Scribd
Upload
33 views1 page

Spouses Godfrey and Gerardina Serfinovs. Far East Bank and Trust Company, Inc., Now Bpi

The document discusses a case involving spouses Serfino attempting to recover money deposited in a bank account by Magdalena Cortez to satisfy a debt. The bank released the funds to Grace Cortez before the ownership of the funds was resolved in court. The court ruled that the bank was not liable as there was no assignment of the credit and the bank's contractual relationship was with the depositor, not a third party claimant.

Uploaded by

Lays Rds
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views1 page

Spouses Godfrey and Gerardina Serfinovs. Far East Bank and Trust Company, Inc., Now Bpi

The document discusses a case involving spouses Serfino attempting to recover money deposited in a bank account by Magdalena Cortez to satisfy a debt. The bank released the funds to Grace Cortez before the ownership of the funds was resolved in court. The court ruled that the bank was not liable as there was no assignment of the credit and the bank's contractual relationship was with the depositor, not a third party claimant.

Uploaded by

Lays Rds
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SPOUSES GODFREY and GERARDINA SERFINOvs. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, INC.

, now BPI

FACTS:

By way of settlement approved by the RTC Bacolod, the Spouses Serfino and Spouses Cortez executed a
compromise agreement where the spouses Cortez, acknowledged their debt of P 108,245.71, eventually reduced
to P155,000 with the promise that they would pay in full the judgment debt not later than April 23, 1996.To satisfy
their debt, Magdalena Cortez bound herself to pay the debt in full out of her retirement benefits from the GSIS. In
case of default, the debt may be executed against any of their properties.

No payment was made on that date, and Godfrey Serfino discovered that Magdalena deposited her retirement
benefits in the FEBTC savings account of her daughter in law, Grace Cortez. That same day, spouses Serfino’s
counsel sent 2 letters to FEBTC informing themthat the deposit in Grace’s name was owned by the spouses by
virtue of an assignment made in their favor by the spouses Cortez. They asked that the bank prevent the deliver y
of the said amount to either Grace or the spouses Cortez until its actual ownership has been resolved in court.

An action to recover the money on deposit and payment for damages was filed by Serfino, with a prayer for
preliminary attachment, but the next day, Grace withdrew P150,000 from her account. RTC ruled that the spouses
Cortez and Grace liable for fraudulently diverting the amount due, but absolved FEBTC from any liability, declaring
that the bank was not party to the compromise judgement. The spouses Serfino contend this ruling, on the
grounds of the virtue of the assignment of credit, they claim ownership of the deposit, and that FEBTC was duty
bound to protect their right by preventing the withdrawal of the deposit since the bank had been notified of the
assignment and of their claim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not FEBTC is obligated to a third party who claims rights over a bank deposit standing in the name of
another person who is their depositor

RULING:

No it is not. The terms of the compromise judgment between them did not convey an intent to equate the
assignment of Magdalena’s retirement benefits (the credit) as the equivalent of the payment of the debt due the
spouses Serfino (the obligation). There was actually no assignment of credit as the compromise judgment merely
identified the fund from which payment for the judgment debt would be sourced. That the compromise
agreement authorizes recourse in case of default on other executable properties of the spouses Cortez, to satisfy
the judgment debt, further supports our conclusion that there was no assignment of Magdalena’s credit with the
GSIS that would have extinguished the obligation.

The Bank is also not liable for damages as there is no law or legal right abused by it. Absent a law or a legal ruling
of the Court, it has no option but to uphold the existing policy that recognizes the fiduciary nature of banking. It
likewise rejects the adoption of a judicially-imposed rule giving third parties with unverified claims against the
deposit of another a better right over the deposit. As current laws provide, the bank’s contractual relations are
with its depositor, not with the third party. In the absence of any positive duty of the bank to an adverse claimant,
there could be no breach that entitles the latter to moral damages.

Petition DENIED. RTC Ruling is AFFIRMED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy