1
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs Ana Grace Rosales and Yo Yuk To
Petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company is a domestic banking
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. Respondent
Ana Grace Rosales (Rosales) is the owner of China Golden Bridge Travel Services, a
travel agency and Yo Yuk To is her mother.
In 2000, the respondents opened a Joint Peso Account with petitioner’s Pritil-
Toondo Branch. The Joint Peso account was amounting to PHP 2 515 693.52.
In May 2002, respondent Rosales accompanied her client Liu Chiu Fang, a
Taiwanese National applying for a retiree’s visa from the Philippine Leisure and Retirement
Authority (PLRA), to petitioner’s branch in Escolta to open a savings account. Since Liu
Chiu Fang could speak only in Mandarin, respondent Rosales acted as an interpreter for her.
On March 3, 2003, respondents opened with petitioner’s Pritil-Tondo Branch a Joint
Dollar Account with an initial deposit of US$14,000.00.
On July 31, 2003, petitioner issued a “Hold Out” order against respondents’ accounts.
On September 3, 2003, petitioner, through its Special Audit Department Head Antonio
Ivan Aguirre, filed before the Office of the Prosecutor of Manila a criminal
casefor Estafa through False Pretences, Misrepresentation, Deceit, and Use of Falsified
Documents. The Petitioner accused respondent Rosales and an unidentified woman as the ones
responsible for the unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawal of US $ 75,0000.00 from Liu Chu
Fang’s dollar account with petitioners Escolta Branch. Petitioner alleged that on February 5,
2003, its branch in Escolta received from the PLRA a Withdrawal cleareabce for the dollar
account of Liu Chiu Fang, the afternoon of the same day, respondent Rosales went to petitioner’s
Escolta Brach to inform the branch head that Liu Chui Fang was going to withdraw in cash. The
branch head told respondent Rosales to come back the next day because the bank has no enough
dollas. On February 6, 2003, respondent Rosales accompanied an unidentified impostor of Liu
Chui Fang o the bank, the impostor withdrawed Liu Chui Fangs dollar deposit amounting to US
$ 75 000.00 that on March 3, 2003, respondents opened a dollar account with the petitioner. The
bank discovered later on that the serial numbers of dollar notes deposited by respondent in the
amount of US $ 11 80 were the same as those withdrawn by the impostor.
Respondent Rosales, however, denied taking part in the fraudulent and unauthorized
withdrawal from the dollar account of Liu Chiu Fang. Respondent Rosales said that she did not
go to the bank on February 5, 2003. Neither did she inform the branch manager that Liu Chui
Fang was going to close her account. Respondent Rosales claimed that after opening her account,
she lost track of her.
On December 15, 2003, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila issued a
Resolution dismissing the criminal case for lack of probable cause.
2
On September 10, 2004, respondents filed before the RTC of Manila a complaint for Breach of
Obligation and Contract with Damages against the petitioner. Respondents alleged that they
attempted several times to withdraw their deposits but were unable to because the petitioner had
placed their accounts under “Hold Out” status.
Petitioner alleged that respondents have no cause of action because it has a valid reason for
issuing the “Hold Out” order. It claimed that due to the fraudulent scheme of respondent Rosales,
it was complled to reimburse Liu Chui Fang the amount of US$75 000.00 and to file a criminal
complaint for Estafa against respondent Rosales.
ISSUE:
Whether Metrobank breached its contract with respondents.
HELD:
YES. The Court held that Metrobank’s reliance on the “Hold Out” clause in
the Application and Agreement for Deposit Account is misplaced.
Bank deposits, which are in the nature of a simple loan or mutuum, must be paid
upon demand by the depositor.
The “Hold Out” clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation arising
from any of the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code, to wit: law,
contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict. In this case, petitioner failed to show that
respondents have an obligation to it under any law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-
delict. And although a criminal case was filed by petitioner against respondent Rosales, this is
not enough reason for petitioner to issue a “Hold Out” order as the case is still pending and no
final judgment of conviction has been rendered against respondent Rosales.
In fact, it is significant to note that at the time petitioner issued the “Hold Out” order,
the criminal complaint had not yet been filed. Thus, considering that respondent Rosales is not
liable under any of the five sources of obligation, there was no legal basis for petitioner to issue
the “Hold Out” order. Accordingly, we agree with the findings of the RTC and the CA that the
“Hold Out” clause does not apply in the instant case.
In view of the foregoing, the Court found that petitioner is guilty of breach of
contract when it unjustifiably refused to release respondents’ deposit despite demand. Having
breached its contract with respondents, petitioner is liable for damages.
FALLO:
3
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed April 2, 2008 Decision
and the May 30, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89086 are hereby
AFFIRMED.
(2009)
CASE DIGEST: CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CITYTRUST BANKING
CORPORATION 578 SCRA 27 (2009)
