Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-1927             May 31, 1949

CRISTOBAL ROÑO, petitioner, vs.JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL., respondents.

Alfonso Farcon for petitioner.Capistrano & Azores for respondents.

BENGZON, J.:

This petition to review a decision of the Court of Appeals was admitted mainly because it involves one phase of the vital contemporary question: the repayment of loans given in Japanese fiat currency during the last war of the Pacific.

On October 5, 1944, Cristobal Roño received as a loan four thousand pesos in Japanese fiat money from Jose L. Gomez. He informed the later that he would use the money to purchase a jitney; and he agreed to pay that debt one year after date in the currency then prevailing. He signed a promissory note of the following tenor:

For value received, I promise to pay one year after date the sum of four thousand pesos (4,000) to Jose L. Gomez. It is agreed that this will not earn any interest and the payment It is agreed that this will not earn any interest and the payment prevailing by the end of the stipulated period of one year.

In consideration of this generous loan, I renounce any right that may come to me by reason of any postwar arrangement, of privilege that may come to me by legislation wherein this sum may be devalued. I renounce flatly and absolutely any condition, term right or privilege

which in any way will prejudice the right engendered by this agreement wherein Atty. Jose L. Gomez will receive by right his money in the amount of P4,000. I affirm the legal tender, currency or any medium of exchange, or money in this sum of P4,000 will be paid by me to Jose L. Gomez one year after this date, October 5, 1944.

On October 15, 1945, i.e., after the liberation, Roño was sued for payment in the Laguna Court of First Instance. His main defense was his liability should not exceed the equivalent of 4,000 pesos "mickey mouse" money — and could not be 4,000 pesos Philippine currency, because the contract would be void as contrary to law, public order and good morals.

After the corresponding hearing, the Honorable Felix Bautista Angelo, Judge, ordered the defendant Roño to pay four thousand pesos in Philippine currency with legal interest from the presentation of the complaint plus costs.

On appeal the Court of Appeals in a decision written by Mr. Justice Jugo, affirmed the judgment with costs. It declared being a mechanic who knew English was not deceived into signing the promissory note, and that the contents of the same had not been misrepresented to him. It pronounced the contract valid and enforceable according to its terms and conditions.

One basic principle of the law on contracts of the Civil Code is that "the contracting parties may establish any pacts, clauses and conditions they may deem advisable, provided they are not contrary to law, morals or public order." (Article 1255.) Another principle is that "obligations arising from contracts shall have the force of law between the contracting parties and must be performed in accordance with their stipulations" (Article 1091).

Invoking the above proviso, Roño asserts this contract is contrary to the Usury law, because on the basis of calculations by Government experts he only received the equivalent of one hundred Philippine pesos and now he is required to disgorge four thousand pesos or interest greatly in excess of the lawful rates.

But he is not paying interest. Precisely the contract says that the money received "will not earn any interest." Furthermore, he

received four thousand pesos; and he is required to pay four thousand pesos exactly. The increased intrinsic value and purchasing power of the current money is consequence of an event (change of currency) which at the time of the contract neither party knew would certainly happen within the period of one year. They both elected to subject their rights and obligations to that contingency. If within one year another kind of currency became legal tender, Gomez would probably get more for his money. If the same Japanese currency continued, he would get less, the value of Japanese money being then on the downgrade.

Our legislation has a word for these contracts: aleatory. The Civil Code recognizes their validity (see art. 1790 and Manresa's comment thereon) on a par with insurance policies and life annuities.

The eventual gain of Gomez in this transaction is not interest within the meaning of Usury Laws. Interest is some additional money to be paid in any event, which is not the case herein, because Gomez might have gotten less if the Japanese occupation had extended to the end of 1945 or if the liberation forces had chosen to permit the circulation of the Japanese notes.

Moreover, Roño argues, the deal was immoral because taking advantage of his superior knowledge of war developments Gomez imposed on him this onerous obligation. In the first place, the Court of Appeals found that he voluntary agreed to sign and signed the document without having been misled as to its contents and "in so far as knowledge of war events was concerned" both parties were on "equal footing". In the second place although on October 5, 1944 it was possible to surmise the impending American invasion, the date of victory or liberation was anybody's guess. In the third place there was the possibility that upon-re-occupation the Philippine Government would not invalidate the Japanese currency, which after all had been forced upon the people in exchange for valuable goods and property. The odds were about even when Roño and Gomez played their bargaining game. There was no overreaching, nor unfair advantage.

Again Roño alleges it is immoral and against public order for a man to obtain four thousand pesos in return for an investment of forty pesos (his estimate of the value of the Japanese money he borrowed). According to his line of reasoning it would be immoral

for the homeowner to recover ten thousand pesos (P10,000, when his house is burned, because he invested only about one hundred pesos for the insurance policy. And when the holder of a sweepstakes ticket who paid only four pesos luckily obtains the first prize of one hundred thousand pesos or over, the whole business is immoral or against public order.

In this connection we should explain that this decision does not cover situations where borrowers of Japanese fiat currency promised to repay "the same amount" or promised to return the same number of pesos "in Philippines currency" or "in the currency prevailing after the war." There may be room for argument when those litigations come up for adjudication. All we say here and now is that the contract in question is legal and obligatory. A minor point concerns the personality of the plaintiff, the wife of Jose L. Gomez. We opine with the Court of Appeals that the matter involve a defect in procedure which does not amount to prejudicial error.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment will be affirmed with costs. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6913            November 21, 1913

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GREGORIO DE LA PEÑA, administrator of the estate of Father Agustin de la Peña, defendant-appellant.

J. Lopez Vito, for appellant.Arroyo and Horrilleno, for appellee.

MORELAND, J.:

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, awarding to the plaintiff the sum of P6,641, with interest at the legal rate from the beginning of the action.

It is established in this case that the plaintiff is the trustee of a charitable bequest made for the construction of a leper hospital and that father Agustin de la Peña was the duly authorized representative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. The defendant is the administrator of the estate of Father De la Peña.

In the year 1898 the books Father De la Peña, as trustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee the sum of P6,641, collected by him for the charitable purposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposited in his personal account P19,000 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo. Shortly thereafter and during the war of the revolution, Father De la Peña was arrested by the military authorities as a political prisoner, and while thus detained made an order on said bank in favor of the United States Army officer under whose charge he then was for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrest of Father De la Peña and the confiscation of the funds in the bank were the result of the claim of the military authorities that he was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken from the bank by the military authorities by virtue of such order, was confiscated and turned over to the Government.

While there is considerable dispute in the case over the question whether the P6,641 of trust funds was included in the P19,000 deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, a careful examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the United States.

That branch of the law known in England and America as the law of trusts had no exact counterpart in the Roman law and has none under the Spanish law. In this jurisdiction, therefore, Father De la Peña's liability is determined by those portions of the Civil Code which relate to obligations. (Book 4, Title 1.)

Although the Civil Code states that "a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family" (art. 1094), it also provides, following the principle of the Roman law, major casus est, cui humana infirmitas resistere non potest, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)

By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his personal funds De la Peña did not thereby assume an obligation different from that under which he would have lain if such deposit had not been made, nor did he thereby make himself liable to repay the money at all hazards. If the had been forcibly taken from his pocket or from his house by the military forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is clear that under the provisions of the Civil Code he would have been exempt from responsibility. The fact that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards.

We do not enter into a discussion for the purpose of determining whether he acted more or less negligently by depositing the money in the bank than he would if he had left it in his home; or whether he was more or less negligent by depositing the money in his personal account than he would have been if he had deposited it in a separate account as trustee. We regard such discussion as substantially fruitless, inasmuch as the precise question is not one of negligence. There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the deposit. While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do or give a thing is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching the results of which will be dangerous to his trust, to take all reasonable means and measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do not feel

constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally legal, he is culpably negligent in selecting one whereas he would not have been if he had selected the other.

The court, therefore, finds and declares that the money which is the subject matter of this action was deposited by Father De la Peña in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said money was forcibly taken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of the insurrection; and that said Father De la Peña was not responsible for its loss.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and it is decreed that the plaintiff shall take nothing by his complaint.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

 

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. 1

After 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 complaint 2 for 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, 3 respondent 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. 4

In due course, the trial court, now designated as Branch 161 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Metro Manila, rendered a decision 5 adverse 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. 6

The 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 reconsideration 7 having 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. 8

In its Decision promulgated on 4 July 1989, 9 respondent 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 Code 10 which 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 invoked Tolentino vs. Gonzales 11 — which 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." 12 The 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. 13

Its motion for reconsideration 14 having 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. 16 Accordingly, 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 Jurisprudence 17 which 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 Phrases 18 which 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 Court 20 on 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. 21 This 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 Act23 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 safeguarding of such effects.

xxx xxx xxx

The banks shall perform the services permitted under subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section asdepositories or as agents. . . . 24 (emphasis supplied)

Note that the primary function is still found within the parameters of a contract of deposit, 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 25 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. 26 In the absence of any stipulation prescribing the degree of diligence required, that of a good father of a family is to be observed. 27 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 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. 28

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. 29

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 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.

 

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 4015            August 24, 1908

ANGEL JAVELLANA, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOSE LIM, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

R. Zaldarriaga for appellants.B. Montinola for appellee.

TORRES, J.:

The attorney for the plaintiff, Angel Javellana, file a complaint on the 30th of October, 1906, with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, praying that the defendants, Jose Lim and Ceferino Domingo Lim, he sentenced to jointly and severally pay the sum of P2,686.58, with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the 20th of January, 1898, until full payment should be made, deducting from the amount of interest due the sum of P1,102.16, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Authority from the court having been previously obtained, the complaint was amended on the 10th of January, 1907; it was then alleged, on the 26th of May, 1897, the defendants executed and subscribed a document in favor of the plaintiff reading as follows:

We have received from Angel Javellana, as a deposit without interest, the sum of two thousand six hundred and eighty-six cents of pesos fuertes, which we will return to the said gentleman, jointly and severally, on the 20th of January, 1898. — Jaro, 26th of May, 1897. — Signed Jose Lim. — Signed: Ceferino Domingo Lim.

That, when the obligation became due, the defendants begged the plaintiff for an extension of time for the payment thereof, building themselves to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent on the amount of their indebtedness, to which the plaintiff acceded; that

on the 15th of May, 1902, the debtors paid on account of interest due the sum of P1,000 pesos, with the exception of either capital or interest, had thereby been subjected to loss and damages.

A demurrer to the original complaint was overruled, and on the 4th of January, 1907, the defendants answered the original complaint before its amendment, setting forth that they acknowledged the facts stated in Nos. 1 and 2 of the complaint; that they admitted the statements of the plaintiff relative to the payment of 1,102.16 pesos made on the 15th of November, 1902, not, however, as payment of interest on the amount stated in the foregoing document, but on account of the principal, and denied that there had been any agreement as to an extension of the time for payment and the payment of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint, and also denied all the other statements contained therein.

As a counterclaim, the defendants alleged that they had paid to the plaintiff sums which, together with the P1,102.16 acknowledged in the complaint, aggregated the total sum of P5,602.16, and that, deducting therefrom the total sum of P2,686.58 stated in the document transcribed in the complaint, the plaintiff still owed the defendants P2,915.58; therefore, they asked that judgment be entered absolving them, and sentencing the plaintiff to pay them the sum of P2,915.58 with the costs.

Evidence was adduced by both parties and, upon their exhibits, together with an account book having been made of record, the court below rendered judgment on the 15th of January, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the sum of P5,714.44 and costs.

The defendants excepted to the above decision and moved for a new trial. This motion was overruled and was also excepted to by them; the bill of exceptions presented by the appellants having been approved, the same was in due course submitted to this court.

The document of indebtedness inserted in the complaint states that the plaintiff left on deposit with the defendants a given sum of money which they were jointly and severally obliged to return on a certain date fixed in the document; but that, nevertheless, when

the document appearing as Exhibits 2, written in the Visayan dialect and followed by a translation into Spanish was executed, it was acknowledged, at the date thereof, the 15th of November, 1902, that the amount deposited had not yet been returned to the creditor, whereby he was subjected to losses and damages amounting to 830 pesos since the 20th of January, 1898, when the return was again stipulated with the further agreement that the amount deposited should bear interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, from the aforesaid date of January 20, and that the 1,000 pesos paid to the depositor on the 15th of May, 1900, according to the receipt issued by him to the debtors, would be included, and that the said rate of interest would obtain until the debtors on the 20th of May, 1897, it is called a deposit consisted, and they could have accomplished the return agreed upon by the delivery of a sum equal to the one received by them. For this reason it must be understood that the debtors were lawfully authorized to make use of the amount deposited, which they have done, as subsequent shown when asking for an extension of the time for the return thereof, inasmuch as, acknowledging that they have subjected the letter, their creditor, to losses and damages for not complying with what had been stipulated, and being conscious that they had used, for their own profit and gain, the money that they received apparently as a deposit, they engaged to pay interest to the creditor from the date named until the time when the refund should be made. Such conduct on the part of the debtors is unquestionable evidence that the transaction entered into between the interested parties was not a deposit, but a real contract of loan.

Article 1767 of the Civil Code provides that —

The depository can not make use of the thing deposited without the express permission of the depositor.

Otherwise he shall be liable for losses and damages.

Article 1768 also provides that —

When the depository has permission to make use of the thing deposited, the contract loses the character of a deposit and becomes a loan or bailment.

The permission shall not be presumed, and its existence must be proven.

When on one of the latter days of January, 1898, Jose Lim went to the office of the creditor asking for an extension of one year, in view of the fact the money was scare, and because neither himself nor the other defendant were able to return the amount deposited, for which reason he agreed to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, it was because, as a matter of fact, he did not have in his possession the amount deposited, he having made use of the same in his business and for his own profit; and the creditor, by granting them the extension, evidently confirmed the express permission previously given to use and dispose of the amount stated as having bee deposited, which, in accordance with the loan, to all intents and purposes gratuitously, until the 20th of January, 1898, and from that dated with interest at 15 per cent per annum until its full payment, deducting from the total amount of interest the sum of 1,000 pesos, in accordance with the provisions of article 1173 of the Civil Code.

Notwithstanding that it does not appear that Jose Lim signed the document (Exhibit 2) executed in the presence of three witnesses on the 15th of November, 1902, by Ceferino Domingo Lim on behalf of himself and the former, nevertheless, the said document has not been contested as false, either by a criminal or by a civil proceeding, nor has any doubt been cast upon the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses who attested the execution of the same; and from the evidence in the case one is sufficiently convinced that the said Jose Lim was perfectly aware of and authorized his joint codebtor to liquidate the interest, to pay the sum of 1,000 pesos, on account thereof, and to execute the aforesaid document No. 2. A true ratification of the original document of deposit was thus made, and not the least proof is shown in the record that Jose Lim had ever paid the whole or any part of the capital stated in the original document, Exhibit 1.

If the amount, together with interest claimed in the complaint, less 1,000 pesos appears as fully established, such is not the case with the defendant's counterclaim for P5,602.16, because the existence and certainty of said indebtedness imputed to the plaintiff has not been proven, and the defendants, who call themselves creditors for the said amount have not proven in a satisfactory manner that the plaintiff had received partial payments on account of the same; the

latter alleges with good reason, that they should produce the receipts which he may have issued, and which he did issue whenever they paid him any money on account. The plaintiffs allegation that the two amounts of 400 and 1,200 pesos, referred to in documents marked "C" and "D" offered in evidence by the defendants, had been received from Ceferino Domingo Lim on account of other debts of his, has not been contradicted, and the fact that in the original complaint the sum of 1,102.16 pesos, was expressed in lieu of 1,000 pesos, the only payment made on account of interest on the amount deposited according to documents No. 2 and letter "B" above referred to, was due to a mistake.

Moreover, for the reason above set forth it may, as a matter of course, be inferred that there was no renewal of the contract deposited converted into a loan, because, as has already been stated, the defendants received said amount by virtue of real loan contract under the name of a deposit, since the so-called bailees were forthwith authorized to dispose of the amount deposited. This they have done, as has been clearly shown.

The original joint obligation contracted by the defendant debtor still exists, and it has not been shown or proven in the proceedings that the creditor had released Joe Lim from complying with his obligation in order that he should not be sued for or sentenced to pay the amount of capital and interest together with his codebtor, Ceferino Domingo Lim, because the record offers satisfactory evidence against the pretension of Jose Lim, and it further appears that document No. 2 was executed by the other debtor, Ceferino Domingo Lim, for himself and on behalf of Jose Lim; and it has also been proven that Jose Lim, being fully aware that his debt had not yet been settled, took steps to secure an extension of the time for payment, and consented to pay interest in return for the concession requested from the creditor.

In view of the foregoing, and adopting the findings in the judgment appealed from, it is our opinion that the same should be and is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant, provided that the interest agreed upon shall be paid until the complete liquidation of the debt. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6          November 14, 1901

MANUEL GARCIA GAVIERES, plaintiff-appellant, vs.T.H. PARDO DE TAVERA, defendant-appellee.

E.M. Llanos, for appellant.Simplicio del Rosario, for appellee.

COOPER, J.:

The present appeal has been interposed in the declarative action of greater import filed in the Court of First Instance of Tondo, commenced on January 10, 1900, by Don Manuel Garcia Gavieres as plaintiff and successor in interest of the deceased Doña Ignacia de Gorricho against Don Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera as universal heir of the deceased Don Felix Pardo de Tavera for the collection of a balance of 1,423 pesos 75 cents, remaining due on an original obligation of 3,000 pesos which, as the plaintiff alleges, was the amount of a deposit delivered by Doña Ignacia Gorricho, deceased, to Don Felix Pardo de Tavera, deceased, on the 31st day of October, 1859. The agreement between the parties appears in the following writing:

Received of Señorita Ignacia de Gorricho the sum of 3,000 pesos, gold (3,000 pesos), as a deposit payable on two months' notice in advance, with interest at 6 per cent per annum with an hypothecation of the goods now owned by me or which may be owned hereafter, as security of the payment.

In witness whereof I sign in Binondo, January 31, 1859.lawphil.net

FELIX PARDO DE TAVERA.

The defendant answering complaint of plaintiff alleges among other things as a defense, that the document upon which the complaint is based was not a contract of deposit as alleged in the complaint, but a contract of loan, and setting forth furthermore the payment of the original obligation as well as the prescription of the action. The defendant contends that the document upon which the action is based is not evidence of a deposit, as the plaintiff

maintains, but of a contract of loan, and that the prescription applicable to loans has extinguished the right of action. Although in the document in question a deposit is spoken of, nevertheless from an examination of the entire document it clearly appears that the contract was a loan and that such was the intention of the parties. It is unnecessary to recur to the canons of interpretation to arrive at this conclusion. The obligation of the depositary to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent to the depositor suffices to cause the obligation to be considered as a loan and makes it likewise evident that it was the intention of the parties that the depositary should have the right to make use of the amount deposited, since it was stimulated that the amount could be collected after notice of two months in advance. Such being the case, the contract lost the character of a deposit and acquired that of a loan. (Art. 1768, Civil Code.)

All personal actions, such as those which arise from a contract of loan, cease to have legal effect after twenty years according to the former law and after fifteen years according to the Civil Code now in force. The date of the document is January 31, 1859. The proof of payment in support of the defense we consider likewise sufficient to establish such defense. The document dated January 8, 1869, executed by Don Felix Garcia Gavieres, husband and legal representative of Doña Ignacia Gorricho, acknowledges the receipt of 1,224 pesos from Don Manuel Darvin, representative of the deceased Don Felix Pardo de Tavera. This sum is declared in said document to be the balance due upon the debt of 2,000 pesos. This was slightly more or less the amount which remained as due upon the original obligation after deducting the payment which are admitted to have been made. In the absence of evidence disclosing that there were other claims in favor of Gavieres it is reasonably to be supposed that this payment was made to satisfy the balance due upon the original obligation.

The original contract between the parties was celebrated nearly a half century ago; the contracting parties have ceased to exist long since; it may be that there exists or may have existed documents proving a total payment between the parties and that this document has some time ago suffered the common fate of perishable things. He who by laches in the exercise of his rights has caused a failure of proof has no right to complain if the court does not apply the strict rules of evidence which are applicable in

ordinary cases, and admits to a certain extent the presumption to which the conduct of the interest party himself naturally gives rise.

It is our opinion that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs of appeal taxed against the appellant.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Willard, and Mapa, JJ., concur.Ladd, J., did not sit in this case.