented from the defendant pursuant to a contract denominated as a Lease Agreement.3Judgment therein was rendered in favor of the dispositive portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, Security Bank & Trust Company, ordering the defendant bank to pay the plaintiff the sum of

a) Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), Philippine Currency, as actual damages;

b) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), Philippine Currency, as moral damages; and

c) Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), Philippine Currency, as attorney's fees and legal expenses.

The counterclaim set up by the defendant are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.4The antecedent facts of the present controversy are summarized by the public respondent in its challenged decision as follows:The plaintiff rented on March 22, 1985 the Safety Deposit Box No. 54 of the defendant bank at its Binondo Branch located at the Fookien Times Building, Soler St., Binondo, Manila wherein he placed his collection of stamps. The said safety deposit box leased by the plaintiff was at the bottom or at the lowest level of the safety deposit boxes of the defendant bank at its aforesaid Binondo Branch.

During the floods that took place in 1985 and 1986, floodwater entered into the defendant bank's premises, seeped into the safety deposit box leased by the plaintiff and caused, according to the plaintiff, damage to his stamps collection. The defendant bank rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation for his damaged stamps collection, so, the plaintiff instituted an action for damages against the defendant bank.

The defendant bank denied liability for the damaged stamps collection of the plaintiff on the basis of the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Lease of Safe Deposit Boxes" (Exhs. "A-1", "1-A"), particularly paragraphs 9 and 13, which reads (sic):

"9. The liability of the Bank by reason of the lease, is limited to the exercise of the diligence to prevent the opening of the safe by any person other than the Renter, his authorized agent or legal representative;

xxx xxx xxx

"13. The Bank is not a depository of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor the control of the same. The Bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except as herein provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith."

The defendant bank also contended that its contract with the plaintiff over safety deposit box No. 54 was one of lease and not of deposit and, therefore, governed by the lease agreement (Exhs. "A", "L") which should be the applicable law; that the destruction of the plaintiff's stamps collection was due to a calamity beyond obligation on its part to notify the plaintiff about the floodwaters that inundated its premises at Binondo branch which allegedly seeped into the safety deposit box leased to the plaintiff.

The trial court then directed that an ocular inspection on (sic) the contents of the safety deposit box be conducted, which was done on December 8, 1988 by its clerk of court in the presence of the parties and their counsels. A report thereon was then submitted on December 12, 1988 (Records, p. 98-A) and confirmed in open court by both parties thru counsel during the hearing on the same date (Ibid., p. 102) stating:

"That the Safety Box Deposit No. 54 was opened by both plaintiff Luzan Sia and the Acting Branch Manager Jimmy B. Ynion in the presence of the undersigned, plaintiff's and defendant's counsel. Said Safety Box when opened contains two albums of different sizes and thickness, length and width and a tin box with printed word 'Tai Ping Shiang Roast Pork in pieces with Chinese designs and character."

Condition of the above-stated Items

"Both albums are wet, moldy and badly damaged.

1. The first album measures 10 1/8 inches in length, 8 inches in width and 3/4 in thick. The leaves of the album are attached to every page and cannot be lifted without destroying it, hence the stamps contained therein are no longer visible.

2. The second album measure 12 1/2 inches in length, 9 3/4 in width 1 inch thick. Some of its pages can still be lifted. The stamps therein can still be distinguished but beyond restoration. Others have lost its original form.

3. The tin box is rusty inside. It contains an album with several pieces of papers stuck up to the cover of the box. The condition of the album is the second abovementioned album."5The SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, hereinafter referred to as SBTC, appealed the trial court's decision to the public respondent Court of Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 26737.In urging the public respondent to reverse the decision of the trial court, SBTC contended that the latter erred in (a) holding that the lease agreement is a contract of adhesion; (b) finding that the defendant had failed to exercise the required diligence expected of a bank in maintaining the safety deposit box; (c) awarding to the plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P20,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 and attorney's fees and legal expenses in the amount of P5,000.00; and (d) dismissing the counterclaim.

On 21 August 1991, the respondent promulgated its decision the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and instead the appellee's complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The appellant bank's counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED. No costs.6In reversing the trial court's decision and absolving SBTC from liability, the public respondent found and ruled that:a) the fine print in the "Lease Agreement " (Exhibits "A" and "1" ) constitutes the terms and conditions of the contract of lease which the appellee (now petitioner) had voluntarily and knowingly executed with SBTC;

b) the contract entered into by the parties regarding Safe Deposit Box No. 54 was not a contract of deposit wherein the bank became a depositary of the subject stamp collection; hence, as contended by SBTC, the provisions of Book IV, Title XII of the Civil Code on deposits do not apply;

c) The following provisions of the questioned lease agreement of the safety deposit box limiting SBTC's liability:

9. The liability of the bank by reason of the lease, is limited to the exercise of the diligence to prevent the opening of the Safe by any person other than the Renter, his authorized agent or legal representative.

xxx xxx xxx

13. The bank is not a depository of the contents of the Safe and it has neither the possession nor the control of the same. The Bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except as herein provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith.

are valid since said stipulations are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy; and

d) there is no concrete evidence to show that SBTC failed to exercise the required diligence in maintaining the safety deposit box; what was proven was that the floods of 1985 and 1986, which were beyond the control of SBTC, caused the damage to the stamp collection; said floods were fortuitous events which SBTC should not be held liable for since it was not shown to have participated in the aggravation of the damage to the stamp collection; on the contrary, it offered its services to secure the assistance of an expert in order to save most of the stamps, but the appellee refused; appellee must then bear the lose under the principle of "res perit domino."

Unsuccessful in his bid to have the above decision reconsidered by the public respondent,7petitioner filed the instant petition wherein he contends that:I

IT WAS A GRAVE ERROR OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT COURT WHEN IT RULED THAT RESPONDENT SBTC DID NOT FAIL TO EXERCISE THE REQUIRED DILIGENCE IN MAINTAINING THE SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX OF THE PETITIONER CONSIDERING THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EXIST (sic) PROVING THE CONTRARY.

II

THE RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN EXCULPATING PRIVATE RESPONDENT FROM ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 9 AND 13 OF THE AGREEMENT (EXHS. "A" AND "A-1").

III

THE RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE AWARDS OF THE TRIAL COURT FOR ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND LEGAL EXPENSES, IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER.8We subsequently gave due course the petition and required both parties to submit their respective memoranda, which they complied with.9Petitioner insists that the trial court correctly ruled that SBTC had failed "to exercise the required diligence expected of a bank maintaining such safety deposit box . . . in the light of the environmental circumstance of said safety deposit box after the floods of 1985 and 1986." He argues that such a conclusion is supported by the evidence on record, to wit: SBTC was fully cognizant of the exact location of the safety deposit box in question; it knew that the premises were inundated by floodwaters in 1985 and 1986 and considering that the bank is guarded twenty-four (24) hours a day , it is safe to conclude that it was also aware of the inundation of the premises where the safety deposit box was located; despite such knowledge, however, it never bothered to inform the petitioner of the flooding or take any appropriate measures to insure the safety and good maintenance of the safety deposit box in question.SBTC does not squarely dispute these facts; rather, it relies on the rule that findings of facts of the Court of Appeals, when supported by substantial exidence, are not reviewable on appeal bycertiorari.10The foregoing rule is, of course, subject to certain exceptions such as when there exists a disparity between the factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court.11Such a disparity obtains in the present case.As We see it, SBTC's theory, which was upheld by the public respondent, is that the "Lease Agreement " covering Safe Deposit Box No. 54 (Exhibit "A and "1") is just that a contract of lease and not a contract of deposit, and that paragraphs 9 and 13 thereof, which expressly limit the bank's liability as follows:

9. The liability of the bank by reason of the lease, is limited to the exercise of the diligence to prevent the opening of the Safe by any person other than the Renter, his autliorized agent or legal representative;

xxx xxx xxx

13. The bank is not a depository of the contents of the Safe and it has neither the possession nor the control of the same. The Bank has no interest whatsoever said contents, except as herein provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith.12are valid and binding upon the parties. In the challenged decision, the public respondent further avers that even without such a limitation of liability, SBTC should still be absolved from any responsibility for the damage sustained by the petitioner as it appears that such damage was occasioned by a fortuitous event and that the respondent bank was free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury.We cannot accept this theory and ratiocination. Consequently, this Court finds the petition to be impressed with merit.

In the recent caseCA Agro-Industrial Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals,13this Court explicitly rejected the contention that a contract for the use of a safety deposit box is a contract of lease governed by Title VII, Book IV of the Civil Code. Nor did We fully subscribe to the view that it is a contract of deposit to be strictly governed by the Civil Code provision on deposit;14it is, as We declared, a special kind of deposit. The prevailing rule in American jurisprudence 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 bailor and bailee, the bailment for hire and mutual benefit15 has been adopted in this jurisdiction, thus: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 Act [R.A. 337, as amended] pertinently 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 safequarding of such effects.

xxx xxx xxx

The banks shall perform the services permitted under subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section asdepositoriesor as agents. . . ."(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 writing (Art. 1969, Civil Code] and, 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 [Art. 1170,id.]. In the absence of any stipulation prescribing the degree of diligence required, that of a good father of a family is to be observed [Art. 1173,id.]. Hence, 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 l4 of the questioned contract of lease of the safety deposit box, which read:

"13. The bank is 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 as herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith."

are 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."

Furthermore 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 renting safe-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 limit its liability to some extent by agreement or stipulation ."[10 AM JUR 2d., 466]. (citations omitted) 16

It must be noted that conditions No. 13 and No. 14 in the Contract of Lease of Safety Deposit Box inCA Agro-Industrial Development Corp.are strikingly similar to condition No. 13 in the instant case. On the other hand, both condition No. 8 inCA Agro-Industrial Development Corp.and condition No. 9 in the present case limit the scope of the exercise of due diligence by the banks involved to merely seeing to it that only the renter, his authorized agent or his legal representative should open or have access to the safety deposit box. In short, in all other situations, it would seem that SBTC is not bound to exercise diligence of any kind at all. Assayed in the light of Our aforementioned pronouncements inCA Agro-lndustrial Development Corp.,it is not at all difficult to conclude that both conditions No. 9 and No. 13 of the "Lease Agreement" covering the safety deposit box in question (Exhibits "A" and "1") must be stricken down for being contrary to law and public policy as they are meant to exempt SBTC from any liability for damage, loss or destruction of the contents of the safety deposit box which may arise from its own or its agents' fraud, negligence or delay. Accordingly, SBTC cannot take refuge under the said conditions.

Public respondent further postulates that SBTC cannot be held responsible for the destruction or loss of the stamp collection because the flooding was a fortuitous event and there was no showing of SBTC's participation in the aggravation of the loss or injury. It states:

Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides:

"Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.'

In its dissertation of the phrase"caso fortuito"theEnciclopedia Jurisdicada Espaola17says: "In a legal sense and, consequently, also in relation to contracts, a"caso fortuito"prevents (sic)18the following essential characteristics: (1) the cause of the unforeseen ands unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; (2) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the"caso fortuito,"or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (3) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for one debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor." (cited in Servandovs.Phil., Steam Navigation Co.,supra).19Here, the unforeseen or unexpected inundating floods were independent of the will of the appellant bank and the latter was not shown to have participated in aggravating damage (sic) to the stamps collection of the appellee. In fact, the appellant bank offered its services to secure the assistance of an expert to save most of the then good stamps but the appelle refused and let (sic) these recoverable stamps inside the safety deposit box until they were ruined.20Both the law and authority cited are clear enough and require no further elucidation. Unfortunately, however, the public respondent failed to consider that in the instant case, as correctly held by the trial court, SBTC was guilty of negligence. The facts constituting negligence are enumerated in the petition and have been summarized in thisponencia.SBTC's negligenceaggravatedthe injury or damage to the stamp collection. SBTC was aware of the floods of 1985 and 1986; it also knew that the floodwaters inundated the room where Safe Deposit Box No. 54 was located. In view thereof, it should have lost no time in notifying the petitioner in order that the box could have been opened to retrieve the stamps, thus saving the same from further deterioration and loss. In this respect, it failed to exercise the reasonable care and prudence expected of a good father of a family, thereby becoming a party to the aggravation of the injury or loss. Accordingly, the aforementioned fourth characteristic of a fortuitous event is absent Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which reads:Those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages,

thus comes to the succor of the petitioner. The destruction or loss of the stamp collection which was, in the language of the trial court, the "product of 27 years of patience and diligence"21caused the petitioner pecuniary loss; hence, he must be compensated therefor.We cannot, however, place Our imprimatur on the trial court's award of moral damages. Since the relationship between the petitioner and SBTC is based on a contract, either of them may be held liable for moral damages for breach thereof only if said party had acted fraudulently or in bad faith.22There is here no proof of fraud or bad faith on the part of SBTC.WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the public respondent Court of Appeals of 21 August 1991 and 21 November 1991, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 26737, are hereby SET ASIDE and the Decision of 19 February 1990 of Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 87-42601 is hereby REINSTATED in full, except as to the award of moral damages which is hereby set aside.

Costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.G.R. No. 189206 June 8, 2011GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,Petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE 15th DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS and INDUSTRIAL BANK OF KOREA, TONG YANG MERCHANT BANK, HANAREUM BANKING CORP., LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, WESTMONT BANK and DOMSAT HOLDINGS, INC.,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ,J.:The subject of this petition for certiorari is the Decision1of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82647 allowing the quashal by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati of a subpoena for the production of bank ledger. This case is incident to Civil Case No. 99-1853, which is the main case for collection of sum of money with damages filed by Industrial Bank of Korea, Tong Yang Merchant Bank, First Merchant Banking Corporation, Land Bank of the Philippines, and Westmont Bank (now United Overseas Bank), collectively known as "the Banks" against Domsat Holdings, Inc. (Domsat) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Said case stemmed from a Loan Agreement,2whereby the Banks agreed to lend United States (U.S.) $11 Million to Domsat for the purpose of financing the lease and/or purchase of a Gorizon Satellite from the International Organization of Space Communications (Intersputnik).3The controversy originated from a surety agreement by which Domsat obtained a surety bond from GSIS to secure the payment of the loan from the Banks. We quote the terms of the Surety Bond in its entirety.4Republic of the PhilippinesGOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEMGENERAL INSURANCE FUNDGSIS Headquarters, Financial CenterRoxas Boulevard, Pasay City

G(16) GIF Bond027461S U R E T Y B O N D

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That we, DOMSAT HOLDINGS, INC., represented by its President as PRINCIPAL, and the GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, as Administrator of the GENERAL INSURANCE FUND, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, with principal office in the City of Pasay, Metro Manila, Philippines as SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the OBLIGEES: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, 7th Floor, Land Bank Bldg. IV. 313 Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue, Makati City; WESTMONT BANK, 411 Quintin Paredes St., Binondo, Manila: TONG YANG MERCHANT BANK, 185, 2-Ka, Ulchi-ro, Chungk-ku, Seoul, Korea; INDUSTRIAL BANK OF KOREA, 50, 2-Ga, Ulchi-ro, Chung-gu, Seoul, Korea; and FIRST MERCHANT BANKING CORPORATION, 199-40, 2-Ga, Euliji-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul, Korea, in the sum, of US $ ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS ($11,000,000.00) for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITIONS OF THE OBLIGATION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the above bounden PRINCIPAL, on the 12th day of December, 1996 entered into a contract agreement with the aforementioned OBLIGEES to fully and faithfully

Guarantee the repayment of the principal and interest on the loan granted the PRINCIPAL to be used for the financing of the two (2) year lease of a Russian Satellite from INTERSPUTNIK, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit package entered into by the parties.

This bond shall remain valid and effective until the loan including interest has been fully paid and liquidated,

a copy of which contract/agreement is hereto attached and made part hereof;

WHEREAS, the aforementioned OBLIGEES require said PRINCIPAL to give a good and sufficient bond in the above stated sum to secure the full and faithful performance on his part of said contract/agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, if the PRINCIPAL shall well and truly perform and fulfill all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements stipulated in said contract/agreements, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS this 13th day of December 1996 at Pasay City, Philippines.

DOMSAT HOLDINGS, INC.PrincipalGOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEMGeneral Insurance Fund

By:

CAPT. RODRIGO A. SILVERIOPresidentBy:

AMALIO A. MALLARISenior Vice-PresidentGeneral Insurance Group

When Domsat failed to pay the loan, GSIS refused to comply with its obligation reasoning that Domsat did not use the loan proceeds for the payment of rental for the satellite. GSIS alleged that Domsat, with Westmont Bank as the conduit, transferred the U.S. $11 Million loan proceeds from the Industrial Bank of Korea to Citibank New York account of Westmont Bank and from there to the Binondo Branch of Westmont Bank.5The Banks filed a complaint before the RTC of Makati against Domsat and GSIS.

In the course of the hearing, GSIS requested for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to the custodian of records of Westmont Bank to produce the following documents:

1. Ledger covering the account of DOMSAT Holdings, Inc. with Westmont Bank (now United Overseas Bank), any and all documents, records, files, books, deeds, papers, notes and other data and materials relating to the account or transactions of DOMSAT Holdings, Inc. with or through the Westmont Bank (now United Overseas Bank) for the period January 1997 to December 2002, in his/her direct or indirect possession, custody or control (whether actual or constructive), whether in his/her capacity as Custodian of Records or otherwise;

2. All applications for cashiers/ managers checks and bank transfers funded by the account of DOMSAT Holdings, Inc. with or through the Westmont Bank (now United Overseas Bank) for the period January 1997 to December 2002, and all other data and materials covering said applications, in his/her direct or indirect possession, custody or control (whether actual or constructive), whether in his/her capacity as Custodian of Records or otherwise;

3. Ledger covering the account of Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. with Westmont Bank (now United Overseas Bank), any and all documents, records, files, books, deeds, papers, notes and other data and materials relating to the account or transactions of Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. with or through the Westmont bank (now United Overseas Bank) for the period January 1997 to December 2002, in his/her direct or indirect possession, custody or control (whether actual or constructive), whether in his/her capacity as Custodian of Records or otherwise;

4. All applications for cashiers/managers checks funded by the account of Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. with or through the Westmont Bank (now United Overseas Bank) for the period January 1997 to December 2002, and all other data and materials covering said applications, in his/her direct or indirect possession, custody or control (whether actual or constructive), whether in his/her capacity as Custodian of Records or otherwise.6The RTC issued a subpoena decus tecum on 21 November 2002.7A motion to quash was filed by the banks on three grounds: 1) the subpoena is unreasonable, oppressive and does not establish the relevance of the documents sought; 2) request for the documents will violate the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits; and 3) GSIS failed to advance the reasonable cost of production of the documents.8Domsat also joined the banks motion to quash through its Manifestation/Comment.9On 9 April 2003, the RTC issued an Order denying the motion to quash for lack of merit. We quote the pertinent portion of the Order, thus:

After a careful consideration of the arguments of the parties, the Court did not find merit in the motion.

The serious objection appears to be that the subpoena is violative of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposit, as amended. The law declares bank deposits to be "absolutely confidential" except: x x x (6) In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

The case at bench is for the collection of a sum of money from defendants that obtained a loan from the plaintiff. The loan was secured by defendant GSIS which was the surety. It is the contention of defendant GSIS that the proceeds of the loan was deviated to purposes other than to what the loan was extended. The quashal of the subpoena would deny defendant GSIS its right to prove its defenses.

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit the motion is DENIED.10On 26 June 2003, another Order was issued by the RTC denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the banks.11On 1 September 2003 however, the trial court granted the second motion for reconsideration filed by the banks. The previous subpoenas issued were consequently quashed.12The trial court invoked the ruling in Intengan v. Court of Appeals,13where it was ruled that foreign currency deposits are absolutely confidential and may be examined only when there is a written permission from the depositor. The motion for reconsideration filed by GSIS was denied on 30 December 2003.

Hence, these assailed orders are the subject of the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. GSIS raised the following arguments in support of its petition:

I.

Respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when it favorably considered respondent banks (second) Motion for Reconsideration dated July 9, 2003 despite the fact that it did not contain a notice of hearing and was therefore a mere scrap of paper.

II.

Respondent judge capriciously and arbitrarily ignored Section 2 of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act (RA 6426) in ruling in his Orders dated September 1 and December 30, 2003 that the US$11,000,000.00 deposit in the account of respondent Domsat in Westmont Bank is covered by the secrecy of bank deposit.

III.

Since both respondent banks and respondent Domsat have disclosed during the trial the US$11,000,000.00 deposit, it is no longer secret and confidential, and petitioner GSIS right to inquire into what happened to such deposit can not be suppressed.14The Court of Appeals addressed these issues in seriatim.

The Court of Appeals resorted to a liberal interpretation of the rules to avoid miscarriage of justice when it allowed the filing and acceptance of the second motion for reconsideration. The appellate court also underscored the fact that GSIS did not raise the defect of lack of notice in its opposition to the second motion for reconsideration. The appellate court held that failure to timely object to the admission of a defective motion is considered a waiver of its right to do so.

The Court of Appeals declared that Domsats deposit in Westmont Bank is covered by Republic Act No. 6426 or the Bank Secrecy Law. We quote the pertinent portion of the Decision:

It is our considered opinion that Domsats deposit of $11,000,000.00 in Westmont Bank is covered by the Bank Secrecy Law, as such it cannot be examined, inquired or looked into without the written consent of its owner. The ruling in Van Twest vs. Court of Appeals was rendered during the effectivity of CB Circular No. 960, Series of 1983, under Sec. 102 thereof, transfer to foreign currency deposit account or receipt from another foreign currency deposit account, whether for payment of legitimate obligation or otherwise, are not eligible for deposit under the System.

CB Circular No. 960 has since been superseded by CB Circular 1318 and later by CB Circular 1389. Section 102 of Circular 960 has not been re-enacted in the later Circulars. What is applicable now is the decision in Intengan vs. Court of Appeals where the Supreme Court has ruled that the under R.A. 6426 there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor. Petitioner, therefore, had inappropriately invoked the provisions of Central Bank (CB) Circular Nos. 343 which has already been superseded by more recently issued CB Circulars. CB Circular 343 requires the surrender to the banking system of foreign exchange, including proceeds of foreign borrowings. This requirement, however, can no longer be found in later circulars.

In its Reply to respondent banks comment, petitioner appears to have conceded that what is applicable in this case is CB Circular 1389. Obviously, under CB 1389, proceeds of foreign borrowings are no longer required to be surrendered to the banking system.

Undaunted, petitioner now argues that paragraph 2, Section 27 of CB Circular 1389 is applicable because Domsats $11,000,000.00 loan from respondent banks was intended to be paid to a foreign supplier Intersputnik and, therefore, should have been paid directly to Intersputnik and not deposited into Westmont Bank. The fact that it was deposited to the local bank Westmont Bank, petitioner claims violates the circular and makes the deposit lose its confidentiality status under R.A. 6426. However, a reading of the entire Section 27 of CB Circular 1389 reveals that the portion quoted by the petitioner refers only to the procedure/conditions of drawdown for service of debts using foreign exchange. The above-said provision relied upon by the petitioner does not in any manner prescribe the conditions before any foreign currency deposit can be entitled to the confidentiality provisions of R.A. 6426.15Anent the third issue, the Court of Appeals ruled that the testimony of the incumbent president of Westmont Bank is not the written consent contemplated by Republic Act No. 6426.

The Court of Appeals however upheld the issuance of subpoena praying for the production of applications for cashiers or managers checks by Domsat through Westmont Bank, as well as a copy of an Agreement and/or Contract and/or Memorandum between Domsat and/or Philippine Agila Satellite and Intersputnik for the acquisition and/or lease of a Gorizon Satellite. The appellate court believed that the production of these documents does not involve the examination of Domsats account since it will never be known how much money was deposited into it or withdrawn therefrom and how much remains therein.

On 29 February 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Order dated December 30, 2003 is hereby modified in that the quashal of the subpoena for the production of Domsats bank ledger in Westmont Bank is upheld while respondent court is hereby ordered to issue subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum directing the records custodian of Westmont Bank to bring to court the following documents:

a) applications for cashiers or managers checks by respondent Domsat through Westmont Bank from January 1997 to December 2002;

b) bank transfers by respondent Domsat through Westmont Bank from January 1997 to December 2002; and

c) copy of an agreement and/or contract and/or memorandum between respondent Domsat and/or Philippine Agila Satellite and Intersputnik for the acquisition and/or lease of a Gorizon satellite.

No pronouncement as to costs.16GSIS filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied on 19 June 2009. Thus, the instant petition ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in ruling that Domsats deposit with Westmont Bank cannot be examined and in finding that the banks second motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 99-1853 is procedurally acceptable.17This Court notes that GSIS filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to assail the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner availed of the improper remedy as the appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65.18Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. That action is not a substitute for a lost appeal in general; it is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum.19Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright.20lauuphilYet, even if this procedural infirmity is discarded for the broader interest of justice, the petition sorely lacks merit.

GSIS insists that Domsats deposit with Westmont Bank can be examined and inquired into. It anchored its argument on Republic Act No. 1405 or the "Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits," which allows the disclosure of bank deposits in cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of the litigation. GSIS asserts that the subject matter of the litigation is the U.S. $11 Million obtained by Domsat from the Banks to supposedly finance the lease of a Russian satellite from Intersputnik. Whether or not it should be held liable as a surety for the principal amount of U.S. $11 Million, GSIS contends, is contingent upon whether Domsat indeed utilized the amount to lease a Russian satellite as agreed in the Surety Bond Agreement. Hence, GSIS argues that the whereabouts of the U.S. $11 Million is the subject matter of the case and the disclosure of bank deposits relating to the U.S. $11 Million should be allowed.

GSIS also contends that the concerted refusal of Domsat and the banks to divulge the whereabouts of the U.S. $11 Million will greatly prejudice and burden the GSIS pension fund considering that a substantial portion of this fund is earmarked every year to cover the surety bond issued.

Lastly, GSIS defends the acceptance by the trial court of the second motion for reconsideration filed by the banks on the grounds that it is pro forma and did not conform to the notice requirements of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.21Domsat denies the allegations of GSIS and reiterates that it did not give a categorical or affirmative written consent or permission to GSIS to examine its bank statements with Westmont Bank.

The Banks maintain that Republic Act No. 1405 is not the applicable law in the instant case because the Domsat deposit is a foreign currency deposit, thus covered by Republic Act No. 6426. Under said law, only the consent of the depositor shall serve as the exception for the disclosure of his/her deposit.

The Banks counter the arguments of GSIS as a mere rehash of its previous arguments before the Court of Appeals. They justify the issuance of the subpoena as an interlocutory matter which may be reconsidered anytime and that the pro forma rule has no application to interlocutory orders.

It appears that only GSIS appealed the ruling of the Court of Appeals pertaining to the quashal of the subpoena for the production of Domsats bank ledger with Westmont Bank. Since neither Domsat nor the Banks interposed an appeal from the other portions of the decision, particularly for the production of applications for cashiers or managers checks by Domsat through Westmont Bank, as well as a copy of an agreement and/or contract and/or memorandum between Domsat and/or Philippine Agila Satellite and Intersputnik for the acquisition and/or lease of a Gorizon satellite, the latter became final and executory.

GSIS invokes Republic Act No. 1405 to justify the issuance of the subpoena while the banks cite Republic Act No. 6426 to oppose it. The core issue is which of the two laws should apply in the instant case.

Republic Act No. 1405 was enacted in 1955. Section 2 thereof was first amended by Presidential Decree No. 1792 in 1981 and further amended by Republic Act No. 7653 in 1993. It now reads:

Section 2.All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, which was enacted in 1974, and amended by Presidential Decree No. 1035 and later by Presidential Decree No. 1246, provides:

Section 8. Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits. All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)

On the one hand, Republic Act No. 1405 provides for four (4) exceptions when records of deposits may be disclosed. These are under any of the following instances: a) upon written permission of the depositor, (b) in cases of impeachment, (c) upon order of a competent court in the case of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or, (d) when the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation, and e) in cases of violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) may inquire into a bank account upon order of any competent court.22On the other hand, the lone exception to the non-disclosure of foreign currency deposits, under Republic Act