Credit Transacti Transactions ons T3 | AY2013-2014 AY2013-2014 Case # 2 Topic: Topic: Concept of Credit REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., defendants, THE FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, defendant-appellee.
Facts: •
•
•
•
The Republic of the Philippines filed on September 2, !" before the Court of First $nstance of %anila a complaint for escheat of certain unclaimed ban& deposits balances under the provisions of 'ct (o. )")* a+ainst several ban&s, amon+ them the First (ational Cit an& of (e /or&. $t is alle+ed that pursuant to Section 2 of said 'ct defendant ban&s forarded to the Treasurer of the Philippines a statement under oath of their respective mana+in+ officials of all the credits and deposits held b them in favor of persons &non to be dead or ho have not made further deposits or ithdraals durin+ the period of !0 ears or more. 1herefore, it is praed that said credits and deposits be escheated to the Republic of the Philippines b orderin+ defendant ban&s to deposit them to its credit ith the Treasurer of the Philippines. $n its anser the First (ational Cit an& of (e /or& claims that it has inadvertentl included in said report certain items amountin+ to P!,"." hich, properl spea&in+, are not credits or deposits ithin the contemplation of 'ct (o. )")*. 3ence, it praed that said items be not included in the claim of plaintiff.
Topic Topic $ssue: 1hat is the concept of credit4 5ecision: The term 6credit6 in its usual meanin+ is a sum credited on the boo&s of a compan to a person ho appears to be entitled to it. $t presupposes a creditor-debtor relationship, and ma be said to impl abilit, b reason of propert or estates, to ma&e a promised pament $t is the the corr correl elat ativ ive e to debt debt or inde indebt bted edne ness ss,, and and that that hic hich h is due due to an an pers person on,, a distin+uished from that hich he oes The same is true ith the term 6deposits6 in ban&s here the relationship created beteen the depositor and the ban& is that of creditor and debtor •
•
•
•
%ain %ain Case Case $ssue: $ssue: : 5o demand demand draft draft and tele+rap tele+raphic hic orders come ithin ithin the meanin meanin+ + of the term 6credits6 or 6deposits6 emploed in the la4 5ecision: ' demand draft is ver different from a cashier7s or mana+er7s chee&, contrar to appellant7s pretense, for it has been held that the latter is a primar obli+ation of the ban& hich issues it and constitutes its ritten promise to pa upon demand. ' cashier7s chec& issued b a ban&, hoever, is not an ordinar draft. The latter is a bill of e8chan+e paable demand. $t is an order upon a third part purportin+ to dran upon a deposit of funds. ' cashier7s chec& issued on re9uest of a depositor is the substantial e9uivalent of a certified chec& and the deposit represented b the chec& passes to the credit of the chec&holder, ho is thereafter a depositor to that amount ' cashier7s chec&, bein+ merel a bill of e8chan+e dran b a ban& on itself, and accepted in advance b the act of issuance, is not subect to countermand b the paee after indorsement, and has the same le+al effects as a certificate deposit or a certified chec& ' demand draft is not therefore of the same cate+or as a cashier7s chec& hich should come ithin the purvie of the la. •
•
•
•
•
•
For tele+raphic transfer pament, the draer ban& as alread paid the value of the tele+raphic transfer pament order. $n the particular cases under consideration it appears in the boo&s of the defendant ban& that the amounts represented b the tele+raphic pament orders appear in the names of the respective paees. $f the latter choose to demand pament of their tele+raphic
Credit Transactions T3 | AY2013-2014 transfers at the time the same as ;ere< received b the defendant ban&, there could be no 9uestion that this ban& ould have to pa them. •
Tele+raphic transfer pament orders should be escheated in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.
