This case involved claims by Gopoco Grocery and others (petitioners) that deposits they made into the now liquidated Mercantile Bank of China should be considered preferred credits rather than ordinary credits. [1] The lower court appointed a commissioner who determined the claims should be considered ordinary credits. [2] The petitioners argued their claims were preferred because the deposits were made on current account and should be returned with interest. [3] The court ruled against the petitioners, finding that because the bank paid them interest on the deposits, this changed the nature of the deposits to ordinary loans rather than deposits, so the claims were correctly considered ordinary credits.
Original Description:
digest
Original Title
Gopoco Grocery v. Pacific Coast Biscuit Co. [Simple Loan v. Deposit in Bank; Payment of Interest Only in Loans]
This case involved claims by Gopoco Grocery and others (petitioners) that deposits they made into the now liquidated Mercantile Bank of China should be considered preferred credits rather than ordinary credits. [1] The lower court appointed a commissioner who determined the claims should be considered ordinary credits. [2] The petitioners argued their claims were preferred because the deposits were made on current account and should be returned with interest. [3] The court ruled against the petitioners, finding that because the bank paid them interest on the deposits, this changed the nature of the deposits to ordinary loans rather than deposits, so the claims were correctly considered ordinary credits.
This case involved claims by Gopoco Grocery and others (petitioners) that deposits they made into the now liquidated Mercantile Bank of China should be considered preferred credits rather than ordinary credits. [1] The lower court appointed a commissioner who determined the claims should be considered ordinary credits. [2] The petitioners argued their claims were preferred because the deposits were made on current account and should be returned with interest. [3] The court ruled against the petitioners, finding that because the bank paid them interest on the deposits, this changed the nature of the deposits to ordinary loans rather than deposits, so the claims were correctly considered ordinary credits.
FACTS: Mercantile Bank of China was declared in liquidation as it could not continue operating as such without running the risk of suffering losses and prejudice its depositors and customers. Creditors Gopoco Grocery, et. al. alleged that they deposited sum of money in the bank under liquidation on current account. To resolve these claims, Fulgencio Borromeo was appointed by the lower court as commissioner and referee to receive the evidence which the interested parties may desire to present. Borromeo resolved the claims by recommending that the same be considered as an ordinary credit only, and not as a preferred credit as Gopoco Grocery, Et Al wanted, because they were at the same time debtors of the bank. The lower court upheld Borromeos recommendations. Gopoco Grocery, et. al. contended that their claims are preferred credits because they are deposits in contemplation of law, and as such, should be returned with the corresponding interest thereon.
ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in not holding petitioners claims as preferred credits?
RULING: NO, deposits on current account in the bank now under liquidation are considered ordinary credits only. Gopoco Grocery, et. al., themselves, admit that the bank owes them interest which should have been paid to them before it was declared in a state of liquidation. This fact undoubtedly destroys the character which they nullifies their contention that the same be considered as irregular deposits, because the payment of interest only takes place in the case of loans. The so-called current account and savings deposits have lost their character of deposits and are convertible into simple commercial loans because, in cases of such deposits, the bank has made use thereof in the ordinary course of its transactions as an institution engaged in the banking business, not because it so wishes, but precisely because of the authority deemed to have been granted to it by Gopoco Grocery, Et Al to enable them to collect the interest which they had been and they are now collecting, and by virtue further of the authority granted to it by Corporation Law and Banking Law. Wherefore, deposits on current account of Gopoco Grocery, Et Al in the bank under liquidation, with the right on their part to collect interest, have not created and could not create a juridical relation between them except that of creditors and debtor, they being the creditors and the bank the debtor.
CASE #11 Heirs of Domingo Reyes, Represented by Henry Domingo A. Reyes, Jr. vs. The Director of Lands and Director of Forestry GR NO. 223602, June 08, 2020