July 24, 1996 1996 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and RAMON LAPE, d!"n# $u%"n&%% und&' ()& na*& and %(yl& SAPPHIRE SHIPPIN+, '&%!nd&n(%-
Ponente: Panganiban Doctrine: Compensation, Art. 1279 Fa.(%/ A local bank, while while acting as local correspondent correspondent bank, bank, intercepted funds funds being coursed through it by its foreign counterpart for transmittal and deposit to the account of an individual with another local bank, and applied the said funds to certain obligations owed to it by the said individual.
PNB appropriated the amounts of 2,!27.11 and P"#,"#$."% from remittances of &amon 'ape()s principa*s abroad. +he rst remittance -as -as made b the NCB of /eddah /eddah for the benet of 'ape(, 'ape(, to be credited to his account at Citiban0, reenhi**s Branch the second -as from 'iba, and -as intended to be deposited at 'ape()s account -ith PNB. 'ape( made a -ritten demand for remittance of the e3ui4a*ent of 2,!27.11 b means of a *etter dated December #, 19%!. +his -as ans-ered b PNB on December 22, 19%! in4iting 'ape( to come for a conference. +here -ere t-o t-o instances in the past, one in in No4ember 19%$ and the other other in /anuar 19%1 -hen 'ape()s account account -as doub* credited credited -ith the e3ui4a*ents e3ui4a*ents of 5,!79.2" and 5,%%5."%, respecti4e*, -hich amounted to an aggregate amount of P%7,"%$.##. PNB c*aims, ho-e4er, that that p*ainti6)s c*aim has prescribed. prescribed. PNB made a demand upon 'ape( for refund of the doub*e or dup*icated credits erroneous* made on his account, b means of a *etter dated ctober 2", 19%! or 5 ears and 11 months from No4ember 19%$, and 5 ears and 9 months from /anuar 19%1. +he deduction of P"#,"#$."% P"#,"#$."% -as made b PNB -ith the 0no-*edge 0no-*edge and consent of 'ape(, -ho -as issued a receipt dated 8ebruar 1%, 19%7. +here is no 3uestion that the t-o erroneous doub*e doub*e paments made to 'ape()s 'ape()s accounts in 19%$ and 19%1 created an etracontractua* ob*igation on the part of 'ape( in fa4or of the PNB, under the princip*e of solutio indebiti, as fo**o-s: ;<=f something is recei4ed -hen there is no right to demand it, and it -as undu* de*i4ered through mista0e, the ob*igation to return it arises.;< >Artic*e 215#? &+C and CA ru*ed in fa4or of 'ape(. Ma"n I%%u&/
@oN PNB -as *ega** ustied in ma0ing the compensation or seto6 against the t-o remittances coursed through it in fa4or of pri4ate respondent to reco4er on the
doub*e credits it erroneous* made in 19%$ and 19%1, based on the princip*e of solutio indebiti. e*d&atio: >the reasoning is actua** &+C, pero mas maganda discussion 0asa sa C, so ito ung basisE ame ru*ing rin naman ang C, the ust *ectured at the end haha? No, the -ere not. Article 1279 of the Civil Code provides !"#n order that compensation may prosper, it is necessary $1% &hat each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other' $2% &hat both debts consists in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same (uality if the latter has been stated' $)% &hat the two debts be due' $*% &hat they be li(uidated and demandable' $+% &hat over neither of them there by any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.!" =n the case of the 2,!27.11, re3uisites Nos. 2 through 5 are apparent* present, for both debts consist in a sum of mone, are both due, *i3uidated and demandab*e, and o4er neither of them is there a retention or contro4ers commenced b third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. +he 3uestion, ho-e4er, is, -ere both of the ob*igors bound principa**, and -as each one of them a debtor and creditor of the other at the same timeF Ana*(ing no- the re*ationship bet-een the parties, it appears that: >a? @ith respect to 'ape( being a depositor of PNB, the are creditor and debtor respecti4e* >b? As to the re*ationship created b the te*eed fund transfers from abroad: A contract bet-een a foreign ban0 and *oca* ban0 as0ing the *atter to pa an amount to a beneciar is a stipu*ation pour autrui a stipu*ation in fa4or of a third person. +hus bet-een PNB >as the *oca* correspondent of the Nationa* Commercia* Ban0 of /eddah? and 'ape( as beneciar, there is created an imp*ied trust pursuant to Art. 1#5" of the Ci4i* Code, 3uoted as fo**o-s: ;<@hen the propert is con4eed to a person in re*iance upon his dec*ared intention to ho*d it for, or transfer it to another or the grantor, there is an imp*ied trust in fa4or of the person -hose benet is contemp*ated.G c? B the princip*e of solutio indebiti, 'ape(, -ho undu* recei4ed something b mista0e >i.e., the 2 doub*e credits, a*though he had no right to demand it?, became ob*igated to PNB to return -hat he undu* recei4ed. +hus, there -as created bet-een them a re*ationship of ob*igor and ob*igee, or of debtor and creditor under a 3uasicontract. =n 4ie- of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion that the parties are not both principa** bound -ith respect to the 2,!27.11 from /eddah neither are the at the same time principa* creditor of the other. +herefore, as matters stand, the parties< ob*igations are not subect to compensation or set o6 under Art. 1279 of the Ci4i* Code, for the reason that PNB is not a principa* debtor nor is 'ape( a principa*
creditor insofar as the amount of 2,!27.11 is concerned. +he are debtor and creditor on* -ith respect to the doub*e paments but are trusteebeneciar as to the fund transfer of 2,!27.11. n* the 'ape( is principa** bound as a debtor of PNB to the etent of the doub*e credits. n the other hand, PNB -as an imp*ied trustee, -ho -as ob*iged to de*i4er to the Citiban0 for the benet of 'ape( the sum of 2,!27.11. +hus, -hi*e it ma be conc*uded that 'ape( o-es PNB the e3ui4a*ent of the sums of 5,179.2" and 5,%%5."% erroneous* doub* credited to his account, the PNB)s actuation in intercepting the amount of 2,!27.11 supposed to be remitted to another ban0 is not on* improper it -i** a*so erode the trust and condence of the internationa* ban0ing communit in the ban0ing sstem of the countr, something -e can i** a6ord at this time -hen -e need to attract and in4ite deposits of foreign currencies. =t -ou*d ha4e been di6erent has the te*e ad4ice from NCB of /eddah been for deposit of 2,!27.11 to 'ape()s account No. %"$2#1$ -ith the defendant ban0. n the contrar, PNB admitted that the te*e ad4ice -as for credit of the amount of 2,!27.11 to 'ape()s account -ith Citiban0, reenhi**s, an /uan. ence, it is submitted that the seto6 or compensation of 2,!27.11 against the doub*e paments to p*ainti6from -here the P"#,"#$."% -as deducted? -as intended for credit and deposit in 'ape()s account at PNB. uch being the case, the Court be*ie4es that insofar as the amount of P"#,"#$."% is concerned, a** the re3uirements of Art. 1279 of the Ci4i* Code are present, and the said amount ma proper* be the subect of compensation or seto6. And since a** the re3uisites of Art. 1279 of the Ci4i* Code are present >insofar as the amount of P"#,"92."% is concerned?, compensation ta0es p*ace b operation of *a- >Art. 12%!?, a*beit on* partia* -ith respect to p*ainti6=N &+, IJN 2K D''A&, BA@A' CHPLNA+=N, PL& IJN "#K PL, P@LDL oMo? Petition deniedE
